A global study reveals gaps in engagement. Here’s how scientists can turn trust into action.
Trust in science is relatively high. But trust alone doesn’t lead to action.
A recent study from Nature Human Behaviour affirms what many scientists have experienced firsthand: while people generally trust scientists’ expertise, they don’t always trust how science is communicated or feel engaged in ways that make research relevant to their lives (Cologna et al., 2025).
The problem isn’t that scientists lack credibility. It’s that research is often communicated in ways that don’t align with what different stakeholders need to act on it. Cologna et al. (2025) surveyed 71,922 people across 68 countries and found that while scientists rank high in competence, they score lower in openness and responsiveness. Meanwhile, the Pew Research Center reported that 89% of Americans view researchers as intelligent, but only 45% believe they communicate well with the public (Kennedy & Tyson, 2024).
This disconnect has consequences. Science doesn’t operate in a vacuum—it shapes policy, informs funding decisions, and impacts lives. But if the people who have the power to act on research don’t see its relevance or feel included in the conversation, opportunities for impact are lost.
This is where public interest communications comes in. Unlike traditional science communication, which often assumes that simply explaining the facts is enough, public interest communications is a research-driven approach designed to ensure that scientific insights lead to real-world outcomes. It helps scientists move beyond just sharing findings to engaging the right decision-makers, fostering dialogue, and framing research in ways that build trust and drive action.
If you need policymakers to act, funders to invest, journalists to cover your work, or communities to engage, you need more than communication—you need a strategy.
Why Trust Alone Doesn’t Guarantee Impact
1. Even a Small Trust Gap Can Shape Policy and Public Perception
While overall trust in scientists is strong, trust levels vary significantly across demographics. Higher trust is reported among women, older adults, urban residents, and those with higher incomes and education levels. Meanwhile, in some—but not all—countries, conservative groups expressed lower confidence in scientists (Cologna et al., 2025).
This matters because even a small but vocal group of skeptics can influence public discourse and policy decisions. Niels G. Mede, PhD, a researcher at the University of Zurich and lead author of the Nature study, warns that even a small group of people who distrust science can shape funding decisions, obstruct policies, and fuel misinformation (Cologna & Mede, 2025).
What to do: Shift from passive communication to two-way engagement that builds relationships and contextualizes scientific findings for different groups.
2. Transparency and Responsiveness Build Credibility
Trust in science isn’t just about expertise. In Reassessing the Variables Used to Measure Public Perceptions of Scientists, Besley, Lee, and Pressgrove (2021) identify four key dimensions of trust:
- Competence – Do they know what they’re talking about?
- Integrity – Are they transparent about their methods and motivations?
- Benevolence – Do they prioritize public concerns?
- Openness – Do they engage in genuine, two-way communication?
Scientists consistently rank high in competence but score lower in openness and responsiveness. Cologna et al. (2025) found that while 78% of respondents viewed scientists as competent, only 42% believed they listen to public concerns, and just 57% thought they communicate transparently.
This gap isn’t about rejecting science—it’s about feeling excluded from the conversation. For example, research on vaccine hesitancy shows that trust grows when scientists engage in dialogue rather than simply issuing directives (Welch et al., 2023).
What to do: Scientists should communicate not just what they know, but how they know it—clarifying uncertainties, funding sources, and ethical considerations in ways that foster trust and connection.
3. Research Priorities Must Align with Public Concerns
One of the most striking findings was a disconnect between the issues scientists prioritize and the concerns of the public. For instance, survey participants saw defense and military technology as a higher priority for scientists than for themselves (Cologna et al., 2025).
This misalignment can make it harder for scientists to gain public and institutional support, even for research that has broad societal benefits. When research is framed in ways that align with societal concerns—whether economic stability, local health outcomes, or environmental impact—it is more likely to influence policy and funding decisions.
What to do: Scientists should consider framing their work within the context of societal concerns, demonstrating how their research addresses real-world needs.
A Research-Backed Approach to Influence
Science alone doesn’t drive change. Influence does. And influence requires strategic communication—an approach rooted in evidence, psychology, and behavioral science.
Public interest communications provides a framework for doing exactly this:
- Identifying the right stakeholders—not just broad audiences, but decision-makers who can take action.
- Crafting narratives that align with public values to make research more relevant and compelling.
- Engaging in two-way communication that builds trust and fosters long-term relationships.
- Ensuring research reaches the right people at the right time to maximize impact.
For scientists looking to sharpen these skills, the Science Communications Course provides a structured, research-backed approach to engaging policymakers, funders, and the public—helping scientists move beyond sharing findings to ensuring their work creates real-world change.
References
Besley, J. C., Lee, N. M., & Pressgrove, G. (2021). Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication, 43(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020949547
Cologna, V., Mede, N.G., Berger, S., et al. (2025). Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries. Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02090-5
Cologna, V., & Mede, N. (2025, January 20). Global trust in science remains strong. EurekAlert!. https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1070912
Kennedy, B., & Tyson, A. (2024, November 14). Public trust in scientists and views on their role in policymaking. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/11/14/public-trust-in-scientists-and-views-on-their-role-in-policymaking/
Schnirring, L. (2025, January 22). Large global study finds strong trust in science, lessons for improved communication. CIDRAP. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/anti-science/large-global-study-finds-strong-trust-science-lessons-improved-communication
Welch, E. W., Johnson, T. P., Chen, T., Ma, J., Islam, S., Michalegko, L. F., Caldarulo, M., & Frandell, A. (2023). How scientists view vaccine hesitancy. Vaccines, 11(7), 1208. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11071208