Published in Nature Human Behaviour, the findings revealed most people in most countries still trust scientists, with more than half also believing scientists should be more involved in society and policymaking.

Despite constant claims of a crisis in trust in science, the study, led by Harvard University and ETH Zurich, revealed a majority of the 71,922 respondents trust scientists, also finding them to be qualified (78%), honest (57%) and concerned about people’s wellbeing (56%). 83% of respondents also believe scientists should communicate with the public.

Dr Robert Ross, part of the research team alongside Associate Professor Mark Alfano, Professor Neil Levy and Dr Marinus Ferreira, shares insights into Australian perceptions.

“A very positive finding from this research is that Australians had the fifth highest level of trust in scientists out of the 68  countries that were studied, and New Zealanders weren’t far behind at ninth.”

The findings also found substantial differences between countries and population groups. Results show that in Western countries, people with right-wing political views tend to trust scientists less than those with left-wing views. However, in most countries, political orientation and trust in scientists were unrelated.

“Trust in science is generally high all around the globe, but it lags in certain populations, especially in post-Soviet states, countries with high economic inequality, and among individuals who adopt a worldview that prioritises social dominance hierarchies,” says Associate Professor Alfano.

“To me, this suggests that, to the extent that we face a crisis of trust, it is not a problem that can be solved by improving science or science communication. Instead, we need to improve the political economy of our societies so that it becomes more natural for people to trust institutions that are already, to a large extent, trustworthy.”

The study also found less than half of respondents (42%) believe scientists pay attention to the views of others and the priorities of science do not always align with their own priorities. Participants assigned high priority to research that improves public health, solves energy problems and reduces poverty. Research on developing defence and military technology was assigned a lower priority, with participants stating their belief that science prioritises developing these more than they desire.

Australian researchers also conducted a secondary study using the same survey data to examine the prevalence of anticipatory ‘solastalgia’ – distress about expected environmental change – in Australia and New Zealand. Solastagia, coined by merging Latin terms for solace and pain, helps capture the complex psychological experience of living through environmental loss.

Participants tended to agree to having experienced this phenomenon, with younger participants reporting greater anticipatory solastalgia than older participants in both Australia and New Zealand. There were no significant differences between levels of anticipatory solastalgia among Australians or New Zealanders living in urban areas and rural areas.

The study found that anticipatory solastalgia shared the strongest associations with peoples’ expectations about future climate impacts. Specifically, those who believed that climate change will more severely increase extreme weather events tended to report greater anticipatory solastalgia. This finding is consistent with a previous study from the University of Dortmund which theorised that the emotional responses to projected future environmental risks can be even stronger than emotions caused by past environmental consequences.