March 19, 2026

Science communication in an era of misinformation – what the Public Attitudes to Science survey is telling us

I recently spoke at the launch of the Public Attitudes to Science survey and was delighted to have the chance to highlight the things that jumped out to me and the messages I think should make the scientific community sit up and listen. The following is an extended version of the 5-minute introductory comments I delivered. The SMC is really interested in discussing the findings with others and especially what they tell us about what needs to be done differently or better.

………………

This survey is an absolute gift to science communicators like me. It shows that people find science interesting, talk about it regularly with friends and family and want to hear even more. 62% of people say they see too little information on science these days and the number of people feeling well-informed about science has fallen – from 51% in 2019 to 43% in 2025. Leaders of science take note — give your research comms staff a virtual hug and make sure they have enough resources – our country needs them!

Another thing that’s music to my ears is that people who come across science a lot, in the media and in their daily lives, are more positive about it. This group, described in the report as having “science capital”, tends to trust scientists and are more likely to have confidence in scientific innovations. I remember around the time the SMC was set up, it became fashionable to critique the conceit of scientists who thought that all we need to do to get public acceptance for things like GM and animal research is to talk more about them. While we should never be only in broadcast mode, this survey builds on other evidence showing that talking more is precisely what we should be doing, with people who feel well-informed about a technology being more likely to have confidence in it.

Crucially, this applies to controversial issues like vaccines. Two thirds of the public say they feel well-informed about vaccines translating into a staggering 88% of people who believe the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. (As an aside, I would urge the people who tend to exaggerate the impact of misinformation to take note.)

But of course, the opposite is also true. Only 38% of people feel well-informed about GM and 33% on animal research, which presumably explains why people feel that the risks of these technologies outweigh the benefits, 31% in the case of GM and 37% on animal research.

The message that we could be doing better on some contested areas matches my experience at the SMC. I hear from scientists every day who are reluctant to talk to the media. Some say they just don’t have capacity as they’re too busy with their research. Others fear being drawn into polarised debates where their evidence is cherry-picked by a “camp” with an agenda. But more worryingly, much of the reluctance comes from organisations themselves who are deliberately keeping themselves and their experts away from media work on controversial issues. Given that many of these bodies are also telling us they are worried about misinformation, something is amiss. 

One of the other things I found encouraging in the survey is the extent to which the public values independence in science. My interpretation is that people want science to be as objective and impartial as possible and separate from political or financial interests that could distort evidence. But here too, there is a challenge: 65% of people believe that the independence of science is put at risk by funders. I do see research being directed by government missions more than in the past, but I don’t see interference in the actual research process. If I’m right, the message to funders is to be out there demonstrating that they too value independence and pointing to policies which protect the integrity of research they fund. Luckily for organisations like the UKRI, the public are very keen to hear from them – with 76% saying those who regulate science need to communicate with the public.

One of the knotty problems the survey throws up is the differential levels of trust in scientists in academia and industry. Yet again we see incredibly high levels of public trust in university scientists – standing at 87%. But this falls to 48% for scientists in industry and that is down from 57% in 2019. Maybe some will see that as healthy. But, I worry that these low levels of trust in industry science pose a much wider problem. VCs, funders and governments are increasingly expecting and encouraging university scientists to collaborate with industry. Yet 8 out of ten people believe it’s important to have some scientists without industry links. For better or worse that’s pretty rare these days . I remember the late Colin Blakemore saying that the species of an entirely independent scientist is fast becoming extinct.

If government and other science leaders believe it’s in the public interest to forge closer partnerships between academics and industry, then they need to start explaining why to a sceptical public. The risk is that if trust in industry science continues to fall, these collaborations will end up negatively impacting the high levels of trust in university science. At the SMC we already see this playing out, with journalists sometimes reporting that researchers with industry links are automatically less reliable.

As is the way with these surveys, I’m sure the ‘take home’ messages will be different for different bits of science.  But I really hope that the leaders of science and directors of communications will see that the opportunity here.  I know of 10 separate projects on misinformation being run by the scientific community, reflecting a genuine concern that people are being misled on things that really matter. It feels like perfect timing to be reminded that people trust scientists and want to hear their voices more. But we need to grasp the nettle here.  The organisations that have the right experts but try to keep them out of more heated public debates risk becoming part of the problem. Misinformation will thrive if we don’t flood the public sphere with the measured, accurate evidence that the public is asking us for.

This blog contains the thoughts of the author rather than representing the work or policy of the Science Media Centre.