UK and Swedish respondents rated businesspeople and advocates above scientists on health and education
Manchester and KTH researchers found 6,198 UK and Swedish adults rated scientists above government officials but no higher than businesspeople or advocates. Credibility on technology's consequences did not carry over to health, education or employment.
The Scientist · Science desk
Bar chart of three distrust statements about scientists: 37% of respondents viewed scientists as influenced by vested interests, 37% considered them ideologically biased, and 33% believed scientific knowledge had limited relevance to the societal issues examined.
Share of all respondents agreeing with each statement, UK and Sweden In % of respondents
| Item | Value | Claim |
|---|---|---|
| Influenced by vested interests | 37% of respondents | 9 |
| Ideologically biased | 37% of respondents | 9 |
| Science of limited relevance | 33% of respondents | 9 |
What happened
- When the statements concerned the societal consequences of technological developments, scientists' credibility rose relative to the other expert groups.
- Around 56% of respondents agreed with at least one of three distrust statements: 37% saw vested interests, 37% saw ideological bias and 33% saw limited relevance.
- The researchers found all three forms of distrust were associated with the credibility disadvantage scientists experienced.
Why it matters
- contradiction Scientists are generally regarded as credible, yet respondents discounted them on social questions, so trust in science overall and credibility in a particular debate are different quantities.
- constraint The technology-versus-social gap was largely driven by respondents who voiced distrust, so the discount sits mainly with that group and not evenly across the sample.
- decision Anyone choosing who fronts a claim about health, education or employment has a measured reason to compare a scientist with an advocate or businessperson instead of assuming the scientist wins.
The experiment holds the claim fixed and changes the name attached to it. Respondents assessed statements attributed to an academic scientist, a businessperson, a government official or an issue advocate, on technological and nontechnological topics, so a difference in how convincing a statement looked traces to the speaker [3][4].
The samples were nationally representative adults in the UK and Sweden, surveyed online, and the paper in Research Policy analyses 6,198 complete responses [1][5]. Each person assessed eight combinations of statement and expert type [5]. That is at most 49,584 individual judgments [16]. The write-up does not report effect sizes, the split between the two countries or how many respondents were dropped before the final count.
In our view the topic split is the result to build on. On nontechnological issues such as health, education and employment, businesspeople and issue advocates were perceived as more credible than scientists [7]. The authors say this may reflect how people understand scientific expertise: technology questions may look like territory where scientists hold specialist knowledge, while wider social questions can involve competing values, political judgments and knowledge from outside academia [8].
The distrust data come with a caution. The three shares of respondents who saw scientists as tied to vested interests, as ideologically biased, or as irrelevant to these issues add up to 107 percent, against 56 percent who agreed with at least one [17]. Many respondents therefore held more than one of the views. The researchers found all three forms of distrust associated with the credibility disadvantage, and said the technology-versus-social gap was largely driven by people who expressed them [10][11].
The study does not establish which way that link runs. An association between a stated attitude and a rating does not show that the attitude produced the rating.
"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 [13].
What the study measured is how convincing a statement appeared to respondents online [4]. It did not test whether a higher or lower rating changes what people do with the advice.
What to watch
- Country-level results in the Research Policy paper: if the nontechnological gap shows up in only the UK or only Sweden, the finding narrows.
- Effect sizes for each speaker pairing, which would show whether the gap between scientists and advocates is large enough to change how a claim is received.
- An experiment that changes what respondents are told about scientists' independence, which would test whether distrust causes the gap or only accompanies it.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence58
- Adoption
- Insufficient
- Hype gap−10
- Incentives
- Insufficient
- Confidence55
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
Researchers from The University of Manchester and KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden studied more than 6,000 people in the U.K. and Sweden; the paper is published in the journal Research Policy.
- [2]
Scientists were perceived as more credible than government officials, but were no more credible, and in some circumstances less credible, than businesspeople and advocates.
- [3]
Rather than simply asking people whether they trust science, the study used a survey experiment in which participants assessed statements attributed to an academic scientist, businessperson, government official or issue advocate.
- [4]
The statements covered technological and nontechnological issues, allowing the researchers to examine whether the identity of the person making a claim affected how convincing it appeared.
- [5]
The study used nationally representative samples of adults in the U.K. and Sweden, with data collected online; 6,198 complete responses were included in the analysis and each participant assessed eight different combinations of statements and expert types.
- [6]
When discussing the societal consequences of technological developments, scientists' credibility increased relative to other expert groups.
- [7]
When discussing nontechnological social issues such as health, education or employment, businesspeople and issue advocates were perceived as more credible than scientists.
- [8]
The researchers suggest the difference may reflect different ways people understand scientific expertise: technology-related questions may be seen as areas where scientists possess relevant specialist knowledge, while wider social questions can involve competing values, political judgments and forms of knowledge outside academia.
- [9]
Around 56% of all respondents agreed with at least one of three distrust statements: 37% viewed scientists as influenced by vested interests, 37% considered them ideologically biased and 33% believed scientific knowledge had limited relevance to the societal issues examined.
- [10]
The researchers found that the three forms of distrust were associated with the credibility disadvantage experienced by scientists.
- [11]
The specific credibility gap between technological and nontechnological issues was largely driven by people who expressed these concerns.
- [12]
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; people may broadly support science while being more selective about whether scientists are credible sources of advice on particular social questions.
- [13]
"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.
- [14]
The findings challenge the assumption that scientific expertise automatically gives academics greater credibility when they contribute to wider public debates.
- [15]
Scientists are generally regarded as credible, but their status as experts is more contested when they discuss issues such as health, education and employment.
- [16]
The 6,198 respondents each assessed eight combinations, so at most 49,584 individual judgments.
- [17]
The three distrust shares sum to 107%, against 56% agreeing with at least one, so some respondents agreed with more than one statement.
Get this ledger inside ChatGPT. Ask about any of our stories and the answer brings its figure, each claim’s verdict and the sources. Free, no account.
Sources
1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.
- phys.orgScientific expertise does not guarantee greater credibility in public debates, survey suggests
1 article · October 15, 2026
Topics and entities
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Topics
- Survey researchFollow
- Public trust in scienceFollow
- Science CommunicationFollow
Entities
- University of ManchesterFollow
- KTH Royal Institute of TechnologyFollow
- Research PolicyFollow
- Cornelia LawsonFollow
- Phys.orgFollow