Public perceptions of the authority and trustworthiness of scientists have shifted over the past year, according to a new report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania in the United States. The study, published on the center’s official platform, relies on sociological surveys conducted in 2023 and 2024 to gauge how Canadians and Americans view science and science professionals and how these views shape opinions about funding for research initiatives.
Experts from the APPC emphasize that public support for financing science is influenced by several key factors. People tend to respond more positively when science is seen as trustworthy and competent, and when scientists are viewed as capable of recognizing biases, correcting errors, and improving their explanations over time. The surveys also asked respondents to consider whether scientific work serves the country and its people, and how much value they place on the potential societal benefits of researchers’ findings.
Across both countries, scientists were generally regarded with high esteem, but the data show a dip in perceived competence in 2024. Specifically, the share of respondents who rated scientists as competent dropped from 77 percent in 2023 to 70 percent in 2024, while trust in scientists fell from 67 percent to 59 percent over the same period. These shifts signal growing caution about scientific claims among the public.
The 2024 results also reveal a softer belief that scientific discoveries help the nation and ordinary citizens. Trust in the societal payoff of science declined, with 66 percent of respondents feeling that scientific advances benefit the country compared to 75 percent in the prior year, and 60 percent agreeing that science helps everyday people versus 68 percent previously.
Researchers in the report suggest that concerns surrounding controversial issues such as climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic, together with the rapid pace of artificial intelligence development and deployment, may be contributing to waning confidence in science. The authors point to these tensions as factors shaping public opinion and the willingness to fund future research projects.
Among scientific fields, artificial intelligence stands out for attracting the least trust. Only 12 percent of respondents expressed confidence in AI-focused researchers. In contrast, 39 percent expressed trust in climatologists and 41 percent in medical scientists, indicating that public confidence varies considerably by specialty.
Earlier sections of the study identify three recurring reasons behind belief in conspiracy theories about science. These factors help explain why some segments of the population maintain skepticism even when scientific consensus supports particular conclusions. The APPC notes that trust in scientific institutions can be strengthened through transparent communication, rigorous peer review, and efforts to demonstrate accountability and reproducibility in research.
Overall, the report underscores the critical role of credible communication and visible accountability in maintaining public trust. For policymakers and science communicators in North America, the findings suggest a need to address concerns about bias, demonstrate robust methods, and clearly articulate the societal benefits of scientific work to sustain broad support for research funding and evidence-based decision making.