Ideological gaps were opening up in many places about how much to actually trust what scientists said.
At the threshold of a global health crisis, a sweeping Pew Research Center survey across twenty nations captured something rare — a portrait of how humanity regards the people it most needs to trust. Scientists emerged as among the most respected figures in public life, yet the survey also revealed fault lines: on vaccines, on climate action, on artificial intelligence, the consensus fractured along ideological and national lines, reminding us that trust in science and the will to act on it are not the same thing.
- Scientists command trust comparable to the military — yet ideological divisions are quietly eroding confidence in what scientists actually say.
- Vaccine hesitancy is already embedded in public opinion across multiple nations, a slow-burning tension that the coming pandemic would ignite into open conflict.
- Climate concern is broad and genuine, but the gap between public worry and government action leaves majorities feeling unheard and unprotected.
- Artificial intelligence divides nations sharply, with no shared global story about whether automation is a gift or a threat.
- 82% of people want their governments to fund science — but only 30% trust their own schools to teach it well, exposing a pipeline fracture at its earliest and most critical point.
When the Pew Research Center released its findings from a twenty-nation survey in late 2020, the world was already tilting toward crisis. The interviews had been conducted before COVID-19 reshaped everything, but the timing gave the data an unexpected gravity — here was a snapshot of public trust in science taken at the precise moment that trust would be tested most severely.
The headline was encouraging: scientists ranked among the most trusted groups in society, with 36 percent of respondents expressing high confidence in them — on par with the military, and well ahead of politicians, business leaders, and journalists. Researcher Cary Funk described the overall picture as 'generally positive.' But beneath that surface, fractures were already forming.
On vaccines, most people accepted that childhood immunizations were safe and effective — yet meaningful minorities did not, and that hesitancy was hardening. On climate change, concern was widespread and genuine; majorities acknowledged the problem and faulted their governments for inaction. On artificial intelligence, there was no consensus at all — only a mosaic of national anxieties with no shared resolution in sight.
The investment question offered a brighter note: 82 percent of respondents supported government funding for scientific research, and most nations expressed a desire to lead in scientific achievement. Yet self-assessment told a humbler story — only 42 percent believed their country's scientific accomplishments were above average, and in Brazil that figure fell to just 8 percent.
Perhaps most telling was the state of STEM education. While university-level science instruction earned relatively strong marks, only 30 percent rated primary and secondary school science teaching as above average or world-class. The pipeline, it seemed, was leaking at its source — and the survey had arrived just in time to name the problem before the world would desperately need it solved.
The pandemic forced the world to look at scientists in a new way. Suddenly they were not abstract figures in laboratories but the people we needed to solve an immediate crisis. Against this backdrop, the Pew Research Center released findings from a sweeping international survey that offered a portrait of how the public actually sees the scientific community—and the answer was more complicated than a simple thumbs up or down.
The survey spanned twenty countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Researchers conducted the interviews before COVID-19 became a global emergency, but the timing gave the work an unexpected weight. Here was a snapshot of public sentiment toward science and scientists at the precise moment when the world would need them most.
The headline finding was reassuring. Scientists ranked among the most trusted groups in society, with 36 percent of respondents expressing high confidence in them—a level of trust that matched public confidence in the military and far exceeded what people felt toward business leaders, government officials, or the news media. Cary Funk, who directed the research, framed the results as revealing "generally positive" views of scientists and their work across the globe. But he also noted something more unsettling: ideological gaps were opening up in many places about how much to actually trust what scientists said.
Those gaps became visible when you looked beyond the headline numbers. On vaccines, for instance, most people surveyed said they saw childhood immunizations as safe and effective. Yet important minorities harbored doubts, reflecting a growing "anti-vaccine" sentiment that would only intensify in the years ahead. The survey had captured a moment when vaccine hesitancy was already a force in public opinion, even if it had not yet become the political flashpoint it would become.
Climate change told a similar story. Widespread public concern existed about environmental degradation. Majorities said they saw climate change as a serious problem and believed their governments were not doing enough to address it. People worried about air and water pollution, overflowing landfills, deforestation, and the loss of plant and animal species. The science was clear; the public understood the stakes. Yet translating that understanding into action remained elusive.
Artificial intelligence emerged as another arena where consensus fractured. The survey found that opinions about AI and automation diverged sharply depending on which country you asked. There was no global consensus on whether these technologies represented progress or peril—just a patchwork of national and regional anxieties.
On the question of investment, the picture brightened. An average of 82 percent of respondents believed that government spending on scientific research was worthwhile. Most places surveyed said they wanted to be leaders in scientific achievement. But when asked to assess their own country's actual scientific accomplishments, responses revealed a gap between aspiration and self-perception. Only 42 percent said their nation's achievements matched or exceeded the global average. In Brazil, just 8 percent felt that way. In the United States and United Kingdom, 61 percent did.
Education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics emerged as a particular concern. While 42 percent of respondents rated their university-level STEM education as above average or world-class, only 30 percent gave similarly high marks to STEM instruction in primary and secondary schools. The message was clear: the pipeline was leaking, and it was leaking earliest.
Citas Notables
These findings show generally positive views of scientists and their work across the globe, but also reveal ideological gaps in many places about how much to trust what scientists say.— Cary Funk, Pew Research Center
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter that scientists rank as trusted as the military? Isn't trust in institutions supposed to be declining everywhere?
It matters because it shows there's still a baseline of respect for expertise and evidence-based work. But the military comparison is telling—both are seen as institutions that deliver results, that have clear hierarchies and missions. The trust is conditional.
Conditional on what?
On whether people believe scientists are actually solving problems that affect their lives. The survey was taken just before the pandemic, but it already showed fractures on vaccines and climate. People wanted to trust scientists, but they had doubts about whether scientists were being listened to by the people in power.
The vaccine hesitancy finding is striking. Why would people doubt vaccine safety when the survey says most see them as safe?
Because safety and trust are different things. You can believe something is safe in the abstract and still doubt whether you should take it, or whether authorities are being honest about it. Hesitancy isn't always rational disagreement—it's often about who's doing the persuading.
And the climate findings—widespread concern but governments aren't acting. Does that mean people blame scientists for the inaction?
Not exactly. People seem to understand the science. They blame their governments for not moving fast enough. But that distinction matters: if the public trusts scientists but not politicians, and politicians ignore scientists, the public gets frustrated with both.
What about the STEM education gap? Is that a pipeline problem or a quality problem?
Both. It suggests that early education isn't preparing students for scientific thinking, which means fewer people enter the field, which means fewer scientists to do the work society needs. It's a slow leak that compounds over time.