Public Skepticism Toward Science and Technology Grows

Public Trust in Science Continues to Decline Following Pandemic

Americans’ confidence in science has fallen significantly since the COVID-19 pandemic began, according to a 2023 Pew Research Center report. Only 57% of U.S. adults now believe science has a “mostly positive” impact on society—down 8 percentage points from 2021 and 16 percentage points from pre-pandemic levels.

This erosion of trust represents more than just fluctuating public opinion; it signals a fundamental shift in how citizens perceive knowledge authorities and scientific institutions. Fields including medicine, climate science, artificial intelligence, and economics all face growing skepticism.

The phenomenon is reshaping public participation in innovation, policy development, and the very concept of shared truth. Multiple factors have contributed to this trend, including pandemic-related misinformation, increasing political polarization, and the rapid pace of technological change transforming daily life.

“What used to unite people around common understanding is presently dividing them,” notes researcher Giri Viswanathan, who has studied the trend extensively.

This represents a stark reversal from historical attitudes. Since the Industrial Revolution, science and technology have generally been revered as symbols of progress and human advancement. Breakthroughs in energy, communications, medicine, and engineering transformed societies, extended lifespans, improved education, and built modern economies.

Philosopher Karl Marx considered technology a force that organized human relationships, while sociologist W.F. Ogburn observed that social mores consistently lag behind technological innovation, forcing society into a constant game of catch-up.

The United Nations has recognized this growing problem. In 2020, UN Secretary-General António Guterres warned that “deep and growing global mistrust” represented one of our era’s key challenges, urging leaders to rebuild confidence in science and evidence-based policymaking.

Research into why people distrust science reveals several patterns. Contrary to some assumptions, science skeptics aren’t typically highly educated—though many believe themselves to be. Five years of survey data indicate that overconfidence is the primary driver behind skepticism toward vaccines, genetically modified foods, and even basic scientific principles.

“False consensus” effects also play a significant role, creating echo chambers where misinformation thrives. For some individuals, anti-science positions provide emotional reassurance amid uncertainty, while conspiracy theories about microchips in vaccines or 5G causing COVID-19 offer a false sense of certainty and control.

The fundamental communication challenge stems from different operational frameworks. Science functions on falsifiability—the principle that legitimate theories must be testable and potentially disprovable. Conspiracy theories, by contrast, often rely on claims that cannot be disproven.

“When a scientist debates someone who doesn’t trust the scientific process, they’re operating under completely different rules,” explains researcher Laurence D. Hurst. “Logical proof has little impact when distrust is rooted in identity, ideology, or emotion.”

Several approaches may help rebuild public confidence. Research suggests messenger credibility matters as much as the message itself. University professors and independent researchers generally enjoy higher trust levels than politicians or corporate figures.

Clearly demonstrating scientific consensus also proves effective. Studies show that when people understand a large majority of experts share a view—such as on climate change—they become more likely to accept that position themselves.

Education strategies are evolving too. Rather than simply debunking myths after they spread, scientists increasingly focus on “prebunking”—preparing the public to recognize manipulation tactics before encountering misinformation.

Acknowledging uncertainty represents another crucial element, particularly in emerging fields like artificial intelligence or pandemic research. Public trust erodes when scientists appear to “change their minds,” even though revision based on new evidence is fundamental to the scientific method.

“Emphasizing that this process of revision is a virtue, not a vice, can help restore credibility,” notes Hurst.

The path forward requires recognizing that the crisis isn’t simply about facts, but relationships. In an era where online platforms amplify all voices regardless of expertise, rebuilding trust demands empathy, openness, and genuine dialogue between experts and the public.

Science has always been a human endeavor—flawed, iterative, and self-correcting. What’s changed is our relationship with it. Addressing this disconnect means repositioning science not as an authoritarian voice, but as a collaborative pursuit of knowledge in which society actively participates.