π Society

Who trusts science? A worldwide diagnosis across 68 countries

Claudia Teran-Escobar

Lecturer in Applied Social Psychology at Université Paris Nanterre

Key takeaways

With an average score of 3.62 (on a scale of 1 to 5), trust in scientists is far from poor on a global scale.
The 20 European Union countries included in the study are mostly in the middle of the rankings.
Contrary to popular belief, in most countries, having pursued higher education is not correlated with greater trust in science.
Globally, religious people are found to have greater trust in scientists than non-religious people.
The study finds that the stronger one’s orientation towards social dominance—that is, the more one adheres to a social hierarchy based on groups (ethnic, social, etc.)—the less one trusts scientists.

In 2025, the largest-ever global survey of trust in science was published. It covered 68 countries, involving 241 researchers and 179 organisations, with nearly 72,000 respondents and its findings challenge certain preconceptions. We discussed with Claudia Teran-Escobar, a lecturer and researcher in social, health and environmental psychology at Université Paris Nanterre – one of the researchers involved in this study in France, coordinating local data collection.

Relatively high levels of trust in scientists globally

But what exactly does the concept of trust in scientists entail? To avoid overly abstract responses, the researchers assessed it across four dimensions: perceived competence of scientists, their integrity, their concern for the common good, and their openness to criticism. Each dimension was measured using three questions¹. Across these four criteria, average opinions across the 68 countries are largely positive, albeit with some nuances. Scientists are thus perceived as:

competent (4.02 on average, on a scale of 1 to 5); 78% of respondents believe they are qualified to conduct high-impact research;
fairly honest (3.58). In particular, 57% of individuals consider scientists to be honest;
somewhat concerned about the interests of others (3.55). For example, 64% of those surveyed believe that most scientists are keen to improve the lives of others, and 48% that they care about the interests of others;
moderately open to criticism (3.33). Only 42% of respondents believe that scientists take the opinions of others into account to some extent.

Overall, with an average of 3.62, trust in scientists is far from poor on a global scale, and none of the countries considered scored at the average (3).

At the very top of the rankings are Egypt (4.30) and India (4.26), followed by Nigeria (3.98), Kenya (3.95) and Australia and Bangladesh (3.91). At the bottom are Ethiopia and Russia (both 3.23), Bolivia (3.22), Kazakhstan (3.13) and Albania (3.05). Can we explain this distribution? “Not really, based solely on the study’s results. We have a partial explanation for the top of the ranking: some of the countries listed there are highly corrupt, and we believe that, compared to politicians, scientists might appear particularly trustworthy in those countries. But this hypothesis cannot explain everything, as countries elsewhere in the ranking also have high levels of corruption,” comments Claudia Teran-Escobar. “To better understand what differentiates countries from one another, we would need to be able to supplement the studies in the Global South, which is under-represented in surveys of this kind.”

The 20 European Union countries² included in the study are mostly in the middle of the rankings. The top three most trusting countries are Spain (3.9; 7^th in the overall ranking), Ireland (3.84; 14^th) and Sweden (3.78; joint 19^th). France, meanwhile, lies well below the global average (3.43), ranking 51^st in the global rankings and 16^th in the European rankings, ahead of Cyprus and Austria (3.42), Greece (3.39) and Italy (3.38). The average for the 20 countries stands at 3.57, very slightly below the global average.

Demographic criteria offer little explanation

The researchers also examined the distribution of trust according to standard demographic variables: gender, age, level of education, income and place of residence. Overall, it appears that women are slightly more confident than men, and that older people, city dwellers, those with higher education qualifications and those on higher incomes are more confident than young people, rural dwellers, those with lower qualifications and those on lower incomes, respectively.

“But we must be cautious in interpreting these results: we suggest that it is not simply because one is a woman, lives in an urban area or has a high income that one has greater trust in scientists, but rather because these factors shape different experiences with science. An urban dweller, for example, is more likely to have come into contact with scientists than someone living in the countryside,” explains Claudia Teran-Escobar. “It should also be noted that the influence observed for all these criteria remains very modest. Their explanatory power is therefore weak.” This is all the more so as these averages mask significant disparities from one country to another.

The result particularly true of educational attainment; contrary to a commonly held belief, and despite a small positive effect observed globally, having pursued higher education is, in most countries, not correlated with greater trust in science. In France, the effect does exist, and although weak (0.015), it remains significant compared to other countries.

Political orientation: an ambiguous influence

The link between trust and political orientation proves even more surprising. “Previous research has shown that in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in some European countries, people who identify as conservative or right-wing generally tend to trust science less. On a global scale, this is no longer at all clear-cut, as in the study, the results depended on the scale used: right-wing vs. left-wing or conservatives vs. liberals.” Whilst the study does confirm the expected results in the United States and several European countries, it also highlights the lack of a link between political orientation and trust in scientists in most countries, and even higher levels of trust among right-wing individuals in certain countries in Eastern Europe, South-East Asia and Africa. In France, the link is not significant.

Another common misconception debunked: globally, believers are found to have greater trust in scientists than non-believers. “This result may come as a surprise, as we sometimes have the opposite impression, due to studies conducted on this subject in the Global North that established a negative link between religiosity and trust in science.” A previous survey³ had, however, already established that only 29% of people globally believed that science was at odds with their religion, and another⁴ that whilst being a believer was associated with negative attitudes towards science in the United States, this link was non-existent on a global scale. Here again, however, this average masks significant disparities from one region to another and from one religion to another. The countries where the positive correlation between religiosity and trust in scientists is strongest are Uganda, Georgia, Turkey, Bangladesh and Morocco.

Positive attitudes towards science and the SDGs: strong correlations

The clearest and most widespread correlations are ultimately found in criteria relating to a particular worldview. Unsurprisingly, the more one views science as beneficial, the more one adheres to its methods, the more one accepts dependence on it without seeking to control everything oneself, the more one trusts scientists. Conversely, the link between lack of trust and scientific populism — that is, the idea that the general public knows better or should have more power than scientists — though positive, is moderate.

The study nevertheless establishes that the stronger one’s orientation towards social dominance—that is, the more one adheres to a social hierarchy based on groups (ethnic, social, etc.)—the less one trusts scientists. “This is one of the most notable findings of this research. Other studies⁵ have shown that people with a strong social dominance orientation also tend to be more easily suspicious of climate science or vaccines,” adds Claudia Teran-Escobar.

Psychological criteria: a lever for building trust?

Can these findings offer insights into how to build trust in scientists? “We cannot influence demographic factors. So, it is good news to discover that they are less strongly correlated with trust than certain psychological factors,” says Claudia Teran-Escobar. “As for what actions to implement… We propose that we need to increase exposure to science and scientists, develop participatory science, and improve the representation of scientists in the media. But to be honest, we do not know what the actual effects of this type of action are, as initiatives of this kind, although numerous, are rarely evaluated, with a few exceptions⁶. The next step will therefore be to conduct experimental studies to assess the benefits of such actions.’ The lead authors of the publication have already embarked on such work.