Britain Talks Trust in Science

Trust in science remains high, but it is becoming more fragile, and it is very uneven across different groups

84 per cent of Britons say they have at least some trust in science. Only two per cent say they do not trust science at all. But beneath this headline figure, there are emerging fractures in Britons’ levels of trust.

While 34 per cent now say they trust science ‘a lot’, in 2020 this figure was 63 per cent[1]. There is a substantial movement of people who once held strong confidence in science now expressing much more qualified levels of trust. 

Trust is not uniform across the population, and varies significantly according to Britons’ values, worldview and which of More in Common’s Seven Segments they belong to. 

• The segments most in favour of ‘burning down’ existing institutions, rather than preserving and improving them (Dissenting Disruptors and Sceptical Scrollers) are the least trusting in science and scientists.
• Even among these lower-trust groups, outright rejection of science remains rare. Only 30 per cent of Sceptical Scrollers and 16 per cent of Dissenting Disruptors, the lowest trust segments, say they do not trust science much, or not at all.

Where scepticism does emerge, it tends to centre on two interconnected concerns. Firstly, political influence: around three in ten Britons think science has become too closely associated with political causes.  This concern is most acute among Dissenting Disruptors (41 per cent), Traditional Conservatives (33 per cent) and Sceptical Scrollers (33 per cent).

Where people think there is bias within scientific organisations, they are more likely to perceive this as being from the left, rather than right-wing bias. Reform UK voters are the most likely to perceive a left-wing bias in scientific organisations, with 32 per cent holding this view.

While distinct from their political beliefs, in many cases the underlying social values of the scientific community do appear to be distinctly different from that of Britain’s. Two-thirds (65 per cent) of the scientists we polled belong to More in Common’s two most left-leaning, socially liberal segments; the impact these underlying values could inadvertently have on the way scientists act and communicate should be kept in mind.

Second is financial influence. Over a third of Britons (36 per cent) believe that scientists' research agendas and conclusions are ultimately shaped by the interests of those who fund them. Among Dissenting Disruptors, nearly half hold this view.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

The pandemic has had a profound impact on Britons relationship with science and scientists. While for some, the pandemic was a time when scientists provided security, and appeared far more relatable than they had before, for others a perception of changing advice and an association between politicians and science was damaging to trust.

Meanwhile, almost all segments expressed at least some concern about the speed of the delivery of the COVID-19 vaccine, even if many were supportive of the development of a vaccine itself. 

Trust in scientists themselves

When it comes to trusting scientists to provide accurate information, trust is more than a matter of expertise. As well as being seen as transparent, benevolent and competent, scientists who are perceived to share people's values and to speak with respect, rather than talking down to their audience, are more likely to be trusted. Demonstrating transparency and making findings genuinely accessible to the public are, by a clear margin, the most powerful actions scientists could take to strengthen public trust.

[1]  From Wellcome Global Monitor Whose methodology used landline calling, includes Northern Ireland, Field dates, Oct 19 – Nov 16, 2020, Sample size=1,000

Trust in science is linked to optimism about the future

Across public life, Britons often say things are getting worse, that life is too hard, the next generation will have a worse quality of life than the one before, and even that Britain is broken. 

Science, for many, bucks this trend. Most Britons feel science gives them a sense of optimism and hope for the future.

When asked what makes them hopeful about the future, Britons' most popular answers are all anchored in research: medical advances, technology and scientific innovation. 

For those with high trust in science, two in five believe their children will have better lives than they did. Among those with low trust, only one in five share this hope.

• For those who have lower levels of trust in science, when asked what made them optimistic for the future, nothing was the most popular option.

This connection between scientific trust and personal optimism makes science different from other sectors. Where Britons often feel that things in public life are getting worse, science stands out as a domain where progress can be visible, tangible and real. 

Seizing opportunities to demonstrate innovation and to show how science has improved people's lives is among the most powerful levers available for sustaining trust.

However, the potential for fostering optimism is not even across the population.

• The segments most in favour of ‘burning down’ existing institutions rather than preserving and improving them (Dissenting Disruptors and Sceptical Scrollers) are those that are also the least trusting in science
• Even among those who broadly trust science, trust alone does not translate into optimism. Direct experience of struggling public services - especially healthcare, despite supposed medical advances - leads some to question whether scientific progress improves their own lives.

Those who are most comfortable and satisfied with their lives are both more likely to trust science and to be optimistic for the future 

For the sector, the challenge is not to defend science's reputation. Instead, it is how best to demonstrate transparency and independence, and the positive impact science has on Britons’ lives. Trust in science is not a given, nor a right. It can be weakened through concerns over the influence of profit and politics, as well as a perceived disconnection from individuals' and communities' lives.

