Foreword to the Wellcome Global Monitor 2026

Trust reveals itself in the choices we make when faced with uncertainty. It influences how we feel about competing claims, which information we believe, whose advice we follow, and where we look for reassurance. The Wellcome Global Monitor gives us the clearest picture of the state of public trust in science, both today and over time, and the dynamics that earn and sustain it. 

Some years ago, when I was responsible for the national vaccination programmes in Norway, I participated in televised debates about reported side-effects from HPV vaccines that were being rolled out to prevent cervical cancer. The evidence mattered, but it was not the only thing people were weighing up. They were also asking who they could rely on, whether their concerns were being heard, and whether the institutions speaking to them understood their lives. 

Fifteen years after HPV vaccination programmes were introduced across Europe, vaccine uptake has generally been high, with significant reductions in HPV infections and declining cervical cancer rates among vaccinated women. But the questions and considerations raised in the debate, and how they related to trust, have stayed with me. 

Science does not earn trust solely by being rooted in evidence, it must also be trustworthy. Trust and trustworthiness depend on institutions, systems and people being credible, open about uncertainty, responsive to concerns and connected to the realities of people’s lives. 

When trust is strong, science can help people make informed decisions, use science-based solutions, and support collective action. When trust is under pressure, even well-established evidence can struggle to find its footing. That is why understanding public trust in science is critical to the mission of any organisation looking to build a healthier future. 

The Wellcome Global Monitor exists to help us track and understand how people think and feel about science, now and over time. It is a tool to understand public trust in science at a global, regional and country level. In today’s increasingly complex world, it gives us a clearer picture of the conditions in which trust grows and the conditions in which it falters. 

The Wellcome Global Monitor 2026 draws on responses from over 140,000 people across 140 countries, offering one of the most comprehensive views of public trust in science today available anywhere in the world. Its depth allows us to see not just whether people trust science, but how that trust connects to their confidence in other institutions, their healthcare experiences, and their sense of whether science benefits people like them. 

For me, the findings point to something important about the relationship between science and society. 

First, trust in science is under pressure. Gains seen during the pandemic have not been sustained, and in several global regions trust has fallen below pre‑pandemic levels. Understanding why is critical. 

Second, trust in science does not sit apart from society. People who feel systems are working for them, institutions are fair and healthcare is accessible are more likely to trust science. That should caution us against treating low trust simply as limited knowledge or understanding. It is also impacted by societal structures and people’s experiences. 

Third, trust in science and consensus on specific positions or actions are not the same thing. Views on some of today’s most pressing questions, from how to act on climate change to vaccine efficacy and the role of AI, vary greatly across and within countries, even in places where trust in science is high overall. Science therefore needs to remain credible across groups with different values and viewpoints, rather than with any particular constituency. Scientists need to differentiate between what evidence shows versus what actions that need to be taken. The latter would generally involve value judgements and making trade-offs. 

That places a responsibility on science too. We cannot assume that because the evidence is strong, trust will follow. Nor should we confuse trust with alignment to specific choices or positions. People can trust science and the evidence and still reach different conclusions that make sense to them in their context. Our job as a science community is not to question those differences, but to make sure science remains credible, open and relevant – and therefore trustworthy. 

Our aim through the Wellcome Global Monitor is to build a long-term evidence base that supports deeper listening, engagement, understanding and action. This will help science to respond more effectively to different experiences and viewpoints, strengthening the relationship between science and society for the long term. 

So perhaps the question for those of us who work in science is not simply: how do we build greater trust in science? It is: what do we need to do to earn the trust of people across different perspectives and contexts? 

That is a harder question. I think it is also the more important one.