Americans trust science more than peers around the world, survey shows

But big divides remain among groups in the United States

A recent survey encompassing 140 countries indicates that Americans exhibit higher levels of trust in science compared to many other nations. This notable trend may seem perplexing in the context of ongoing national debates regarding the advantages and disadvantages of vaccines.

As reported in the latest edition of the Wellcome Global Monitor, 52 percent of Americans express "a lot" of trust in science. Conversely, the global average stands at only 26 percent.

In addition to demonstrating a higher level of trust, Americans also show a greater willingness to receive vaccines when compared to citizens of other high-income nations; 45 percent of Americans indicated that they would want to obtain vaccines recommended by a nurse or doctor "right away," while only 28 percent of Germans voiced similar sentiments.

Interestingly, while the proportion of individuals worldwide who believe that science benefits society has decreased from 42 percent in 2018 to 37 percent in 2025, the percentage of Americans endorsing this view has risen from 48 percent to 57 percent.

However, aggregate figures do not capture the nuanced landscape of trust in science within the United States. An analysis by STAT of the Wellcome data reveals a significant level of division within American society, starkly contrasting with trends observed in other high-income countries.

One prominent divide is religious affiliation. On average, in high-income nations, there exists a 5 percentage point difference between the percentage of religious and non-religious individuals who assert that science benefits most people in their society. In the United States, this gap escalates to an alarming 24 percentage points.

Additionally, a 19 percentage point disparity is evident between urban and rural Americans regarding perceptions of science's societal benefits. This contrasts with a mere 3-point gap in other high-income countries. Educational attainment also contributes to these divisions, with only 47 percent of Americans lacking a four-year degree believing that science benefits most people, in comparison to 71 percent of college graduates.

The Wellcome Global Monitor, a British organization dedicated to scientific research, supported surveys conducted in 2018, 2020, and 2025. The latest iteration was executed through the Gallup World Poll, which encompassed a combination of in-person, telephone, and online methodologies, surveying over 140,000 adults. The findings were subsequently weighted to ensure that global estimates accurately reflect the population distribution of the surveyed countries.

While the survey does not provide a definitive explanation for the higher levels of trust in science observed in the United States, some experts suggest that this polarization may stem from Americans' tendencies toward extreme positions.

Matthew Motta, an associate professor at Boston University School of Public Health and a public opinion research specialist, noted that Americans are more likely to exhibit extreme responses in public opinion surveys. For instance, the proportion of Germans who reported being completely anti-vaccine is merely 8 percent, compared to 13 percent in the United States, where a larger percentage chose to adopt a more ambivalent stance.

Moreover, the survey indicates that historically skeptical groups in the U.S. are not necessarily becoming more distrustful of science. According to STAT's analysis, the share of religious Americans who believe that science benefits most people has seen an increase of four percentage points, moving from 46 percent in 2018 to 50 percent in 2025. Additionally, religious Americans express a greater likelihood of being vaccinated compared to their counterparts in other nations.

Similar trends are observable among Americans without four-year degrees. The percentage of non-college graduates who believe that science benefits most people has risen by three percentage points over the seven-year span, and they also demonstrate a higher willingness than their peers in other countries with similar educational backgrounds to receive vaccines promptly.

The survey raises questions about the underlying causes of the widening trust gap surrounding science in America. The data suggests that a burgeoning enthusiasm for science among well-educated, secular Americans is contributing to this dynamic. Wellcome's survey indicated significant increases in the appreciation of science's benefits: a 13 percentage point increase among college graduates and a 15 percentage point increase among secular individuals over the past seven years.

In summary, the divide in American trust in science is not primarily a reflection of disillusionment among specific groups, but rather an increase in appreciation among others.

While this trend may seem optimistic, the divide still highlights that the advantages of scientific advancements are not effectively reaching a large portion of the American populace in ways they can acknowledge and appreciate.

According to Brian Castrucci, president and CEO of the de Beaumont Foundation, which emphasizes the importance of strengthening public health, "People are feeling left behind; they are not understanding how this benefits me."

Certain divisions present within American society may prove resistant to change, especially in a nation marked by significant diversity and scale. For instance, urban residents battling cancer who access treatment at top-tier medical centers will likely witness science's positive impact on their lives more acutely than those in rural regions who might face long distances to receive even basic care.

The Wellcome survey underscores the correlation between trust in science and confidence in a country's healthcare systems. This reflects a challenge for the United States, as only 40 percent of Americans report having significant confidence in U.S. hospitals and health clinics—a figure that mirrors those in Portugal and Uruguay.

Furthermore, anti-science sentiments propagated by political leaders in America may also be influencing public opinion. Disparate perspectives on science among political factions became evident during the Tea Party movement in the 2010s, an issue that was exacerbated during Trump's presidency, according to Yotam Ophir, an associate professor of communication at the University at Buffalo.

Experts consulted by STAT emphasize that the recent data not only signals a pressing need for systemic reforms that may take substantial time to implement, but also highlights the necessity for scientists to enhance their communication strategies regarding the benefits of science in everyday contexts. They encourage scientists to move away from expecting uncritical acceptance of their findings.

"We need to better our communication skills rather than just engage in debate," stated Castrucci.

Mark Henderson, Wellcome's executive director of corporate affairs and engagement, asserted that scientists aiming to respond to the report's findings should prioritize understanding and engaging with the public.

"Meet people where they are, with understanding, engagement, and respect, to achieve better outcomes," Henderson remarked. "It's not rocket science, yet it often surprises me how challenging this is for individuals in the scientific community."