General public surveys found that 90 percent say they trust science. Digging deeper, 40 percent of those same people surveyed say, \u201cI only believe science that aligns with my personal beliefs.\u201d While most people say they trust science, many are more influenced by personal beliefs. These beliefs are shaped and reinforced by social environments and how close or distant people feel to science (Veckalov et al., 2024).<\/p>\n
Psychological closeness to science tends to predict trust. If you have never done a science experiment in school, never read a popular science magazine like Psychology Today or a science article in a journal like Nature, and have never known any scientists in your life, you might see science as a strange, distant, irrelevant pursuit. <\/p>\n
Also, most people pay attention<\/a> to what they feel is personally relevant right now. Science that addresses distant concerns, such as climate science, can be easier for some people to disregard. It helps to show people how science is relevant to their community now (e.g., clean air and water) (Veckalov et al. 2024).<\/p>\n Science Skepticism Has Consequences<\/p>\n On April 21, 2026, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth sent a memo to service members that stated: \u201cOur new policy is simple: If you, an American warrior entrusted to defend this nation, believe that the flu vaccine is in your best interest, then you are free to take it; you should. But we will not force you\u201d (Lopez, 2026).<\/p>\n Less than two months later, a flu outbreak sickened 160 new recruits, leaving one dead only six weeks into his training (Jaffe & Haberman, 2026). Sleeping<\/a> on bunk beds, exercising, and eating communal meals together placed them in a high-risk environment for the spread of infectious diseases.<\/p>\n Infectious disease scientists study herd immunity and how to prevent the spread of disease. Herd immunity occurs when a significant percentage of a population has acquired immunity to the infection. The exact percentage required for herd immunity varies by type of infectious disease. In general, the more people vaccinated, the better. <\/p>\n Scientists create prediction models to help protect public health and safety. Had all those recruits been vaccinated against the most recent flu virus, they likely would have had herd immunity, preventing its spread.<\/p>\n When leaders erode trust in scientific consensus, individuals make decisions based on social and\/or emotional determinations. Psychology researchers have found that people are more likely to get vaccinated if they understand the concept of herd immunity than if they only consider self-interest (Moussaoui et al. 2024). Hegseth\u2019s \u201cAmerican warriors\u201d might have avoided getting sick had they been led to consider one another.<\/p>\n Researchers found that those who felt socially distant from science were more hesitant about the COVID-19<\/a> vaccine. Those who perceived science as relevant to them and as a useful discipline to pursue were more likely to get vaccinated. Those who saw scientists as distant, unapproachable, and unrelatable were less likely to take the vaccine (Veckalov et al., 2024).<\/p>\n Which Jobs Do People Consider Most Trustworthy?<\/p>\n The occupation people rank the most trustworthy is \u201cscientist.\u201d In fact, the more sciency the job title sounds, the more people rate it as trustworthy. Scientists were labeled more trustworthy than clergy, sheriffs, and security guards. So why do so many people reject scientific consensus? Researchers found that people trust and esteem science that aligns with their interests and beliefs. When scientific claims threaten an individual\u2019s beliefs, values, or interests, they will tend to reject that science (Sutton et al., 2026).<\/p>\n If your business profits depend on dumping toxic waste into the ocean, you might cherry-pick the science to show that your waste isn\u2019t harmful to the environment<\/a>. If climate science challenges the oil and gas industry, it might be worth billions or trillions of dollars to suppress that research. It might be worth a lot of money to fund research that minimizes any damage to human health and welfare. If your family income depends on that massive industry, you might be prone to disbelieving climate scientists (Sutton et al., 2026).<\/p>\n Our rooted attitudes, stemming from identity<\/a>, ideologies, social relationships, and fears, shape our acceptance or rejection of science (Sutton et al., 2026). If scientific research suggests my occupation might disappear due to AI<\/a>, I might be inclined to seek data that assuages my fears. As social media<\/a> silos us into types based on interests and influencers, the need for fact-checking and scientific thinking can seem urgent.<\/p>\n Skepticism Is Fundamental to Science<\/p>\n I commonly hear people ask, \u201cDo you believe in science?\u201d as if scientific inquiry were the same as religious belief. Some say, \u201cI believe in God, not science,\u201d as if religious observance canceled out a scientific exploration of our world.<\/p>\n Skepticism is built into scientific models of inquiry. When a scientist embarks on a study, they begin with the \u201cnull hypothesis,\u201d which basically says, \u201cI\u2019m starting with the assumption that my experiment won\u2019t work.\u201d If your experiment shows an effect, it must also be large enough that it couldn\u2019t have happened by chance. That\u2019s where statistics and math come in to help scientists determine whether the study\u2019s results were due to the variables being tested or to random chance.<\/p>\n Do we want to understand our world based on what feels good, what seems right, or what most people believe? Or do we want the important things, like food safety, health, clean air, and water, to be tested by scientists who can identify and find remedies for what can kill us? Scientists research global disease outbreaks to help us predict and prepare for the next pandemic. That seems important (Ngongo et al., 2026).<\/p>\n