A majority of Americans say they have confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. Confidence ratings have moved slightly higher in the last year, marking a shift away from the decline in trust seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A new Pew Research Center survey of 9,593 U.S. adults conducted Oct. 21-27, 2024, takes a close look at the public image of scientists, who serve as one potential source of information for Americans navigating complex policy debates and everyday decisions around things like their personal health and wellness.

Key findings

76% of Americans express a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests.

This is up slightly from 73% in October 2023 and represents a halt to the decline seen during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientists continue to enjoy strong relative standing compared with the ratings Americans give to many other prominent groups, including elected officials, journalists and business leaders.

Majorities view research scientists as intelligent (89%) and focused on solving real-world problems (65%).

In addition, about two-thirds (65%) view research scientists as honest and 71% view them as skilled at working in teams.

Communication is seen as an area of relative weakness for scientists.

Overall, 45% of U.S. adults describe research scientists as good communicators. A slightly larger share (52%) say this phrase does not describe research scientists well.

Another critique many Americans hold is the sense that research scientists feel superior to others; 47% say this phrase describes them well.

Americans are split over scientists’ role in policymaking.

Overall, 51% say scientists should take an active role in public policy debates about scientific issues. By contrast, nearly as many (48%) say they should focus on establishing sound scientific facts and stay out of public policy debates.

Americans also aren’t convinced scientists make better policy decisions on science issues than other people – just 43% think this is the case.

Democrats continue to express more confidence than Republicans in scientists, but ratings within the GOP have edged higher in the last year.

A larger majority of Democrats than Republicans express confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests (88% vs. 66%).

Though the partisan gap in trust remains sizable, Republicans’ overall level of confidence in scientists is up 5 percentage points compared with a year ago – the first uptick in trust among Republicans since the start of the pandemic.

Partisans also differ over scientists’ role in policy debates, with Democrats far more supportive than Republicans of active engagement in making policy on scientific issues.

Trends in trust in scientists

In recent years, the scientific community has engaged with the public’s declining trust directly, and there are multiple organizations working on ways to support trust in science and improve communication with wider audiences.

About three-quarters of Americans say they have either a great deal (26%) or a fair amount (51%) of confidence in scientists to act in the best interests of the public. This share is up slightly since last year. Still, levels of confidence in scientists remain lower than in April 2020 – at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, 87% expressed at least a fair amount of confidence in scientists, including 39% who said they had a great deal of confidence.

Trust in scientists compared with trust in other groups

In an era of low public trust in institutions, scientists continue to be held in higher regard than several other prominent groups we’ve asked about, including journalists, elected officials, business leaders and religious leaders. Confidence ratings for scientists are even slightly higher than those for public school principals and police officers – two groups that receive positive overall ratings.

Go to the Appendix for more detailed views of these groups. The Appendix also includes views of medical scientists, whose ratings are very similar to those for scientists generally.

Differences in confidence by party

Roughly nine-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (88%) express a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. The share of Democrats with at least a fair amount of confidence in scientists is similar to levels seen prior to the pandemic.

However, the share of Democrats who express a great deal of confidence in scientists stands at 40%, significantly below the peak in strong trust seen during the pandemic’s first year. In April 2020, 52% of Democrats expressed a great deal of confidence in scientists, and in November 2020, that share reached 55%.

Republicans’ views follow a different pattern. Two-thirds of Republicans and Republican leaners say they have a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interest. About a third (34%) express distrust, saying they have not too much or no confidence at all in scientists. In April 2020, an 85% majority of Republicans said they had a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists, compared with just 14% who had little or no confidence.

While GOP ratings of scientists remain much lower than they were before the pandemic, there has been a slight improvement in trust over the last year. The share with a great deal or fair amount of confidence is up 5 points since October 2023, from 61% to 66%.

Differences in confidence by race and ethnicity

Overall, White, Black and Hispanic adults express similar levels of confidence in scientists. For instance, 78% of White adults have either a great deal (26%) or fair amount (52%) of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests; among Black adults, 77% express either a great deal (26%) or fair amount (51%) of confidence.

