Over the past year, we’ve heard time and again about Americans’ waning trust in science. In fact, rebuilding that trust was one of the reasons that US president Donald J. Trump signed the “Restoring Gold Standard Science” executive order last May, which put political appointees in charge of upholding high scientific-research standards at federal agencies.
But whose trust needs to be restored?
A recent survey from the Pew Research Center found that, even though American confidence in science remains lower than it was during the COVID-19 pandemic, the vast majority of US adults—77%—have either a great deal or a fair amount of confidence in science. Another 2025 study, published in Nature Human Behavior, looked at levels of public trust in science across 68 different countries, including the US, and similarly couldn’t find any evidence of the widespread distrust that’s so often talked about.
But that same study points out that waning trust by “even a small minority of people needs to be taken seriously.” That small group could be enough to influence both policymakers and other individuals, “especially if they receive extensive news media coverage and include people in positions of power that can influence policymaking,” the authors write.
In the US, that small minority appears to include more people who consider themselves Republicans. While 90% of Democrats surveyed in the Pew report said they had at least a fair amount of trust in scientists, only 65% of Republicans said the same—a number that has grown considerably since the COVID-19 pandemic.
Given how critical small segments of the population can be to election outcomes in the US, it makes sense that some politicians would look to cater to such a wary minority. That might explain why, despite the Pew Research Center finding that 84% of Americans think government investment in scientific research is worthwhile, we’ve seen the executive branch assert power over science institutions by dismissing federal agency heads, proposing massive science budget cuts, terminating research grants, and delaying the release of appropriated funds to science agencies.
But there’s a way scientists can help. According to a 2024 report by the National Science Board, Americans’ perception of science is related to the degree to which they understand how science works. Yet only a small percentage of US adults reported any recent engagement with science or science-related activities. Most also get their science news from social media or general news sites rather than experts or science journalists.
Those facts suggest we can start to bridge this political divide by simply having more researchers engage with the public, specifically with areas of society that report little exposure to science. While scientists might know how science touches everyone’s lives, this sector of the public likely doesn’t. Helping people understand what is meant by science and research and how these impact their everyday lives is a valuable goal.
Maybe that’s a big ask, especially since most researchers were trained in a work environment that rarely rewards outreach efforts. But it’s okay to start small: start a conversation with an extended family member, a neighbor, or that cashier you see at the grocery store. There are a large number of resources available online to support all manner of outreach, like the communication toolkit created by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. And this week, American Chemical Society president Rigoberto Hernandez convened a meeting of scientists and influencers with a view to developing similar resources specifically for chemists. ACS publishes C&EN.
Remember, with these conversations, the goal isn’t to bombard people with facts. Listening is just as important. If the origin of their distrust lacks a strong basis, understanding why that distrust arose in the first place can help to address it.
With that in mind, we can build a relationship with this small, but important, minority that is paramount to helping us protect the future of science.
This editorial is the result of collective deliberation in C&EN. For this week’s editorial, the lead contributor is Krystal Vasquez.
Views expressed are not necessarily those of ACS.
