The Real Reason Science Advice is Under Attack—And How to Fix It
Pedro Conceição
Director of the Human Development Report Office, UNDP
Published on April 10th, 2026
How strange to live at a time when science is everywhere, driving unprecedented technological and medical advancement, and yet finding the scientific community seemingly in the crosshairs of intense political upheaval and embroiled in skepticism from some quarters. This is one of the main barriers at present to the effectiveness of science advice.
But what is truly driving this strange state of affairs? If we want to fix the problem, we first need to diagnose the root cause accurately. Surprisingly, the core problem might not actually be about a rejection of science as such, or of science advice in itself.
To understand the attacks on science and their implications for those involved in science advice, we have to look at the broader context of the world we live in and take it as it is today—not as it was, or as we might wish it to be.
The World we Live In: Anxious, Insecure, and Polarized
Before we can address how people view science, we have to address how they view their own lives. The current global mood is heavily defined by a pervasive sense of insecurity, as documented in the 2023/2024 Human Development Report [1]. According to calculations based on the World Values Survey, a staggering 6 in 7 people globally currently feel insecure. Crucially, this feeling of insecurity is increasing across all levels of income; it is not merely a symptom of localized hardship, but a widespread global phenomenon. Along with insecurity, there has been a rising tide of worry.
Insecurity has severe, tangible political consequences. The 2023/2024 Human Development Report also documented that more insecure people tend to be attracted to political extremes (fueling political polarization, which has increased in two-thirds of countries since 2010), tend to trust others less, and feel less in control of their lives. As people feel more unsettled, we are witnessing an increase in support for inward-looking, anti-elite governments, the share of which, at close to a quarter of governments around the world, has reached all-time highs.
Sometimes this is attributed to people moving away from democracy, but the evidence suggests something more nuanced. On the one hand, there remains widespread (at over 90 percent of the global population) steadfast (since the mid-1990s) support for the ideal of democracy, based on data from the World Values Survey analyzed in the 2023/2024 Human Development Report. But at the same time, there has been an increased erosion of democratic norms and practice. More than half of the global population today supports leaders that may undermine democracy.
A Paradox? People Trust Scientists, so Why the Skepticism of Science Advice?
Given the rise of anti-elite populism and deep political polarization, it is easy to assume that the public has simply decided to stop trusting experts. However, the data tells a remarkably different—and much more hopeful—story. People actually trust scientists, in the case of the US, more than they trust any other group or institution.
Figure 1 - Recent U.S. trends in public confidence in scientists, medical scientists and other institutions [2]
The real issue is not a baseline lack of trust, but rather the fact that confidence in science has become collateral damage in broader processes of political polarization. Just as in other domains of society, there is increased polarization regarding confidence in science.
We can see this clearly in the realm of environmental policy. Interestingly, the public is largely not polarized on the fundamental importance of climate change; majorities generally agree that climate change is an important problem and that their countries should take measures to fight it [3]. However, populations become deeply polarized [4] when they identify strongly on whether we are doing too much, or not enough, when it comes to taking specific action on climate change. This is because policy actions become tied to "oppositional identities"—identities defined primarily by being the exact opposite of the other group.
The Social Determination of "Bad Beliefs"
When we see the public rejecting scientific consensus, our first instinct is often to blame a lack of information or a failure of critical thinking. But, again, a deeper examination of how people come to hold beliefs points to the fact that “bad beliefs” – beliefs that go astray from facts – are largely determined by the "epistemic environment" [5] in which people live. We must examine the social cues that tell us who to defer to and the social mechanisms that lead us to trust one source over another. Ultimately, political outcomes are the result of both the demand for, and the supply of, populist narratives that exploit these social cues.
Four Opportunities for Action
Interpreting the attacks on science through this broader framework of anxiety and polarization reveals four distinct opportunities for action:
Opportunity 1: Correct misperceptions about facts. A recent survey [6] found that while close to 70 percent of the global population would be willing to contribute 1 percent of their income to mitigate climate change, they perceived that only 43 percent shared the same willingness. Correcting these misperceptions about what others think about climate action can causally increase support for climate action [7].
Opportunity 2: Correct misperceptions about what groups believe others think of them. People often vastly overestimate [8] the extent to which their political opponents accept basic moral wrongs, fueling divides. By actively correcting these misperceptions about "the other side" we can successfully reduce partisan animosity [9].