Asian adults hold the most positive views of scientists across racial and ethnic groups: 85% have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in them.

In the years prior to the pandemic – and in early 2020, during the first few months of the coronavirus outbreak – White adults expressed somewhat higher levels of confidence in scientists than Black adults.

This gap has closed primarily due to a decline in trust among White Republicans – driving overall levels of trust among White adults lower – rather than an increase in trust among Black adults.

Differences in trust by race and ethnicity are apparent when taking partisan affiliation into account. For example, White Democrats (48%) and Asian Democrats (45%) are more likely than Hispanic Democrats (30%) and Black Democrats (29%) to have a great deal of confidence in scientists. These patterns are consistent with Center surveys conducted over the last several years.

Differences in confidence by education

There are also some differences in trust by Americans’ level of education. Strong trust in scientists is higher among four-year college graduates than among those without a college degree (34% vs. 22%).

This gap is primarily driven by differences among Democrats. Democrats with a college degree are 17 points more likely than Democrats without a college degree to say they have a great deal of confidence in scientists (51% vs. 34%). By contrast, among Republicans, similar shares of those with and without a four-year degree have strong confidence in scientists (15% vs. 11%).

For more detailed views by education and party, refer to the Appendix.

Public perceptions of scientists’ traits and characteristics

Americans associate research scientists with a number of positive characteristics – including intelligence, honesty and concern for real-world problems – which underscore the relatively high confidence ratings scientists receive.

Nearly nine-in-ten U.S. adults (89%) say “intelligent” describes most research scientists well. Majorities also view research scientists as skilled at working in teams (71%), focused on solving real-world problems (65%) and honest (65%).

Research scientists are rated less positively on their communication abilities. Fewer than half of Americans (45%) view research scientists as good communicators. This share is 9 points lower than it was in 2019.

Communication was point of frustration during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2022 surveys, Americans gave public health officials mixed ratings for their communication efforts and 60% said they felt confused about shifting health guidance.

Some negative traits also register with many Americans in their assessments. About half of Americans (49%) say “socially awkward” describes most research scientists well, and 47% have the impression that scientists feel superior to others. Smaller shares view research scientists as cold, closed-minded or inattentive to the moral values of society.

Views of scientists’ traits by party

Democrats are more likely than Republicans to assess research scientists positively on their traits and characteristics. This is consistent with the different levels of confidence Democrats and Republicans have in scientists generally.

For instance, 80% of Democrats view research scientists as honest, compared with 52% of Republicans.

While Democrats have a broadly positive view of research scientists across most traits we asked about, communication is an area where impressions are less glowing. Slightly more than half of Democrats (54%) view research scientists as good communicators; 44% do not.

Within the GOP, the sense that research scientists feel superior to others registers with a 61% majority. Of the positive traits in the survey, communication ability ranks the lowest among Republicans, with just 37% viewing research scientists as good communicators. Republicans also express mixed views on whether research scientists are focused on solving real-world problems: 52% say this phrase describes them well, while 46% say it does not.

Across several traits, ratings among Republicans are more negative today than in 2019. For instance, there’s been a 17-point decline in the share of Republicans who view research scientists as focused on real-world problems (69% to 52%).

Views on scientists’ judgment and role in policymaking

Americans are divided over how active they want scientists to be in public policy debates over scientific issues. And Americans are not convinced that scientists make better policy decisions on science topics than other people, or that they are less biased in their decision-making.

Overall, 51% say scientists should take an active role in public policy debates about scientific issues, compared with 48% who say instead that they should focus on establishing sound scientific facts and stay out of policy debates.

When it comes to scientists’ current level of engagement, views are mixed: 41% say they don’t have enough influence in policy debates, while 37% think they have about the right amount of influence and 20% say they have too much.

Two-thirds of Democrats say scientists should be active in policy debates on scientific issues, and 61% say they currently don’t have enough influence in shaping policy.

