Public debates about science often return to the question of trust. Do people still trust scientists? Do they still trust doctors? And how does faith, or the absence of it, shape that trust? Drawing on new survey data from more than 11,000 people in England, Steven Pickering, Martin Ejnar Hansen, Han Dorussen, Jason Reifler, Thomas Scotto, Yosuke Sunahara, and Dorothy Yen show that while most people have high confidence in scientists and doctors, there are meaningful differences between religious groups, and a surprising pattern among those who refuse to disclose their religion at all.
The quiet importance of trust
The pandemic reminded us how much modern societies rely on scientific authority. From vaccines to public health messaging, trust in experts became a political and moral question as much as a scientific one. Yet trust is not evenly distributed. Our study looks at how it varies across faiths, political orientations, gender, and education in England: a relatively secular context compared to the United States, but one where religious belonging still carries social meaning.
Across the board, trust in both scientists and medical doctors remains high, averaging just under five on a seven-point scale. But beneath that apparent consensus lie consistent divides. Those with higher education express greater trust in both professions, while those on the political right are less trusting. Women tend to have slightly less trust in doctors than men, though not in scientists.
Religion also matters, but not always in the way we might expect.
Faith, doubt and scientific authority
For most major faith groups, there is no simple opposition between religion and science. The majority of Church of England and Roman Catholic respondents, for instance, express similar levels of trust in scientists as the non-religious. Yet among some smaller groups, especially Muslim and other non-Christian respondents, trust is somewhat lower. This does not imply hostility to science, but rather reflects the ways in which communities’ experiences with institutions shape how expertise is received.
Institutional trust, not theology, seems to be the deeper driver. Where people feel their communities are marginalised or misrepresented, that scepticism can extend to science and medicine. Public health campaigns during COVID-19, for example, often struggled to reach minority communities not because of “anti-science” sentiment, but because trust had already been eroded in other areas of social life.
The puzzle of “Prefer not to say”
The most intriguing finding, however, comes from a group that rarely features in debates about faith and science: those who “prefer not to say” when asked about religion. This group (around three per cent of our sample) reports significantly lower trust in both doctors and scientists, even after controlling for education, ideology, and general trust in others.
Those who skipped the question entirely showed no such effect, suggesting that “prefer not to say” is not simple inattention but a deliberate act of withholding. In survey research, non-disclosure is often associated with privacy concerns or perceptions of stigma. What seems to distinguish this group is not religious identity, but disclosure style: a reluctance to reveal personal information even in an anonymous survey.
This pattern hints at a subtler relationship between trust in science and trust in institutions. People who are wary of revealing who they are may also be less inclined to extend trust to authority figures, even those in benevolent professions like medicine or research. Their reticence offers a reminder that trust is not just a matter of belief, but of comfort with visibility.
Religion without declaration
England today is among the most secular countries in Europe, yet religion continues to mark cultural boundaries. Many people who describe themselves as having “no religion” still draw on moral or ritual traditions shaped by faith, while others maintain a spiritual identity outside organised religion. Against this backdrop, “prefer not to say” may reflect neither disbelief nor piety, but ambivalence toward the social act of classification itself.
In that sense, the group’s lower trust in experts could signal a broader withdrawal from public discourse: a quiet refusal to participate in categories that feel intrusive or irrelevant. For scholars of religion, this points to the need to study not only faith but non-declaration: how the act of withholding identity interacts with civic life, political engagement, and epistemic trust.
Lessons for science communication
Understanding these nuances matters for policy. Efforts to rebuild trust in science often focus on improving factual communication or countering misinformation. Our results suggest that relational factors, such as who is speaking, and how audiences identify with them, are just as important.
Public health messaging that treats “the public” as a single audience risks missing those whose trust is most fragile. Faith-based and community organisations can help bridge that gap. When scientific messages are delivered by trusted intermediaries, like local doctors, religious leaders, or community figures, they are more likely to be heard as legitimate rather than imposed.
Beyond faith and scepticism
Religion and science are often framed as opposing worldviews, but in England the more telling divide may be between those who engage openly with institutions and those who stand apart from them. The “prefer not to say” respondents remind us that distrust does not always stem from ideology or doctrine; sometimes it arises from disengagement and privacy.
As public debates about AI, climate change, and bioethics continue, the challenge will be to ensure that trust in expertise is not limited to those comfortable declaring who they are. Silence, too, tells us something about belief, and about belonging.
Photo by RDNE Stock Project
Their full paper, “Trust in Scientists and Doctors: The Roles of Faith, Political Orientation, Education and Gender,” is available open access in Public Understanding of Science, at https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251386562.
More information about their work on trust can be found at TrustTracker.org.
Note: This article gives the views of the author, not the position of LSE Religion and Global Society nor the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Click here to sign up to the LSE Religion and Global Society newsletter.