Foreword

The PAS series continues to highlight a public broadly at ease with science and technology, who value the contributions of science and scientists to their daily lives, wider society and the economy.

Eight in ten of the public thought scientists made a valuable contribution to society (82%). Roughly two-thirds felt technology was improving people’s lives (67%). A similar proportion agreed that research and innovation made a direct contribution to economic growth (69%). Across the survey, the concepts of “science” and “research and innovation” were similarly understood.

Long-term trends – from the first PAS survey in 2000 and earlier social attitudes surveys dating back to 1988 – show how attitudes have moved over a generation. People have become more accustomed to scientific development and technological change. In 1988, 32% felt that that the benefits of science were outweighed by harmful effects. This has more than halved, to an historic low of 13%. In 2000, 66% believed that science and technology were too specialised for most people to understand. This has dropped to 45%.

The legacy of the Covid-19 pandemic – when science and scientists took a front-and-centre role in people’s lives – appears to reverberate through public attitudes.

PAS 2025 finds fewer people feeling completely disengaged from science compared to 2019 (the previous survey). This time, fewer people felt that science was “not for them” and fewer said they rarely or never spoke about science with friends and family.

However, the increase in the numbers engaging with science has not necessarily led to deeper engagement. Instead, various findings and trends point to a sense of uncertainty or ambivalence. That is, relatively large proportions providing neutral, rather than outright negative or positive responses. This could be because people are in two minds, indifferent, lacking interest, or do not feel they know enough to judge – or for a mix of these reasons.

There was often uncertainty or ambivalence around the impacts of science – how it informed policymaking, how it could help to address big societal challenges, and how it affected people personally. Two-fifths (43%) neither agreed nor disagreed that government ministers regularly use science to inform decision-making. And while 65% felt that science had increased the prosperity of society, only 43% agreed that it had increased their own personal prosperity.

There was also considerable uncertainty around the intentions and work of scientists. Half (51%) neither agreed nor disagreed that scientists know best what is good for us. While 43% felt that scientists were ethical, roughly the same proportion said they were neither ethical nor unethical, or that it depended on the situation. And compared to 2019, more people neither agreed nor disagreed that scientists want to make life better for the average person. These findings may help to contextualise reduced trust in scientists working for government to follow rules and regulations (down from 76% in 2019 to 69% in 2025) and those working in private companies (down from 57% in 2019 to 48% in 2025).

New media, encompassing social media platforms and YouTube, has become one of the main ways for people to access information on science.

In the fortnight before the survey, people were just as likely to have actively sought science-related information via new media as via traditional media (TV, radio, newspapers or magazines – including online editions). Over eight in ten said they trusted the most recent information they had sought out, regardless of how it was arrived at – be it traditional media, new media, or through friends, family and colleagues (including via WhatsApp).

However, despite these new ways of accessing information, the number of people feeling informed about science has fallen (from 51% in 2019 to 43% in 2025), as has the number saying that the information they heard about science was “generally true” (from 50% in 2019 to 40% in 2025). Other trends may reflect a greater media polarisation, with people increasingly self-curating their sources of news and information. The proportions saying that the media sensationalises science, or that conflicting information makes it difficult to know what to believe, have fallen consistently since 2014.

Young people aged 16 to 24 often had distinct attitudes to science and scientists compared to older adults. These differences were not always present in earlier editions, so mark a shift in attitudes for this generation specifically.

Compared to others, young people tended to feel more informed about science. They were also more interested in getting involved, for example by volunteering in a citizen science project. And for this age group, new media – particularly Instagram and TikTok – had surpassed traditional media as their primary way of seeking out or coming across science-related information.

However, they were also often more ambivalent about the role of science, and more negative about their experience of science at school. A third (32%) agreed that school put them off science, compared with 23% of all adults. They were less likely than others to agree that scientists made a valuable contribution to society, that the government should fund scientific research even if it brought no immediate benefits, and that science had increased their own personal prosperity.

There have been historical differences in attitudes to science between women and men, which reappear in PAS 2025.

Women were less likely than men to feel informed about science (35% versus 51%), less likely to think that the information they heard about science was “generally true”, and less likely to want to be involved in decisions about science. They were also more likely to have different priorities for scientists. For instance, they were more likely than men to say that ethical behaviour, having the right intentions, and being representative of the UK population were key traits that scientists should have.

The findings speak to the ongoing importance of public involvement and dialogue on science issues.

Three-fifths felt they saw or heard too little information about science (62%, up from 47% in 2019). And just 12% felt that the public was sufficiently involved in decisions about science and technology (having consistently fallen from 21% since 2008).

However, there is also evidence of increasing uncertainty or ambivalence on this topic since 2019 – potentially as a reaction to public discourse during the pandemic. In 2025, there were more neither agreeing nor disagreeing that the government should act in accordance with public concerns about science, and that scientists should discuss the social and ethical implications of their work.

Most people believed – in new questions for PAS 2025 – that science needs to be representative. But opinions were divided as to whether science was delivering for all groups equally. Around two-thirds said that scientists should be required to involve all groups of the population in their research (64%). The same proportion considered it important for the people working in science to reflect all groups within the population. However, a third agreed that scientific advances tended to benefit the rich more than the poor (34%), with those struggling to get by on their present incomes being even more likely to agree. And nearly half neither agreed nor disagreed that scientists consider “people like me” when designing their research (48%).

PAS provides broad coverage of public attitudes rather than deep dives into individual technologies, applications or processes. Nonetheless, the series has identified topics that consistently polarise public opinion, such as genetically modified crops and the use of animals in medical research.

AI joins the list of highly divisive topic areas in PAS 2025, despite people feeling relatively well informed about it compared to other topic areas. This demonstrates that information alone does not build public trust or deepen connections to science and technology.

Instead, the findings suggest that a more rounded experience of science enables this deeper personal connection. Once again, PAS looks at this through the concept “science capital” (first introduced in the 2019 study). The more science capital someone has, the more they have interacted with science and scientists, through friends, family, leisure, careers, media or study. In PAS 2025, higher levels of science capital were associated with more positive attitudes to science, greater trust in scientists and a greater willingness to engage in science issues. They were also correlated with greater scepticism around how science influenced government.

PAS 2025 offers critical insights for science communicators and others working in public engagement, academics, policymakers across government, advocacy groups and scientists themselves. We should not lose sight of the clear majorities of the public that value science and scientists, in terms of their contributions to UK society and the economy.

And yet, beneath these majorities, there has been a rise in uncertainty or ambivalence, and a loss of trust compared to before the Covid-19 pandemic. Some historic challenges persist, such as women feeling less informed and less sure about the benefits of science. Others are new, such as the less positive attitudes and greater ambivalence among young people, and the divisiveness of AI.

More fundamentally, while more people are talking about science than before the pandemic, and access to science has expanded through new media, these factors have not necessarily increased people’s connectedness to science on a deeper level. To change this, the findings suggest an ongoing need to involve the public in decisions on science issues, and to build the nation’s science capital – their interactions with science and scientists at multiple touchpoints across their lives. There may also need to be further investigation as to what ambivalence truly means – is it indecisiveness, indifference, a lack of interest, a lack of knowledge, or a mix of these?

PAS 2025 provides a new baseline for attitudes to science in a post-pandemic era, where AI and new media use have become established aspects of daily life. That is why at least two more PAS surveys will be undertaken biennially, helping to build on the findings of this report, and provide regular insights into changes over time.