Public trust in science is high in many populations, but it is not uniform. The available measures show differences by country, income group, perceived government corruption, knowledge of science, and political affiliation. The figures below also come from different surveys and periods, so each statistic should be read with its measurement date and question wording in mind.
Contents
- Global benchmarks
- Regional and income-group differences
- Countries with the highest reported trust
- Trust during the COVID-19 period
- Knowledge, inequality, and perceived corruption
- Recent U.S. confidence and policy views
Global benchmarks
The Wellcome Global Monitor’s 2018 Wellcome Trust in Scientists Index divided people aged 15 and older worldwide into trust categories. Eighteen percent had high trust in scientists, while 54% had medium trust. Another 14% had low trust, and 13% did not give enough opinions on the relevant questions to receive an index score. These categories describe the distribution of responses; they are not a forecast of future confidence or a measure of scientific performance.
Together, the high- and medium-trust groups accounted for 72% of people aged 15 and older in the 2018 global measure. The low-trust group represented 14%, while the remaining 13% were not assigned an index score because they did not provide enough opinions. The source presents these results as a global benchmark for trust in scientists, with the survey year explicitly set at 2018. (Source: Chapter 3: Trust in science and health professionals)
A separate Pew Research Center survey of 20 advanced and emerging publics in 2019 used a different question and scale. Across those publics, the median share saying they had a lot of trust in scientists was 36%. Because this is a median across selected publics rather than a worldwide population estimate, it should not be directly substituted for the Wellcome global percentages. (Source: Science and Scientists Held in High Esteem Across Global Publics)
Regional and income-group differences
The 2018 Wellcome results show a substantial income-group difference in the share reporting high trust. High-income countries averaged 23% high trust in scientists, compared with 19% in low-income countries. The gap was larger for low trust: 18% of people in low-income countries reported low trust, compared with 12% in high-income countries.
Looking at medium or high trust together produces another contrast. In high-income countries, 84% reported either medium or high trust in scientists. In low-income countries, the corresponding share was 62%. This combined measure includes the broad middle category, so it captures general trust more broadly than the high-trust category alone. (Source: Chapter 3: Trust in science and health professionals)
Regional patterns also varied. In 2018, about one-third of people in each of Australia and New Zealand, Northern Europe, and Central Asia had high trust in scientists. By contrast, almost one-third of people in Central Africa, Southern Africa, and South America had low trust. Central America and Mexico also recorded a notable low-trust share, at 27%.
These regional descriptions should be treated as grouped survey findings rather than claims about every country in a region. The same 2018 source reports both high-trust and low-trust patterns, showing why a single global average can conceal meaningful local variation. (Source: Chapter 3: Trust in science and health professionals)
Countries with the highest reported trust
The Wellcome country table for 2018 recorded the following shares of people aged 15 and older with high trust in scientists. The values are country-level survey results from that measurement period, not current estimates.
| Country | High trust in scientists, 2018 |
|---|---|
| Uzbekistan | 54% |
| Belgium | 42% |
| Tajikistan | 42% |
| Niger | 39% |
| Spain | 39% |
| Ireland | 39% |
| Norway | 38% |
| United Kingdom | 35% |
| Finland | 35% |
| Malta | 34% |
| Portugal | 34% |
| The Gambia | 34% |
| Australia | 33% |
| Czech Republic | 33% |
Uzbekistan had the highest reported share in the table, at 54%. Belgium and Tajikistan followed at 42%. Niger, Spain, and Ireland each recorded 39%, while Norway recorded 38%. The United Kingdom and Finland each recorded 35%; Malta, Portugal, and The Gambia each recorded 34%; and Australia and the Czech Republic each recorded 33%.
The table illustrates why rankings require careful framing. These figures describe the share in the high-trust category in 2018, and they come from the Wellcome measurement rather than from the later Pew question about having a lot of trust. They should not be read as a current league table or as evidence that one country’s scientists are objectively more trustworthy than another’s. (Source: Chapter 3: Trust in science and health professionals)
Trust during the COVID-19 period
Wellcome’s comparison of 2018 and 2020 found that the global share saying they trusted science a lot rose by 9 percentage points. The share saying they trusted the scientists in their own country a lot also rose by 9 percentage points over the same period. These are changes between survey measurements, not a claim that trust increased by the same amount every year.