By contrast, Republicans express a much more limited view for scientists’ policy engagement: 64% say they should stay out of policy debates. And more say they currently have too much rather than not enough policy influence (34% vs. 22%). Another 43% describe their influence as about right.

Public support for scientists’ playing an active role in policy remains lower than it was in surveys from 2019 and early 2020. In both of those surveys, 60% of Americans said scientists should take an active role in public policy debates about scientific issues. That share fell to 48% in September 2022 – well into the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The current survey marks a slight uptick (+3 points) in the share who support an active policy role for scientists.

For more detailed information on this question over time, go to the Appendix.

Should public opinion play a role in science policy?

In addition to debate about experts’ role in policymaking, there’s no consensus over how much public attitudes should inform science policy.

Overall, 48% say public opinion should play an important role guiding policy decisions about scientific issues; 51% say public opinion should not play an important role because scientific issues are too complex for the average person to understand.

More Republicans say public opinion should than should not play an important role guiding science policy (55% vs. 44%). Democrats lean in the opposite direction: 59% say public opinion should not guide policy on scientific issues, while 40% say it should.

Views on the quality of scientists’ policy judgments

Americans offer reserved assessments of the quality of scientists’ policy decisions.

Fewer than half of Americans (43%) think scientists are usually better than other people at making good policy decisions on scientific issues; 46% think they are neither better nor worse than others in this regard, and 10% view them as worse at making science policy than other people.

More generally, half of Americans say scientists make judgments based solely on the facts, while nearly as many (49%) take the view that scientists’ judgments are just as likely to be biased as other people’s.

As with scientists’ policy role, Republicans and Democrats express contrasting views of scientists’ judgment.

Among Democrats, 64% view scientists as making judgments based solely on the facts, and 58% think they are generally better than other people at making policy decisions about scientific issues.

Republicans are much more skeptical: 62% say scientists’ judgments are just as likely to be biased as other people’s, and only 28% think they generally make better science policy decisions than other people.

This report is made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts. It is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals. Find related reports online at: pewresearch.org/science.

Primary research team       

Eileen Yam, Director, Science and Society Research
Alec Tyson, Associate Director, Science and Society Research
Brian Kennedy, Senior Researcher
Giancarlo Pasquini, Research Associate
Emma Kikuchi, Research Assistant    
Isabelle Pula, Research Assistant      

Editorial and graphic design          

Anna Jackson, Editorial Assistant
Kaitlyn Radde, Associate Information Graphics Designer

Communications and web publishing      

Haley Nolan, Communications Manager
Mithila Samak, Communications Associate
Reem Nadeem, Digital Producer

In addition, the project benefited greatly from the guidance of the Pew Research Center methodology team: Courtney Kennedy, Andrew Mercer, Ashley Amaya, Dorene Asare-Marfo, Dana Popky, Anna Brown and Arnold Lau.

The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Overview

Data in this report comes from Wave 158 of the American Trends Panel (ATP), Pew Research Center’s nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. The survey was conducted from Oct. 21 to 27, 2024. A total of 9,593 panelists responded out of 10,612 who were sampled, for a survey-level response rate of 90%.

The cumulative response rate accounting for nonresponse to the recruitment surveys and attrition is 3%. The break-off rate among panelists who logged on to the survey and completed at least one item is 1%. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 9,593 respondents is plus or minus 1.3 percentage points.

SSRS conducted the survey for Pew Research Center via online (n=9,320) and live telephone (n=273) interviewing. Interviews were conducted in both English and Spanish.

To learn more about the ATP, read “About the American Trends Panel.”

Panel recruitment

Since 2018, the ATP has used address-based sampling (ABS) for recruitment. A study cover letter and a pre-incentive are mailed to a stratified, random sample of households selected from the U.S. Postal Service’s Computerized Delivery Sequence File. This Postal Service file has been estimated to cover 90% to 98% of the population.¹ Within each sampled household, the adult with the next birthday is selected to participate. Other details of the ABS recruitment protocol have changed over time but are available upon request.² Prior to 2018, the ATP was recruited using landline and cellphone random-digit dial surveys administered in English and Spanish.

