New research led by the University of Rochester shows that who scientists are strongly shapes public confidence and the direction of science-based policymaking

Rochester, New York – A sweeping new study led by the University of Rochester is reshaping the national conversation about public confidence in science. The research, carried out with partners from nine universities and research institutions across the United States, suggests that who conducts scientific work plays a major role in whether Americans trust the findings that shape public policy.

Published in Nature Human Behaviour, the study offers a revealing look at how the demographics of scientists influence perceptions of credibility. Its authors argue that improving diversity within the scientific workforce is not only a matter of fairness or representation—it may be essential for strengthening the bond between scientific institutions and the public they aim to serve.

James Druckman, the Martin Brewer Anderson Professor of Political Science at the University of Rochester and the study’s lead author, summarizes the finding in straightforward terms: “When it comes to trusting scientists, who is practicing science matters almost as much to Americans as what their science reveals.”

For years, surveys have shown that Americans generally hold scientists in high regard. Yet behind those positive ratings sit stubborn gaps among different groups. Longstanding patterns show lower levels of trust in science among women, Black Americans, rural residents, highly religious individuals, people with lower levels of education, and members of the working class. These disparities have been recognized for decades, but the forces that sustain them have been harder to pin down.

Read also: State Police investigation results in arrest after aggravated animal cruelty case involving a deceased dog in Salisbury

Druckman says the new study pushes past surface-level observations by identifying how identity influences trust itself. “Our work shows that people generally exhibit more trust in scientists who share their characteristics,” he explains. This finding takes on added weight when paired with another statistic uncovered in the research: white men account for nearly two-thirds of all U.S. scientists, and 92 percent of scientists come from non-rural backgrounds.

That imbalance, the authors argue, is not merely cosmetic. It sends cues—sometimes subtle, sometimes obvious—about who belongs in science and who science is meant to serve. When scientific institutions do not resemble the communities they represent, trust can falter. And when trust falters, so can the willingness of policymakers and citizens to act on scientific advice.

Druckman notes the practical stakes. “Scientists provide important information to the public,” he says. “Whether that information influences decision-making depends on trust.”

The study found that trust was not distributed evenly or built for the same reasons across demographic lines. Women and people of color, for example, tended to place significant weight on the demographic backgrounds of scientists when evaluating claims. Representation mattered to them not only symbolically but as a signal of fairness and reliability. Men and white Americans, by contrast, demonstrated more varied influences on their trust decisions, with fewer relying heavily on demographic cues.

The researchers did more than measure first impressions—they also explored how demographic perceptions ripple outward into broader beliefs about science. Participants who viewed scientists as socially distant from themselves were more likely to question whether scientists remain objective, or whether scientific discoveries actually help people like them. These doubts strongly shaped their overall willingness to trust the scientific community.

Read also: Students from Francis Parker School No. 23 launch a lively Hooping for Hunger event to support families needing food assistance

Still, the study’s authors caution against overly simple conclusions. Several groups, such as Asian Americans, reported consistently high trust in scientists regardless of representation. This pattern shows that while demographic similarity can influence trust, it is not the only factor. Historical context, cultural attitudes, and experiences with scientific institutions all play complex roles.

Even so, the researchers argue that the findings highlight a pressing need for action. A scientific workforce that mirrors the diversity of the country could help rebuild fragile connections at a time when public debates over vaccines, climate research, public health, and emerging technologies continue to swell. Growing waves of misinformation and political polarization have already strained public confidence. Broadening participation in science, they suggest, could serve as a stabilizing force.

The report points to demographic inclusiveness as a key part of addressing skepticism and strengthening the legitimacy of scientific advice. If people see scientists who share their backgrounds, their communities, and their lived experiences, they may feel more confident that scientific work is grounded in fairness and intended for everyone’s benefit.

Druckman puts the idea simply and powerfully: “When people can see themselves in science, they’re more likely to believe in it.”

The study adds new urgency to national efforts aimed at expanding access to STEM education, widening recruitment pipelines, and encouraging institutions to build environments where diverse scientists can thrive. Beyond improving opportunities, these changes could shape the future of how Americans absorb and respond to scientific information.

In a moment when public trust in institutions can no longer be taken for granted, the findings serve as a reminder that the face of science matters. And according to the researchers behind the study, ensuring that scientists come from every corner of society may be one of the most important steps toward ensuring that scientific knowledge continues to guide public life.