If you thought conservatives distrusted climate science and gender studies but were fine with physics, think again. A sweeping new study reveals a much bleaker situation. Conservative Americans don’t just mistrust “controversial” science. They mistrust nearly all of it—across 35 disciplines, from anthropology to atomic physics.
And here’s the kicker: no quick-fix interventions—no curated messages, no handpicked conservative scientists—could shake that distrust.
Conservatives distrust all science, not just the “liberal” kind
“In America, but also in other countries, conservatives generally have lower trust in science,” says Bastiaan Rutjens, one of the study’s authors. This isn’t exactly news, but the extent of the distrust was stunning.
The study surveyed 7,800 Americans, asking them to rate their trust in scientists across 35 disciplines—from anthropology and sociology to physics and industrial chemistry. Participants also reported their political orientation, allowing the researchers to compare responses from self-identified conservatives and liberals.
You’d expect the biggest gaps in areas like climate science or social research; and you’d be right. “This is likely because findings in these fields often conflict with conservative beliefs, such as a free-market economy or conservative social policies,” says Rutjens.
But the fact that the same pattern holds for physics or biology? That’s new. It’s not just ideological rejection or political polarization, it’s a systemic problem.
Sometimes, you can intuitively see a link. Take, for instance, virologists. These were the 3rd most distrusted type of scientist by conservatives, relatively to liberals. That’s probably linked to the COVID-19 pandemic, where lockdowns, mask mandates, and vaccines became political topics (even though, fundamentally, they’re scientific).
But Food Scientist and Astrophysicist are also distrusted by conservatives. Data Scientist and Hydrologist were also distrusted, and it’s not clear why.
The trust gap was lowest for Mathematician, Zoologist, and Marine Biologist. But the bottom line is that, for every scientific profession, conservatives showed more distrust.
Researchers tried to find an easy fix. They couldn’t
The researchers tried five kinds of nudges—short interventions meant to make science more relatable or values-aligned. They tried messages aligning science with conservative values, showcasing right-leaning scientists, framing scientists as part of conservatives’ social ingroup, using moral language familiar to conservatives, and emphasizing the practical benefits of science. Despite these tailored approaches, none of the interventions significantly boosted trust.
Let’s put it this way. None of them worked. Let that sink in: even when science was dressed in red-state values and served on a silver platter, conservatives didn’t bite.
“This suggests that their distrust is deeply-rooted and not easily changed,” Rutjens concludes.
It’s not about how science is presented. It’s about what it represents—a threat, maybe, to certain moral or cultural frameworks.
This has serious implications
Science helps societies navigate complex challenges—pandemics, climate change, technological disruption. But when large swaths of the public see it as elite propaganda, the whole system strains.
Rutjens doesn’t sugarcoat it:
“Extreme things are happening in America right now. But even here in the Netherlands we are seeing unprecedented discussions being held around science, sometimes accompanied by significant distrust.”
If something doesn’t change, it can spell disaster. We’re already seeing some of these effects, from lower vaccination rates in Republican counties to book bans and a constant backlash against education. If this erosion of trust continues, it won’t just cripple policy—it will rot the foundation of democracy. In fact, this is exactly what we’re seeing in the US now.
The authors argue that longer, more personal efforts are needed—interventions that connect science to individuals’ lives in real, tangible ways.
“We need stronger interventions that make science truly personal. What can science contribute to your life, here and now?” Rutjens says.
But that’s easier said than done. You can’t turn a climate model into a sermon and you certainly can’t out-argue a worldview with pie charts.
And if the public’s trust is gone, it’s not just scientists who should be worried. It’s everyone.
The study “Political ideology and trust in scientists in the USA” was published in the journal Nature Human Behavior.
