Public Trust in Science and Scientific Trustworthiness
This set of three reports contains a landscape review of conceptual and empirical evidence on public trust in science and the qualities associated with trustworthy scientific practice. It also includes an exploratory analysis of how scientific trustworthiness is understood in a social media context.
These reports have been commissioned by the Wellcome Trust and authored by RAND Europe
- Published:
- 18 June 2026
- Strategic programme:
- What's inside:
- These three reports provide a comprehensive picture of public trust in science research: Report 1 synthesises the headline findings across the project, Report 2 maps the existing research landscape on trust and scientific trustworthiness, and Report 3 explores how trust is expressed, negotiated and contested in social media environments. Combined, they bring together theory, evidence and real-world practice to show how trust in science is formed, what shapes perceptions of trustworthiness, and how these dynamics play out across different contexts and audiences.
- Who this is for:
- Researchers, research organisations, science communicators, public engagement professionals and policy makers.
- Citation information:
Creative Commons (CC BY)
- Creative commons:
Summary
There is a growing and wide-ranging body of research on public trust in science and scientific trustworthiness, but it is often fragmented and there are gaps in our understanding. This makes it difficult for researchers, funders and communicators to navigate the evidence and identify what matters most. These reports bring that research from across Europe, the US and Canada together to provide a clear and accessible picture of the existing evidence, the insights it provides and areas where we need to find out more.
Report 1 offers an overview of the key findings, Report 2 maps the existing evidence on trust and scientific trustworthiness, and Report 3 explores how trust is expressed and challenged in social media discussions. Together, they combine theory, data and real-world observation to better understand how trust works in practice.
By bringing this evidence together in one place, the reports aim to support researchers, funders and communicators to better understand the landscape of public trust in science and to identify practical ways to demonstrate trustworthiness more clearly and effectively.
Key Findings
- Trust in science is generally moderate to high, with little evidence of a widespread collapse in confidence. Levels of trust differ between countries, and at an individual level. However, those who actively distrust may have a disproportionate impact on public conversations around science.
- Maintaining public trust in science requires attention to scientific trustworthiness. Trustworthiness can be defined as the qualities that make individuals, institutions, and scientific systems deserving of trust, regardless of whether trust is conferred. It relates to five qualities: expertise, integrity, benevolence, transparency, and responsiveness.
- Building well-placed public trust in science requires trustworthiness to be demonstrated in ways that allow people to place their trust confidently. This occurs at the individual (micro), institutional (meso) and system (macro) levels.
- Scientists and institutions often foreground expertise as the basis for public trust. However, public evaluations of trustworthiness also emphasise motives, independence, openness, and a willingness to listen or engage with public concerns. Responses to scientists on social media often focus on independence, funding, governance and links to political or commercial interests.
- Transparency works differently for different audiences. Openness about uncertainty and scientific limitations can strengthen trustworthiness for some people by signalling honesty. However, the same transparency can reinforce doubt for others, especially those already sceptical.
- Responsiveness or scientific openness to dialogue and conversation is conceptually important but less visible in practice than other qualities. Active listening, public engagement and genuine dialogue appear less often in current science communication practice, especially on social media.
Public assessments of trustworthiness and the placing of trust also depend on the social and political context of a scientific domain, as well as an individual's willingness to trust.
Conclusion
These reports show that public trust in science remains generally strong but is conditional on how science is communicated and perceived. Audiences do not judge trustworthiness on expertise alone: they also look for clear evidence of integrity, independence, openness, and a willingness to listen. The findings highlight that trust is shaped through interaction - by context, platform, and the concerns people bring to science - not simply by the strength of evidence.
This means that building trust in science is less about asserting authority and more about demonstrating how science works, why it matters, and whose interests it serves. Effective approaches will combine strong evidence with visible commitments to transparency, fairness, and public engagement, tailored to different audiences and settings. Strengthening trust in science depends on supporting researchers and institutions to communicate in ways that make their trustworthiness clear, credible, and relevant in practice.
Downloads
Contact us
Get in touch with Wellcome Engagement Labs Leads, Rebecca Asher and Emily Jesper-Mir, for more information.
Tags
