Trust is not a given: what science can learn from a fragile consensus

For decades, science in the UK has benefited from something increasingly rare in public life – broad-based trust. Compared with figures in politics, media or business, scientists have remained among the most trusted figures in society. But trust is not a static asset; it’s a relationship, and relationships need care and attention.

The findings of our Britain Talks Trust In Science report should be understood as an amber light over reassurance. A signal for us to think closely about science’s relationship with the British public. While 84 percent of Britons say they still trust science at least to some degree, underneath that headline lies a far more complex and fragile picture: one marked by growing scepticism, uneven trust across society, and emerging fault lines shaped by politics, money and communication failures.

For the scientific community, the implication of this and previous Wellcome research is that the challenge ahead is not primarily about persuading the public to trust science, but about reflecting on ourselves.

What emerges clearly from this report is that declining or fragile trust is rarely driven by rejection of science itself. Even among the least trusting groups, outright science denial remains rare. Instead, doubts tend to centre on how science is done, who it is seen to serve and how it is communicated.

At Wellcome, we approach trust in science as something to be earned through trustworthy practice, not demanded.

In the report, concerns about science’s trustworthiness cluster around two themes.

First, political entanglement. Covid-19 became a formative experience here. For some, seeing scientists at the heart of crisis decision-making built confidence. For others, particularly those with low trust in institutions, the proximity of scientists to politicians blurred the lines of independence and created a sense that evidence was being shaped by politics rather than guiding it. What we see today is that a significant minority of the British public believe science has become too closely associated with political causes or government decision-making.

Second, financial influence. Over a third of Britons believe research agendas and conclusions are in some way shaped by funders’ interests. This belief does not automatically destroy trust, but it exists in the background that can become damaging when other stresses are applied.

Taken together, these concerns indicate people are not simply asking ‘is the science correct?’, but ‘who is science accountable to?’.

If earning and sustaining trust is the goal, the scientific community – everyone from researchers to government ministers and science communicators – must focus less on correcting public attitudes and more on reflecting and adjusting its own practices. The report points to several practical things that can be done.

1. Make independence visible, not implicit

Scientists might assume their independence is self-evident. The public does not. Funding sources, governance arrangements and decision-making processes need to be communicated proactively, not defensively, especially when research intersects with policy or commercial interests.

2. Communicate uncertainty with respect

This report shows that people want clear advice in moments of crisis, but people in the least trusting segments value honest explanations of limits and trade-offs. 

3. Do not assume authority is enough

Across segments, trust in scientists is shaped not only by competence, but by whether scientists are perceived as respectful, relatable and value-sharing. Many people, particularly those who feel distant from institutions, sense that science talks down to them, even when the intention is neutral or well-meaning.

How we speak matters. Not because tone substitutes for evidence, but because respect signals whether science sees the public as partners in understanding.

4. Support people to think, not just comply

Groups such as Sceptical Scrollers are often mischaracterised as ‘anti-science’. In reality, they are frequently pro-agency. They want access to evidence, routes to verification and the ability to reach their own conclusions.

Enabling this through open data, accessible explanation and guidance on how to interpret evidence is not a threat to science. It is an investment in durable trust.

5. Show impact beyond the laboratory

Trust is earned when people can see how science connects to their own lives. Advances in medicine remain powerful symbols of progress, but they are not enough, particularly when the experience of public services feels disconnected from scientific breakthroughs.

Making science’s benefits tangible, local and human is essential if trust is to be seen more equally across society.

Science remains one of the UK’s great strengths and shared sources of optimism. But this optimism itself is unevenly distributed, and trust follows the same contours.

The most sobering finding in this research may not be about scepticism at all, but about hope. Among those with low trust in science, ‘nothing’ is often cited as what makes them optimistic about the future. That should give us pause. Trust in science is bound up with whether people believe progress is possible, and whether it will include them. For those who were more optimistic about the future, their reasons were all anchored in research: medical advances (31 percent of respondents), technology (30 percent) and scientific innovation (26 percent).

If the scientific community is willing to look inward to strengthen transparency, independence, respect and openness, there is every reason to believe trust can not only be preserved but deepened. Trust is not something science possesses. It is something which society, with all its varied values, opinions and perceptions about science, can grant and withdraw.