The latest research out of the University of Amsterdam, published in Nature Human Behaviour, Vukašin Gligorić et al, "Political ideology and trust in scientists in the USA," Nature Human Behaviour (2025). DOI: 10.1038/s41562-025-02147-z, seeks to diagnose conservative distrust in science—and, unsurprisingly, finds the patient ill and uncooperative. Conservatives, the study concludes, harbour deep and generalised scepticism toward scientists, extending even into apolitical fields like industrial chemistry. Worse, the study's authors lament, not even tailored messaging showcasing "conservative-friendly" scientists managed to move the needle. The implication is clear: conservatives are irrational, perhaps even unreachable, when it comes to trust in science.

But maybe the problem isn't stubbornness. Maybe the distrust is earned.

Let's start with the framing. The researchers treat trust in science as an unquestioned good, and any deviation from this trust—especially on the right—as a pathology to be corrected. But what if the lack of trust isn't the disease, but a symptom of something real? When institutions that claim scientific neutrality repeatedly wade into moral, economic, and cultural battles with one side's flag planted firmly in their labs, don't be surprised when the other side backs away.

Consider the recent history. The Covid-19 plandemic saw "the science" invoked like a religious text, complete with dogma and heresy. Scientists—at least those amplified by the media and bureaucratic arms of the state—prescribed lockdowns that devastated small businesses, denied children schooling, and enforced an ever-shifting orthodoxy on vaccines and masking, all while enjoying the protections of elite institutions. Meanwhile, dissenting voices, including credentialed scientists, were censored, demonised, or disappeared from public view. Conservatives noticed.

Likewise with climate science: the core data iswrapped in a moral crusade, often indistinguishable from progressive politics. Alarmist predictions become tools to justify massive redistributive economic schemes, anti-capitalist rhetoric, and the reengineering of daily life. It's not that conservatives deny the science of carbon emissions; they distrust the agenda that often rides on its back.

This is the crux the Amsterdam researchers miss. They interpret conservative scepticism as a blanket rejection of reason or empiricism. But it's better understood as a refusal to separate science from the institutional power structures through which it now operates. The lab coat has become political regalia.

That even technical fields like chemistry and physics suffer some collateral distrust doesn't mean conservatives have turned their backs on the Enlightenment. It likely reflects a general wariness of institutions—including universities, the media, and the administrative state—that have long since lost their neutrality. Conservatives don't see scientists as objective arbiters; they see them as part of an ecosystem that overwhelmingly leans left, culturally and politically. And when you're consistently on the receiving end of that ecosystem's disapproval, distrust becomes not only understandable—it becomes prudent.

The researchers themselves note that short interventions—offering examples of conservatives doing science, or emphasising alignment with traditional values—don't work. That's not because conservatives are unreachable. It's because they're not naive. They can spot window dressing when they see it.

If trust in science is to be rebuilt, it won't come from better messaging or more "inclusive" representation. It will come from institutions that can genuinely re-establish impartiality, intellectual humility, and transparency. That's a hard ask in a cultural environment where scientific authority is routinely used as a cudgel to enforce conformity, not as a framework for open inquiry.

Until then, conservative distrust in science may look like obstinacy from the outside. But from within, it's not distrust of science per se—it's distrust of scientism, of politicised expertise, of the priesthood posing as prophets.

And if that trust must be earned, not assumed, maybe that's not such a bad thing. Maybe it's science, not the sceptics, that must prove itself innocent again.

https://phys.org/news/2025-04-americans-distrust-science-survey.html

"Conservative people in America appear to distrust science more broadly than previously thought. Not only do they distrust science that does not correspond to their worldview, but also, compared to liberal Americans, their trust is also lower in fields that contribute to economic growth and productivity. Short interventions aimed at strengthening trust have little effect. This is apparent from new research by social psychologists at the University of Amsterdam, which has now been published in Nature Human Behavior.

Science helps solve major societal problems, such as pandemics and climate change. But if people do not trust scientists, they will be less likely to accept scientific solutions. "In America, but also in other countries, conservatives generally have lower trust in science," says one of the researchers involved, Bastiaan Rutjens. "Since the 1980s, trust of science among conservatives in America has even been plummeting."

Part of the explanation is that scientific findings do not align with conservatives' political or economic beliefs. "But science is also increasingly dismissed in some circles as a "leftist hobby," and universities as strongholds of the leftist establishment," Rutjens adds. The researchers wanted to gain more insight into how trust varies across scientific fields and whether short interventions could strengthen trust.

The researchers asked 7,800 Americans about their views on 35 different scientific professions, ranging from anthropologists to biologists and atomic physicists. They examined the differences between people who identified as conservative or liberal.

They then tested five interventions aimed at increasing trust in scientists specifically among conservatives. These interventions addressed the reasons why people may distrust science: its perceived misalignment with moral values or the idea that scientists are not part of their in-group. The interventions highlighted how scientific results were actually in line with conservative beliefs or showcased conservative scientists.

Less trust across all fields

Liberals were found to have more trust than conservatives in all 35 scientific professions that were examined—not just in fields that align with their priorities, such as climate change or inclusion, but also in areas focused on industry. However, the differences in levels of trust were not entirely uniform, with levels varying depending on the scientific field.

The gap was particularly large for climate scientists, medical researchers and social scientists. "This is likely because findings in these fields often conflict with conservative beliefs, such as a free-market economy or conservative social policies," Rutjens explains.

The trust gap was smaller in technical and applied disciplines, such as industrial chemistry. "These fields are more focused on economic growth and productivity," Rutjens adds. "But it remains striking that even here, conservatives show lower trust. Their distrust extends across science as a whole."

Another striking finding was that none of the five interventions succeeded in increasing conservatives' trust in scientists. Even when the message was well-aligned with their values, their attitude hardly changed. "This suggests that their distrust is deeply-rooted and not easily changed," says Rutjens.

Stronger interventions needed

Rutjens finds it difficult to predict how scientific distrust will evolve. "Extreme things are happening in America right now. But even here in the Netherlands we are seeing unprecedented discussions being held around science, sometimes accompanied by significant distrust."

As the new research shows, it is difficult to strengthen trust in science using quick interventions. "This does not mean it is impossible, but these short interventions do not work to make science more transparent and reliable for certain groups," Rutjens explains. "We need stronger interventions that make science truly personal. What can science contribute to your life, here and now?"