Deepening Understanding of Public Trust in Science

As changes sweep the scientific enterprise, researchers’ questions about how the public connects to, trusts in, and supports science have taken on urgency. Science and Society Sparks, a bite-sized program for researchers with a connection to The Kavli Foundation, offered webinars, readings, and discussion sessions examining how society engages with scientists, research, and evidence. This story series highlights instructors and participants in the Sparks program to showcase the insights emerging from the sessions.

Scientists are used to scratching their heads over data points from brain scans or telescopes. But they might be less familiar with the intricacies of public opinion data about science. For instance, according to an August 2025 poll from the Association of Science and Technology Centers (ASTC), adults in the United States who identify as Democrats were more concerned than Republicans that 2025’s federal policy changes and budget cuts would affect the country’s ability to retain top scientific talent. And an April 2025 poll from the same organization showed bipartisan agreement that federal investment in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education is important for future economic prosperity. People might believe STEM education is important for the economy as a general principle but may not be very concerned about the specific impact of 2025 cuts on talent retention.

“The ‘war on science’ isn’t what you think,”says Eve Klein, public engagement expert and senior advisor for ASTC, referring to a phrase sometimes used to describe perceived political attacks on the scientific process. “Public perceptions of and values around science are very complex.”

It’s possible to agree on STEM’s critical role in the economy and yet disagree about what actions will best preserve the sector. This makes it clear that narratives about public beliefs that scientists latch onto may no longer be true or that perhaps they were never true at all, Klein says. “Having data is a first step at trying to understand the complexity of what people are actually thinking about science and society right now.”

Equipping researchers with strategies to build trust in science
Klein and Erica Kimmerling, a senior director at ASTC, shared these data and other insights with a cohort of 18 researchers in November 2025 as part of The Kavli Foundation’s Science and Society Sparks program. This in-depth, two-month-long program was designed to assemble a small group of researchers who are doing work in The Kavli Foundation’s focus areas of basic science (astrophysics, neuroscience, and nanoscience) at Kavli Institutes, in Kavli Prize Laureate labs, and who receive Kavli Foundation Science grant funding. The program gives these scientists the financial support and resources to bring their focus to public opinion polls, peer-reviewed science communication research, and evidence-based strategies for building trust in science, especially in an era of growing political polarization and abrupt cuts to federal science funding, says Brooke Smith, senior director of science and society at The Kavli Foundation. As part of the program, participants also received funding to travel to an event or conference where they will relay what they’ve learned to others. “We so often hear researchers tell us things like ‘since no one trusts science anymore …,’” Smith says. “We worry that if scientists are designing engagement strategies based on these often-incorrect assumptions, they won’t be effective in building relationships and trust.”

As science finds itself in a time of change and disruption, it’s not surprising that people within the scientific enterprise worry that the average citizen is anti-science or just doesn’t care about science, Kimmerling says. But it’s important to check that assumption. ASTC’s April 2025 poll included over 1,000 U.S. adults. And in that poll, 7 in 10 respondents agreed with the statement “Science benefits people like me.” That number has been consistent across surveys from multiple organizations over decades.

“It really pushes back against the idea that people don’t understand the value of science,” Kimmerling says.

Klein and Kimmerling’s 90-minute webinar covered multiple nuances of public sentiment. For instance, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center poll, three-quarters of adults in the U.S. agree that human activity is at least somewhat contributing to global climate change. But this understanding and embracing of the scientific consensus, which was to some extent expressed by people from across the political spectrum, doesn’t necessarily translate to backing various climate policies. For instance, that same poll shows that fewer than two-thirds of adults think power plants should be required to eliminate carbon emissions by 2040. The disconnect between climate beliefs and climate actions contains a lesson as well, Kimmerling adds. Because belief in human-caused climate change doesn’t directly correlate with support for climate policies, if a researcher’s goal is to get their audience to encourage science-based climate actions, then teaching them facts about climate change may not be an effective strategy.

Klein and Kimmerling also shared polling data suggesting that there exist gaps in people’s understanding of how federal funding decisions affect science. For instance, even though more than 9 in 10 respondents to ASTC’s poll use scientific information like weather reports for daily decision-making, fewer than 1 in 10 cited a potential loss of access to this information as one of their top three concerns about federal funding cuts to science. What’s more, half of the respondents thought that philanthropy and the private sector could step in to compensate for science’s 2025 loss of federal funding. Although businesses and philanthropic funders already make significant investments in science, Kimmerling says that they don’t often invest in the breadth of research that the government does, and for the decades-long time frames it may take some science to bear fruit, if it ever does. She adds, “When you have to show a bottom line and profit and revenue, you’re not investing in certain things.”

Connecting outside of the lab
For the up-and-coming communicators in the Sparks program, some of the poll data was especially promising. Compared to a similar poll from 2021, the 2025 ASTC poll pointed to a growing interest among U.S. adults in creating more frequent and deeper touchpoints between scientists and nonscientists. When asked the same poll question, nearly all Sparks participants agreed that they wanted deeper touchpoints with society. Though Klein and Kimmerling used that result as a teachable moment about biased poll samples (Sparks participants, who voluntarily signed up for a deep dive into science engagement, are not a representative sample of scientists), it was “really encouraging” that the scientists and the public expressed similar sentiments, Kimmerling says.

Sparks participant and theoretical neuroscientist Gregory Handy found the data illuminating. Because polls show bipartisan support for federal investment in STEM, that may mean some people who value science simply prioritize other concerns when voting, says Handy, an assistant professor and Kavli Exploration Award winner at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. “Finding a way to communicate how important science is so that it becomes a little bit higher on their mind when they go to the ballot box, that could be kind of a takeaway,” which differs from communications strategies that assume scientists must change people’s opinions of science entirely, Handy says.

Making ideas like that a reality will take work, including changes to incentive structures within the scientific enterprise. But Klein and Kimmerling think Sparks participants will be more than up to the challenge. “We heard such sophistication of thought” in the webinar, Klein says. “We were very, very impressed by the participants.”

This group of participants differed from those whom Klein and Kimmerling typically encounter. ASTC is a network of institutions and organizations such as museums where science engagement is a primary focus. The Kavli Foundation, in contrast, is a philanthropic organization primarily focused on scientific research. By convening the Sparks program and providing financial support for researchers to attend, the foundation can empower participants who might be interested in communications and connection, but whose priority is the laboratory, Kimmerling says.

Now that Klein and Kimmerling have equipped Handy and other Sparks participants with data, Klein says she has something new to look forward to in the coming months to years: “hearing challenges to prevailing narratives [about science and society] start to spread within the scientific community.”