A national sample of U.S. adults has been recruited to the ATP approximately once per year since 2014. In some years, the recruitment has included additional efforts (known as an “oversample”) to improve the accuracy of data for underrepresented groups. For example, Hispanic adults, Black adults and Asian adults were oversampled in 2019, 2022 and 2023, respectively.

Sample design

The overall target population for this survey was noninstitutionalized persons ages 18 and older living in the United States. All active panel members were invited to participate in this wave.

Questionnaire development and testing

The questionnaire was developed by Pew Research Center in consultation with SSRS. The web program used for online respondents was rigorously tested on both PC and mobile devices by the SSRS project team and Pew Research Center researchers. The SSRS project team also populated test data that was analyzed in SPSS to ensure the logic and randomizations were working as intended before launching the survey.

Incentives

All respondents were offered a post-paid incentive for their participation. Respondents could choose to receive the post-paid incentive in the form of a check or gift code to Amazon.com, Target.com or Walmart.com.  Incentive amounts ranged from $5 to $20 depending on whether the respondent belongs to a part of the population that is harder or easier to reach. Differential incentive amounts were designed to increase panel survey participation among groups that traditionally have low survey response propensities.

Data collection protocol

The data collection field period for this survey was Oct. 21-27, 2024. Surveys were conducted via self-administered web survey or by live telephone interviewing. 

For panelists who take surveys online:³ Postcard notifications were mailed to a subset on Oct. 21.⁴ Survey invitations were sent out in two separate launches: soft launch and full launch. Sixty panelists were included in the soft launch, which began with an initial invitation sent on Oct. 21. All remaining English- and Spanish-speaking sampled online panelists were included in the full launch and were sent an invitation on Oct. 22.

Panelists participating online were sent an email invitation and up to two email reminders if they did not respond to the survey. ATP panelists who consented to SMS messages were sent an SMS invitation with a link to the survey and up to two SMS reminders.

For panelists who take surveys over the phone with a live interviewer: Prenotification postcards were mailed on Oct. 18. Soft launch took place on Oct. 21 and involved dialing until a total of seven interviews had been completed. All remaining English- and Spanish-speaking sampled phone panelists’ numbers were dialed throughout the remaining field period. Panelists who take surveys via phone can receive up to six calls from trained SSRS interviewers.

Data quality checks

To ensure high-quality data, Center researchers performed data quality checks to identify any respondents showing patterns of satisficing. This includes checking for whether respondents left questions blank at very high rates or always selected the first or last answer presented. As a result of this checking, four ATP respondents were removed from the survey dataset prior to weighting and analysis.

Weighting

The ATP data is weighted in a process that accounts for multiple stages of sampling and nonresponse that occur at different points in the panel survey process. First, each panelist begins with a base weight that reflects their probability of recruitment into the panel. These weights are then calibrated to align with the population benchmarks in the accompanying table to correct for nonresponse to recruitment surveys and panel attrition. If only a subsample of panelists was invited to participate in the wave, this weight is adjusted to account for any differential probabilities of selection.

Among the panelists who completed the survey, this weight is then calibrated again to align with the population benchmarks identified in the accompanying table and trimmed at the 1st and 99th percentiles to reduce the loss in precision stemming from variance in the weights. Sampling errors and tests of statistical significance take into account the effect of weighting.

The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey.

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request. In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

Dispositions and response rates

A note about the Asian adult sample

This survey includes a total sample size of 548 Asian adults. The sample primarily includes English-speaking Asian adults and, therefore, may not be representative of the overall Asian adult population. Despite this limitation, it is important to report the views of Asian adults on the topics in this study. As always, Asian adults’ responses are incorporated into the general population figures throughout this report.

© Pew Research Center 2024