Public trust in scientists influences how people respond to scientific issues such as public health, climate change, and misinformation. Although concerns have grown about misinformation and scepticism affecting trust in science, recent studies indicate that public trust in scientists remains relatively high in many countries. These findings underscore the need for country-specific research to better understand the local factors that shape trust in science.

A recent South African study aimed to identify socio-demographic factors related to trust, understand what South Africans find trustworthy in scientists, and explore public expectations regarding the role of scientists in society and policymaking. The research was conducted by an international team of researchers, including researchers from Stellenbosch University and the DSTI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and Science, Technology and Innovation Policy (SciSTIP).

To achieve the research aims, the researchers conducted a secondary analysis of South African data from the international Trust in Science and Science-Related Populism (TISP) Many Labs Project, surveying 1 027 respondents aged 18 and older. A weighted sample of 1 000 respondents was used for quantitative analyses to better reflect the South African population by age, gender, and education level. The survey measured trust in scientists across competence, integrity, benevolence and openness and examined public perceptions of science priorities and the societal roles of scientists. Additionally, a thematic analysis of two open-ended questions was conducted to identify beliefs about scientists’ trustworthiness and who benefits from scientific research.

The research findings indicate that South Africans have a moderately high level of trust in scientists, ranking 23rd among 68 countries in the global study. Scientists were perceived as highly competent, particularly regarding their intelligence and qualifications, and were generally viewed as motivated to improve public well-being. However, perceptions of their integrity and transparency were more moderate. Trust in scientists was closely associated with trust in the scientific method, with more than 75% of respondents identifying scientific research methods as the most reliable way of determining whether something is true or false. Respondents identified evidence, rigorous scientific methods, honesty, strong qualifications, accountability, and effective communication as key characteristics of trustworthy scientists, while some expressed distrust related to political influence, financial interests, and perceived conflicts between science and religion.

The study also explored factors influencing trust in scientists, revealing that men reported slightly higher levels of trust than women, with trust increasing with age. Respondents aged 40 to 49 reported the highest levels of trust, while urban residents exhibited slightly greater trust than their rural counterparts. Factors such as education, income, and political orientation did not significantly predict trust in South Africa, although religiosity showed a weak positive association with trust. Respondents identified solving energy problems, improving public health, and reducing poverty as the highest priorities for science, while expressing a desire for greater emphasis on poverty. They also raised concerns about who benefits from scientific advances, with many believing that wealthy individuals and developed countries benefit the most, while Africa benefits the least, highlighting concerns about the unequal distribution of the benefits of science.

The research indicates that nearly 80% of respondents believe scientists should communicate more with the public and play a greater role in policymaking. Respondents also expressed some hesitation about scientists working closely with politicians. The findings highlight the importance of science communication and public engagement in South Africa. The researchers conclude that maintaining and strengthening public trust will require openness, transparency, meaningful engagement with diverse communities, and a more equitable distribution of the benefits of science.