Britain has a science problem, but not the familiar ones of hostility or ignorance. Seven in ten Britons agree that science is such a big part of our lives that we should all take an interest. Yet when asked if they actually feel informed about it, fewer than half say yes.
The latest Public Attitudes to Science survey, released today and funded by UK Research and Innovation, UKRI, reveals a nation more engaged with science and more confused about it than at any point in the study’s 25-year-history.
At first glance, the trend looks encouraging. Since 2019, fewer people report never discussing science with friends and family. Access to scientific information has exploded, with social media and YouTube now matching traditional media as sources of science news overall and surpassing the influence of traditional media when it comes to 16–24-year-olds.
Eight in ten of the public thought scientists made a valuable contribution to society (82%). Roughly two-thirds felt technology was improving people’s lives (67%). A similar proportion agreed that research and innovation made a direct contribution to economic growth (69%).
While in 1988, 32% felt that that the benefits of science were outweighed by harmful effects, today this proportion has more than halved, to an historic low of 13%.
Yet, paradoxically, engagement has not translated into confidence: the proportion who feel genuinely informed about science has fallen from 51% to just 43%.
Perhaps most striking: nearly half of respondents neither agree nor disagree that the information they hear about science is ‘generally true’ (representing a drop from 50% in 2019 to 40% in 2025). There seems to be less science information, more noise.
The challenge highlighted by today’s survey is particularly acute for the institutions, like the Science Museum Group, who aim to connect science and society.
‘This survey is incredibly timely and useful, providing invaluable insights to inform our efforts to engage the millions of people who visit our five museums, not least the 450,000 in booked educational groups, and reach more diverse and disadvantaged groups,’ commented Sir Ian Blatchford, Chief Executive and Director of the Science Museum Group.
Only 36% believe Britain is a world leader in science, when both the quantity and impact (in terms of citations) of the UK’s research output place it towards the top of many rankings. In an age of abundant information, uncertainty – not ignorance – has become the defining public mood.
This is the first survey since Covid-19 thrust scientists into the spotlight, and the first since AI, in the guise of Large Language Models, went into common use.
It’s also the first to shift from face-to-face interviews to predominantly online data collection, a change that allowed researchers to survey 5,281 adults between February and July 2025 – a methodological shift that improves scale but also reflects how people now encounter science.
Trust has eroded significantly post pandemic: 69% now trust government scientists to follow rules and regulations, down from 76% six years ago. Trust in corporate scientists has fallen from 57% to 48%.
Meanwhile, a new question in the survey revealed that just a quarter of people believe ministers regularly use science to inform decisions, whilst the largest group – 43% – are simply unsure. Two-thirds think scientists’ independence is often compromised by funders’ interests.
One word that appears frequently in the findings is ‘ambivalence’. On whether scientists are ethical, which the survey revealed was a priority among respondents, Britons were split roughly evenly: 43% say yes, roughly the same proportion say it depends or are neutral, and the rest say no.
Half neither agree nor disagree that scientists ‘know best what is good for us,’ polled in another new question. Nearly half are similarly non-committal on whether scientists consider ‘people like me’ when designing research.
Science is respected, but its authority is no longer taken for granted.
Historical differences between men and women persist. Women remain significantly less likely than men to feel informed (35% versus 51%), less likely to trust that scientific information is true, and more likely to say they don’t know what scientists actually do. Women are also more likely to prioritise ethical behaviour as scientists’ most important trait (selected by 55% overall), and to say unethical conduct would damage their trust.
Perhaps the most striking shift concerns the young. Those aged 16 to 24 feel more informed than their elders (53% versus 36% of over-65s) and are likelier to turn to Instagram and TikTok than television for science news.
Yet, paradoxically, they’re less convinced of science’s value: a third say school put them off science, compared with 23% overall. They’re less likely than older adults to agree that scientists make a valuable contribution to society, and less supportive of government funding for discovery or ‘blue skies’ research that brings no immediate benefits (with 33% sitting on the fence, versus 25% overall).
They are also less likely than their older peers to agree that science has increased their own personal prosperity, so they are more ambivalent about the relevance of science to their lives. Young people aged 16 to 24 were also more likely to agree that scientists adjust their findings to get the answers they want (31%, versus 24% overall).
Then there’s artificial intelligence, which has joined genetically modified crops and animal testing on the list of topics that polarise opinion.
Just 33% believe AI’s benefits outweigh its risks; 36% say the risks of AI outweigh the benefits. For those who believe that information alone builds trust, it is striking that people feel relatively well informed about AI compared to other technologies.
What determines whether someone embraces science? The survey examines the influence of science capital, the sum of one’s interactions with science through work, study, family, friends and leisure, and a guiding principle for the Science Museum Group.
Among those with high science capital, 84% support government funding for blue-skies research and 84% agree science has increased their personal prosperity. Among those with low science capital, just 44% and 13% respectively agree.
However, engagement breeds both support and critical thinking. Bucking the expected trend, those with high science capital are more sceptical of government’s ability to regulate: 49% believe the risks of new technology cannot be properly controlled, versus 35% of those with low capital.
The public is crying out for involvement, according to the survey. Three-quarters believe the government makes little or no effort to consult them on science.
Just 12% feel the public is sufficiently involved in science and technology decisions, down from 21% in 2008. Nearly two-thirds want to see or hear more information about science, up from less than half in 2019.
Meanwhile, 64% say scientists should be required to involve all groups in their research, and the same proportion want the scientific workforce to reflect society’s diversity. Yet only 32% believe everyone currently has equal opportunities to pursue a science career.
Again, paradoxically, while there is a strong desire for more consultation and public involvement, likely driven by higher general interest and fewer people feeling informed, the survey suggests the majority of the public are not particularly willing to get involved personally: they want to know the public are involved but don’t necessarily want to do it themselves.
According to the report this may be driven by a lack of awareness of the ways in which they can get involved, and unwillingness to take part in activities that are considered time consuming.
Despite the various concerns outlined above, just 13% now believe science does more harm than good, down from 32% in 1988, representing a historic low.
The proportion who think science is too specialised for ordinary people to understand has fallen from 66% in 2000 to 45% today. Six in ten reject the notion that we depend too much on science and not enough on faith—a dramatic shift since 1988, when it was around three in ten.
And 80% believe vaccination benefits outweigh risks, with just 6% disagreeing. Britons, in other words, still broadly value science, with 82% saying scientists make a valuable contribution to society. They’re just not sure what to make of it anymore.
The new methodology means future surveys can be conducted biennially rather than sporadically, providing routine insights into how attitudes evolve to help scientists, policymakers and communicators rise to the challenge: in an age of information abundance, providing more facts will not suffice.
Legitimacy now depends on dialogue, transparency and visible public involvement. Science’s problem is not opposition but uncertainty about whom it serves, and how.
Roger Highfield is the Science Director and Lauren Souter is the Senior Audience Insight Manager at the Science Museum Group.