"There was somebody on the news the other day who would've gone blind, but they've done something that would give her sight back and it's amazing […] a real pioneering miracle. I thought that when you hear things like that, you realise what more they're going to be able to do in 10, 20 years’ time with research." Margaret, Newcastle, Rooted Patriot

Coping with information overload, a fragmenting media landscape and communicating uncertainty

Despite the fragmentation of the media landscape and rise of new, online media, Britons remain more likely to hear about science from traditional media, and to trust those within scientific institutions, or those they know offline, to deliver accurate scientific information.

Nearly four in ten Britons (38 per cent) say there is now too much information available to know what is true about science. This is far more than the 12 per cent who say they actively do not trust science much or at all. 

This sense of being overwhelmed is particularly acute among Dissenting Disruptors, Sceptical Scrollers and Rooted Patriots. It is both a consequence of the fragmenting media landscape and a driver of disengagement with news about science and research.

Amid this fragmented landscape, the information needs of Britons are different: 

• The public say that in the instance of a ‘crisis' or ‘when a situation is uncertain’, they are in favour of clear advice. However, experiences during Covid demonstrate the potential damage that can come from perceptions of frequently changing advice.
• When asked in the abstract, two thirds would prefer clear actionable advice from scientists over an understanding of the trade-offs.  
• However, the least trusting are more likely to value communication of the limits of scientific knowledge. The net score of preferring clear actionable advice for those that trust science is +51 per cent, while for those that trust science ‘not much’ or not at all, this falls to +23. 

Recommendations 

Recommendation 1

For scientists, science communicators and scientific organisations

Seize opportunities to show how science has led to improvement in people's lives. Highlighting the impact that science has had, and continues to have, can foster trust in science and lead to a greater sense of optimism among groups who are otherwise downbeat about the state of the country and national institutions. Engage with those who do not feel science has an impact on their lives by making findings genuinely accessible and demonstrating evidence of impact. Consider how the impact of scientific innovation can be demonstrated to those who do not feel science has an impact on their lives.

Recommendation 2

For scientists, science communicators and scientific organisations

Remain vigilant to the risk of a perceived political bias in science. Remember that the views and values that prevail in your institution and professional community are unlikely to be representative of the broader public. Demonstrate trustworthiness through openness and transparency surrounding finances and research agendas. Reinforce independence of findings from government and politicians where possible. Scientists must exercise caution when speaking alongside political figures. 

Recommendation 3

For scientists, science communicators and scientific organisations

Be alive to the risk of being perceived as talking down to audiences. Consider how to demonstrate that scientists share values with those who feel further away from science, by showcasing the human stories behind the work and the wider context that motivates it.

Recommendation 4

For scientists, science communicators and scientific organisations

Consider your audience. Science interacts with Britons' worldviews and politics in various ways - fostering and bolstering trust with different groups may require engaging strategically with different media and tailoring messages to address specific concerns. For example, Rooted Patriots value a sense of security amidst chaos whereas personal accounts carry more weight for the Incrementalist Left. 

Recommendation 5

For scientists, science communicators and scientific organisations

If you are leading with actionable advice in communications, then also provide people with a way to find more information about the research and how to weigh it up. Acknowledge uncertainty where any may exist. Do not assume that scientific authority will be enough. Support people to 'do their own research' and independently cross-reference information if they desire to do so. 

This is particularly important for communicating to less trusting groups (Sceptical Scrollers and Dissenting Disruptors) who are not ‘anti-science’ but should be supported in verifying information independently.

Recommendation 6

For politicians and government

Be aware of and value the importance of scientists’ impartiality and embed opportunities to demonstrate this where appropriate. This could be done by allowing scientists to showcase independence from government or publishing independent scientific recommendations to the government.

Luke Tryl, Exec Director at More in Common, said:

“When the word Britons are most likely to use to describe the country is ‘broken’, science emerges as a rare exception to the nation's sense of gloom. Many are optimistic about the future potential science offers to make our lives better. Unlike in some other countries, trust in science remains relatively unpolarised at a time when trust in other institutions is seemingly in free fall”

“Yet there are real warning signs and pitfalls the scientific community needs to avoid. While outright distrust in science is low, many Britons' trust has become more lukewarm and conditional. Many worry that science has become too associated with politics, and our research shows that scientists' own worldview leans to the left of the wider public. This places a premium on scientists demonstrating diversity of political outlook, avoiding false certainty and demonstrating real transparency.”