By Joe Stafford, University of Manchester
Fact-Checked by Irfan Ahmad
People more likely to see scientists as credible experts when they discuss technology than when they comment on wider social issues.
A study of more than 6,000 people in the UK and Sweden suggests that although scientists are generally regarded as credible, their status as experts is more contested when they discuss issues such as health, education and employment.
Researchers from The University of Manchester and KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden found that scientists were perceived as more credible than government officials, but were no more credible - and in some circumstances less credible - than businesspeople and campaigners.
The findings challenge the assumption that scientific expertise automatically gives academics greater credibility when they contribute to wider public debates.
Rather than simply asking people whether they trust science, the study used a survey experiment in which participants were asked to assess statements attributed to different types of experts. These included an academic scientist, businessperson, government official or issue advocate.
The statements covered technological and non-technological issues, allowing the researchers to examine whether the identity of the person making a claim affected how convincing it appeared.
The study involved nationally representative samples of adults in the UK and Sweden. Data was collected online, with 6,198 complete responses ultimately included in the analysis. Each participant assessed 8 different combinations of statements and expert types.
When discussing the societal consequences of technological developments, scientists' credibility increased relative to other expert groups. But when the same set of experts was discussing non-technological social issues such as health, education or employment, businesspeople and issue advocates were perceived as more credible than scientists.
The researchers suggest this may reflect the different ways people understand scientific expertise. Technology-related questions may be seen as areas where scientists possess particularly relevant specialist knowledge. Wider social questions, by contrast, can involve competing values, political judgements and forms of knowledge outside academia.
Image: Research Policy 55 (2026) 105640. Anders Brostrom, Cornelia Lawson, Mabel Sanchez-Barrioluengo. CC BY
The researchers found that these three forms of distrust were associated with the credibility disadvantage experienced by scientists.
They also found that the specific credibility gap between technological and non-technological issues was largely driven by people who expressed these concerns.
The study suggests that people may broadly support science while being more selective about whether they regard scientists as credible sources of advice on particular social questions.
“Scientists are increasingly expected to contribute to debates about some of the biggest challenges facing society, but our findings suggest that this does not automatically translate into greater credibility,” said Professor Cornelia Lawson from The University of Manchester. “This presents an important challenge for universities, scientists and research funders seeking to ensure that research has an impact beyond academia.”
“It also raises wider questions about the changing relationship between science and society, and what we now expect scientists to contribute to public debate.” — Professor Cornelia Lawson
The research was conducted by Anders Broström of KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Cornelia Lawson and Mabel Sanchez Barrioluengo of the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester.
Full title of the paper: Contested credibility: Public perceptions of scientists as experts
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2026.105640
URL: https://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S0048-7333(26)00231-3
Read next: Kids and teens are going to AI chatbots for advice. How can parents make sure this is safe?
Fact-Checked by Irfan Ahmad
People more likely to see scientists as credible experts when they discuss technology than when they comment on wider social issues.
A study of more than 6,000 people in the UK and Sweden suggests that although scientists are generally regarded as credible, their status as experts is more contested when they discuss issues such as health, education and employment.
Researchers from The University of Manchester and KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden found that scientists were perceived as more credible than government officials, but were no more credible - and in some circumstances less credible - than businesspeople and campaigners.
The findings challenge the assumption that scientific expertise automatically gives academics greater credibility when they contribute to wider public debates.
Scientists don't automatically have the advantage
The researchers wanted to examine whether people actually regard scientists as more credible than other groups when presented with the same claims about society.Rather than simply asking people whether they trust science, the study used a survey experiment in which participants were asked to assess statements attributed to different types of experts. These included an academic scientist, businessperson, government official or issue advocate.
The statements covered technological and non-technological issues, allowing the researchers to examine whether the identity of the person making a claim affected how convincing it appeared.
The study involved nationally representative samples of adults in the UK and Sweden. Data was collected online, with 6,198 complete responses ultimately included in the analysis. Each participant assessed 8 different combinations of statements and expert types.
Technology makes a difference
The researchers found a clear difference depending on what scientists were talking about.When discussing the societal consequences of technological developments, scientists' credibility increased relative to other expert groups. But when the same set of experts was discussing non-technological social issues such as health, education or employment, businesspeople and issue advocates were perceived as more credible than scientists.
The researchers suggest this may reflect the different ways people understand scientific expertise. Technology-related questions may be seen as areas where scientists possess particularly relevant specialist knowledge. Wider social questions, by contrast, can involve competing values, political judgements and forms of knowledge outside academia.
Why might people distrust scientists?
The researchers considered three potential sources of distrust. People were asked whether they viewed university scientists as being:- closely allied with vested interests rather than independent;
- ideologically driven rather than open-minded; or
- insufficiently focused on issues relevant to society.
The researchers found that these three forms of distrust were associated with the credibility disadvantage experienced by scientists.
They also found that the specific credibility gap between technological and non-technological issues was largely driven by people who expressed these concerns.
Rethinking the role of scientific expertise
The researchers say the findings highlight the difference between public trust in science in general and the credibility of scientists when they act as experts in specific public debates.The study suggests that people may broadly support science while being more selective about whether they regard scientists as credible sources of advice on particular social questions.
“Scientists are increasingly expected to contribute to debates about some of the biggest challenges facing society, but our findings suggest that this does not automatically translate into greater credibility,” said Professor Cornelia Lawson from The University of Manchester. “This presents an important challenge for universities, scientists and research funders seeking to ensure that research has an impact beyond academia.”
“It also raises wider questions about the changing relationship between science and society, and what we now expect scientists to contribute to public debate.” — Professor Cornelia Lawson
The research was conducted by Anders Broström of KTH Royal Institute of Technology and Cornelia Lawson and Mabel Sanchez Barrioluengo of the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester.
Publication details
This research was published in: Research PolicyFull title of the paper: Contested credibility: Public perceptions of scientists as experts
DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2026.105640
URL: https://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S0048-7333(26)00231-3
Read next: Kids and teens are going to AI chatbots for advice. How can parents make sure this is safe?
