Want some good news? Most people still trust scientists. A new survey from the U.K. found that 63% of adults give scientists a high trust score.

But dig deeper, and a troubling pattern is emerging: trust is splitting along the same political and cultural fault lines already visible in the United States . And the divide has almost nothing to do with how authoritative scientists are seen to be.

The study , led by the Policy Institute at King’s College London and the NGO Sense about Science, and funded by the Wellcome Trust, is one of the most detailed looks yet at why people trust—and distrust—scientists. The researchers conclude that trust is becoming a matter of identity, rather than factual information.

The researchers measured trust by asking participants to rate scientists on a 0–10 scale of trustworthiness, then grouped answers into three bands: low-trust (0–3, which turned out to be just 5% of the public), middle-trust (4–6) and high-trust (7 or above, which made up the 63% majority).

When asked whether scientists are “on the side of people like them," the respondents’ answers varied wildly: just 7% of low-trust respondents agreed, versus 68% of high-trust respondents. That single perception outweighed every other driver of trustworthiness that the researchers tested—including expertise itself. Low- and middle-trust groups are also far more likely to think scientists have different values from their own: 40% believe scientists care more about social and political causes than scientific progress, versus just 10% of high-trust people. Nearly four in ten low-trust respondents declared directly that “scientists are too woke.”

“This study reveals trust in scientists isn’t just about whether people think scientists know their subject—it’s about whether people feel scientists are doing good for them,” said Bobby Duffy, Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Policy Institute at King’s College London. “That sense of shared identity is a powerful driver of trust, and may present a significant risk, if growing political polarization influences how people see science, as we’ve seen develop in the U.S. over the last decade.”

The most obvious faultline highlighted by the research is the split along political lines. Only 32% of Reform UK supporters believe that scientists are on their side, versus 71% of Green Party supporters—a whopping 39-point gap. Reform supporters are also far more likely to say that scientists are “in cahoots” with politicians and businesses (50%, versus 27% overall), and that society should trust “common sense” over scientific studies.

In terms of research areas, no field shows the divide more starkly than climate science. Overall trust in climate scientists sits at just 54%, well below the 63% baseline of trust in scientists, and the political split is the widest: 84% of Green Party supporters have high trust in climate scientists, against just 19% of Reform supporters.

Not Two Camps, But Five Tribes

Pushing back on the impulse towards a black-and-white interpretation of their findings, the researchers warned against reading their results as a tale of “believers” versus “skeptics.”

Instead, the study sorted respondents into five groups: Science Advocates (17%), Contented Trusters (19%), Betrayed Trusters (18%), Disengaged Trusters (25%) and Science Critics (21%). Contented Trusters trust institutions generally; Betrayed Trusters trust science despite feeling let down elsewhere; Disengaged Trusters simply pay less attention to everything, science included.

“It would be a mistake to read this as a country simply divided into science advocates and science critics,” said Duffy. “The public splits into much more nuanced groups, and there is much we can do to demonstrate the trustworthiness of science, but this needs to be targeted and tailored.”

Significantly, the study didn’t just gather views on public trust in science—the researchers also quizzed participants on what should be done about it. And, as it turns out, most people believe trust can be improved.

Asked “What would increase trust?” the respondents’ top two suggestions were straightforward: that scientists should actively correct misinformation (45%); and that scientists should explain how their work improves ordinary people’s lives (44%). Notably, tactics that scientists often favor, such as advising policymakers or co-setting research priorities, ranked near the bottom of what people thought would help.

Other research on the trust deficit converges on similar fixes. A study from U.K. NGO More in Common landed on nearly identical advice: be transparent about funding and motives; show tangible, human-scale impact instead of abstract progress; and let people verify claims themselves rather than asking for blind trust, by giving direct access to the underlying data and methodology, and publishing funding sources. Both reports also warn against scientists moving closer to policymakers: proximity to power can read as bias, not authority, which is why “advising policymakers” tests poorly.

“Responses in the study point to the importance of being transparent, open about motives and clear about benefits,” said Tracey Brown OBE, director of Sense about Science. “Having someone you trust to ask about a scientific issue correlates with higher trust in scientists. Knowing a scientist also makes it more likely you’ll be in a higher trust group.”

Rising Against Falling Trust

American research on the problem of falling trust in science shows where an unaddressed values gap can lead. A Pew Research Center study published in January found that the partisan gap in Americans’ views of science has widened to 25 points, with 76% of Democrats versus 51% of Republicans saying science has been mostly positive for society—and notably that divide is up from just 7 points before the 2020 Covid pandemic. In fact, Republican trust in science dropped 19 points since 2019, while Democratic views barely moved. The U.K. researchers see this as the cautionary tale: a divide that didn’t used to sort by party is now doing exactly that, and the gap is only getting wider.

Trust in science isn’t collapsing on either side of the Atlantic: outright rejection remains a minority position. But trust is fragmenting along identity lines, and the American experience shows how fast a manageable gap can harden into an entrenched one. The fix is to show the public that scientists are on their side, regardless of ideological leanings, before feelings around political identity do the talking for them.