The increase was at least 10 percentage points in East Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe, and Southeast Asia. The results therefore indicate a broad rise across several regions during the COVID-19 period, while the exact regional change described by the source is expressed as a minimum of 10 percentage points. (Source: Chapter 3: Trust in and perceived value of science amid Covid-19)
Trust also rose across self-described levels of science knowledge. Among people who said they knew some science, a lot of trust in science increased from 39% in 2018 to 48% in 2020. Among those who said they knew not much or nothing about science, it rose from 25% to 33%. Among people who said they knew a lot about science, a lot of trust rose from 66% to 69%.
The changes were not identical across groups. The increase was 9 percentage points for the “some science” group, 8 percentage points for the “not much or nothing” group, and 3 percentage points for the “a lot” group. Those differences are descriptive comparisons of the reported percentages. (Sources: Chapter 3: Trust in and perceived value of science amid Covid-19, Wellcome Global Monitor 2020: Covid-19 Summary of key findings)
Knowledge, inequality, and perceived corruption
The 2020 Wellcome findings also reported a difference in trust by perceived science knowledge. Sixty-three percent of people who said they knew a lot about science reported a lot of trust in scientists, compared with 37% among those who knew not much or nothing. This association does not establish that knowledge caused trust, but it identifies a clear difference in the survey results.
Self-reported knowledge changed between the two measurement years. The global share saying they knew some science rose from 37% in 2018 to 41% in 2020. The share saying they knew nothing at all about science fell from 20% to 16%. These results concern how respondents described their own knowledge, not a standardized test score. (Sources: Chapter 3: Trust in and perceived value of science amid Covid-19, Wellcome Global Monitor 2020: Covid-19 Summary of key findings)
Perceptions of government corruption were also associated with trust in one regional result. In Australia and New Zealand in 2020, 61% trusted their country’s scientists a lot when they perceived widespread government corruption, compared with 73% when they did not perceive widespread government corruption. The difference is reported for that region and survey period; it should not be generalized to every country or later year. (Source: Chapter 3: Trust in and perceived value of science amid Covid-19)
The 2018 Wellcome analysis also connected inequality measures with high trust in a subset of high-income countries. High-income countries with Gini coefficients from 25 to 30 averaged 30% high trust in scientists. Those with Gini coefficients from 30 to 40 averaged 21%, while five high-income countries with Gini coefficients above 40 averaged 19%. These are grouped averages and associations, not a causal estimate of the effect of inequality. (Source: Chapter 3: Trust in science and health professionals)
Recent U.S. confidence and policy views
Pew Research Center measured U.S. views on scientists in October 2024, among adults surveyed October 21–27. Seventy-six percent had a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. Within that total, 26% had a great deal of confidence and 51% had a fair amount.
Political identity was associated with a sizeable difference. Eighty-eight percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents expressed at least a fair amount of confidence, compared with 66% of Republicans and Republican leaners. Thirty-four percent of Republicans and Republican leaners expressed not too much or no confidence in scientists. These are U.S. survey results for October 2024 and should not be treated as global figures. (Source: Public Trust in Scientists and Views on Their Role in Policymaking)
Respondents’ descriptions of research scientists were not uniformly positive across traits. Eighty-nine percent of U.S. adults described research scientists as intelligent. Sixty-five percent described them as focused on solving real-world problems, and 65% described them as honest. Only 45% described them as good communicators, while 52% said that description did not fit well.
Views on scientists’ public role were closely divided. Fifty-one percent of U.S. adults said scientists should take an active role in public policy debates about scientific issues, compared with 48% who said scientists should stay out. Forty-three percent thought scientists were usually better than other people at making good policy decisions on scientific issues. The results distinguish confidence in scientists from confidence in their communication and from judgments about whether expertise should translate into an active policy role. (Source: Public Trust in Scientists and Views on Their Role in Policymaking)