{
  "id": 14717872,
  "title": "Scientific expertise does not guarantee greater credibility in public debates, survey suggests",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/10/15/scientific-expertise-does-not-guarantee-greater-credibility-in-public",
  "topic": "science",
  "section": "Science",
  "published": "2026-10-15T14:40:04.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Phys.org",
    "slug": "phys-org",
    "url": "https://phys.org/news/2026-10-scientific-expertise-greater-credibility-debates.html"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "A recent survey of over 6,000 individuals in the U.K. and Sweden reveals that scientific expertise does not necessarily translate into greater credibility in public debates, according to researchers from The University of Manchester and KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. The study, published in the journal Research Policy, challenges the assumption that scientific authority automatically endows academics with enhanced credibility when contributing to wider public discourse.\n\nThe researchers conducted a survey experiment involving nationally representative samples of adults, asking participants to assess statements attributed to four different types of experts: academic scientists, businesspeople, government officials, and issue advocates. These statements covered both technological and non-technological issues. The findings indicated that scientists were perceived as more credible when discussing technological societal consequences, but their credibility was not consistently higher than that of businesspeople or advocates when addressing non-technological social issues, such as health, education, or employment.\n\nThis discrepancy in perceived credibility is particularly pronounced when scientists discuss non-technological topics. Businesspeople and issue advocates were rated as more credible than scientists in these contexts. The researchers suggest that this may stem from differing perceptions of the relevance and applicability of scientific knowledge to broader societal issues. Participants were also asked about their perceptions of scientists' independence, ideological bias, and the relevance of their research to societal concerns. Approximately 56% of respondents expressed at least one of these concerns, indicating a potential source of distrust that contributes to scientists' perceived credibility disadvantage.\n\nThe study highlights a distinction between general public trust in science and the credibility of scientists when acting as experts in specific public debates. While people may generally support science, they appear to be more selective about whether they view scientists as credible sources of advice on particular social questions. The findings suggest that universities, scientists, and research funders must carefully consider how to enhance the credibility of scientists in various domains to ensure that research has a wider societal impact.",
  "summary": "A study of more than 6,000 people in the U.K. and Sweden suggests that although scientists are generally regarded as credible, their status as experts is more contested when they discuss issues such as health, education and employment.",
  "key_points": [
    "Scientists not always more credible than businesspeople or advocates in public debates",
    "Perceived credibility higher for scientists on technological societal consequences",
    "Distrust in scientists' independence and relevance of research to society"
  ],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}