Scientists in Australia and New Zealand have a high level of public trust when compared with their global counterparts, according to a new survey.1
Public trust in scientists was ‘moderately high’ globally but varied within regions, with Australia ranked fifth and New Zealand ninth out of the 68 countries surveyed.
Australia scored 3.91 out of five on a trust scale where one meant a very low level of trust, and five meant a very high level of public trust. Egypt (4.3) scored the highest, followed by India (4.26), Nigeria (3.98), Kenya (3.95), then Australia and Bangladesh (both 3.91). Rounding out the top 10 were Spain and Türkiye (3.9), New Zealand (3.88), and Argentina (3.87).
Counter to narratives of a ‘crisis of trust’ in science, our findings reveal most people worldwide have relatively high trust in scientists
No ‘Crisis of Trust’
“This is the largest ever global study of trust in science and scientists, involving a team of 241 researchers who surveyed almost 72,000 participants across 68 countries,” said study co-author, Dr Mathew Marques from La Trobe University in Melbourne.
He said the research “comes on the back of the COVID-19 pandemic, where some were vocal against scientists and science-led decision making”.
“Counter to narratives of a ‘crisis of trust’ in science, our findings reveal most people worldwide have relatively high trust in scientists and want them to be more involved in society and policymaking.”
Dr Marques said there were “surprisingly few differences” in trust across local demographics, with no differences in age or gender, and small positive associations with income and education.
“Unlike North America and many Western European countries, in Australia having a conservative versus liberal political orientation was not associated with trust. This could mean political polarisation around science is not as much of an issue as it is for specific scientific issues, like climate change,” he said.
He said while local scientists were viewed as “highly competent, with moderate integrity and benevolent intentions”, there is a perception that scientists are less open to feedback.
“We recommend scientists take these results seriously. They should find ways to be more receptive to feedback and open to dialogue with the public.”
Another of the co-authors, Dr Omid Ghasemi from the University of NSW Institute for Climate Risk and Response, described the study as “encouraging”.
“Australia and New Zealand stand out for their particularly positive attitudes, with a notably smaller gap between what the public perceives as scientists’ priorities and what they believe those priorities should be.
“However, the findings also raise important concerns. In some countries, political orientation is associated with lower trust in scientists, which might worsen with increasing partisan divides.
“Additionally, younger individuals exhibit lower trust levels compared to older generations. While these issues are less pronounced in Australia and New Zealand, it remains essential to develop targeted strategies to sustain and strengthen trust across political groups and generations.”
Co-author Professor Mark Alfano, from Macquarie University, noted the lag in trust in “post-Soviet states, countries with high economic inequality, and among individuals who adopt a worldview that prioritises social dominance hierarchies”.
“To me, this suggests that, to the extent that we face a crisis of trust, it is not a problem that can be solved by improving science or science communication. Instead, we need to improve the political economy of our societies so that it becomes more natural for people to trust institutions that are already, to a large extent, trustworthy.”
In some countries, political orientation is associated with lower trust in scientists, which might worsen with increasing partisan divides
Independent Commentary
Independent expert, Dr Susannah Eliott, CEO of the Australian Science Media Centre said given the dramatic changes in the information landscape, the study should ideally be used as a benchmark, and “repeated every three to five years to see how trust changes over time”.
“The data in the current study was collected just as ChatGPT was being rolled out across the world and before some of the technology that makes it easy for anyone to create deepfake images and videos was made widely available,” Dr Eliott said.
“As mis and disinformation continue to evolve, there will be those who seek to make use of this trust for their own benefit (scientists can be ‘made’ to say anything using deepfake technology…). Transparency and the reliability of sources will become even more important in maintaining trust.
Dr Cathy Foley AO PMS, former Chief Scientist of Australia said it was “interesting that in Australia there is always an economist in the room for policy development”.
“Scientists are only occasionally included. Should this change?” Dr Foley asked.
“Too often we see a headline that says the community does not trust science. This comprehensive study provides clear evidence that this is not the case globally but especially in Australia where we rank fifth in the world for trust in scientists.
“This does not surprise me as my experience of the Australian science and research sector is overwhelmingly one of high integrity and passion to see science undertaken for the betterment of society.”
Reference
- Cologna V, Mede NG, Zwaan RA, et al. Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries, Nat Hum Behav. 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41562-024-02090-5.