Opportunity 3: Correct misperceptions about what scientists do. There is often a gap between what scientists actually do and what the public perceives they do. While the public often assumes scientists merely catalog objective facts, scientists increasingly view their role as actively engaging in solving societal problems. Improving transparency about the scientific process and the role of scientists in society can bridge this divide.
Figure 2 - Perceived research priorities for four goals of scientific research and desired research priorities [10].
Opportunity 4: Focus on values and perceptions of superiority. The problem is often less about a lack of trust, and more about clashing values and perceptions of elite superiority. When scientists are viewed as talking down to the public, oppositional identities may flare up.
Figure 3 - Public perception of scientists in the United States, adapted from Lupia et al 2024 [2].
A Possible Way Forward
Moving forward, the scientific community, decision makers, and the public need to recognize and accept that science is an input into decision-making; it does not determine it.
Furthermore, because scientific findings naturally change with the progress of research, fostering a cultural understanding of the scientific method matters far more than demanding blind faith in specific, point-in-time findings.
Ultimately, bridging the way forward requires finding a balance between two paradigms of mobilizing science [11]:
Dissemination: Seeking to inform, reframe, or correct beliefs through the distribution of facts.
Participation: Emphasizing engagement to improve public understanding, while equally prioritizing scientists’ understanding of the public’s actual concerns, needs, and values.
By moving toward participatory engagement, the scientific community can navigate the unfolding political upheaval, contribute to soothe rising insecurities, and help rebuild debates and decision making grounded in shared facts.
References
UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2024. Human Development Report 2023-24: Breaking the gridlock: Reimagining cooperation in a polarized world. New York. https://hdr.undp.org/content/human-development-report-2023-24
Lupia A, Allison DB, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Heimberg J, Skipper M, Wolf SM. Trends in U.S. public confidence in science and opportunities for progress. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2024 Mar 4;121(11). Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38437563/
1.Dechezleprêtre A, Fabre A, Kruse T, Planterose B, Sanchez Chico A, Stantcheva S. Fighting Climate Change: International Attitudes toward Climate Policies. American Economic Review. 2025 Apr 1;115(4):1258–300. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20230501
Henkel L, Sprengholz P, Betsch C, Böhm R. Understanding and mitigating climate policy polarisation [Pre-print]. PsyArXiv; 2025. Available from: osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/tmnpv_v2
Levy, N. (2021). Bad Beliefs: Why They Happen to Good People (1st edn). Oxford University Press: Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192895325.001.0001
Andre P, Boneva T, Chopra F, Falk A. Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action. Nature Climate Change. 2024 Mar 1;14(3):253–9. doi:10.1038/s41558-024-01925-3
1.Andre P, Boneva T, Chopra F, Falk A. Misperceived Social Norms and Willingness to Act Against Climate Change. The review of economics and statistics. 2024 Jun 14;1–46.doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01468
Puryear C, Kubin E, Schein C, Bigman YE, Ekstrom P, Gray K. People believe political opponents accept blatant moral wrongs, fueling partisan divides. PNAS Nexus. 2024 Jul 1;3(7). https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae244
Voelkel, J. G., Stagnaro, M. N., Chu, J. Y., Pink, S. L., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., Ghezae, I., Cashman, M., Adjodah, D., Allen, L. G., Allis, L. V., Baleria, G., Ballantyne, N., Van Bavel, J. J., Blunden, H., Braley, A., Bryan, C. J., Celniker, J. B., Cikara, M., … Willer, R. (2024). Megastudy testing 25 treatments to reduce antidemocratic attitudes and partisan animosity. Science, 386(6719), eadh4764. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adh4764
Cologna, V., and Mede, N. G., and Berger, S., and Besley, J., and Brick, C., and Joubert, M., and Maibach, E. W.et al. 2025. “Trust in Scientists and Their Role in Society across 68 Countries.” Nature Human Behaviour 9(4): 713–730. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02090-5
Druckman JN, Ellenbogen KM, Scheufele DA, Yanovitzky I. An agenda for science communication research and practice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2025 Jul 8;122(27):e2400932122. doi:10.1073/pnas.2400932122
Copyright: © 2026 [author(s)]. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in Frontiers Policy Labs is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
