The Spanish population trusts science, but demands more communication and citizen engagement, according to FECYT's survey on social perception

As every two years, we have a new appointment with the Survey on Social Perception of Science and Technology in Spain. Having confirmation of this continuity is extremely positive. It is not common in countries around us, so we are very grateful for the effort and involvement of FECYT.

In a context in which it is increasingly difficult to conduct home interviews, it is positive to know that the study is based on this type of interview. The information available at the time of writing does not provide sociodemographic data. It will be interesting to see whether, despite this being the best method for selecting a sample, there is once again an over-representation of people with higher levels of education. It is increasingly difficult to access people with lower levels of education, who tend to exclude themselves from public opinion surveys.

The results paint a somewhat worrying picture, but one that is in line with what is being detected globally and in many studies: the population values and trusts science as a source of knowledge, but, given the current context, there is a more ambivalent attitude and a certain mistrust regarding its social dimension. It can be said that the results provide evidence that trust in the institution of science is not at its best.

There are several things to highlight:

1. Informational interest has rebounded slightly compared to the previous edition, but remains low. Overall interest remains constant if we look at the average score of the responses. However, the percentage of people who say they are very or quite interested in science has decreased.
2. On the other hand, the percentage of those who say they are not very interested also decreases. Participation in science-related activities declines significantly, especially attendance at outreach activities and participation in citizen science activities. The willingness to get involved in scientific decision-making also declines significantly. And yet, knowledge about the nature of science increases. This is a very positive development, but it seems to indicate that the decline in involvement suggests a greater disconnect between society and science, in line with the previous point. Although there is no excessive interest in information, the population tends to perceive scientific information as insufficient and superficial.
3. This is probably not surprising when we consider that, combined, the main sources of information are social media and online video platforms (although these are not mentioned much as the first choice, they are mentioned as the second choice). I find this a very interesting result, because it perhaps reflects a tendency to demand without giving anything in return, the difficulty of accepting that what we get depends on what we do, that is, the difficulty of accepting our responsibility.
4. People trust scientific research. This is a positive result, but trusting the research that is done is not the same as trusting science as an institution. And, in line with this growing mistrust, the percentage of people who agree that scientists can ‘adjust’ their results to suit the interests of those who fund them is increasing. This result reflects the weight that instrumental science (oriented towards profit) has in the image of science. The percentage of people who totally agree that scientists conduct research for the common good is also falling.
5. In line with the previous point, in the items addressing conspiracy thinking, there is a low prevalence of items more focused on conspiracies, although it is worrying that 41.6% of those interviewed believe that viruses have been produced in government laboratories to control our freedom. However, there is a high level of agreement with statements that show mistrust of the role played by commercial interests in science. Once again, we detect the negative influence of instrumental science. In a globalised context such as ours, this is a result that is detected in many other countries around us, as shown by the last two Eurobarometers on attitudes towards science and technology. On the other hand, in a study carried out by the Science, Technology and Society Research Unit at CIEMAT, we found that 57% of the population somewhat or strongly agree, and 23% strongly agree with the statement: ‘Science that advises politics only serves to justify what politicians want’.

In conclusion, there is a tendency for the population to demand accountability from science, which is accompanied by a lack of involvement with it. This could reflect two issues: 1) as mentioned above, the deterioration of trust in the institution of science; and 2) the lack of ownership, i.e. the feeling that science does not belong to citizens.

For more than two decades, the Social Perception of Science and Technology Survey (EPSCT) has been taking the pulse of the relationship between citizens and science in Spain. More than just a series of data, it is a map of the collective imagination: a tool that allows us to observe how the images, concerns and links we weave around science evolve. In a context marked by rapid technological change, global crises and information polarisation, this edition offers a particularly revealing snapshot.

What it shows is a landscape of light and shadow. Science continues to enjoy recognition, but that recognition is no longer expressed as blind faith or unconditional admiration. Citizens value scientific knowledge, but they also question its orientation, its limits and its social implications. The resulting image is neither uniform nor stable: it is an architecture under construction, traversed by tensions between trust and scepticism, between enthusiasm and concern.

To talk about the social perception of science is to talk about the image that each person constructs throughout their life. This image is formed at school, at home, in the media, on social networks and in everyday conversations. It is shaped by social, cultural and emotional factors, by personal experiences and shared beliefs. It is not just what we know, but how we fit it into what we value. And it is not limited to the rational: it acts as an internal compass that guides our decisions as patients, voters, consumers or parents. That is why understanding this image is fundamental to any science policy that aspires to be democratic.

One of the central elements revealed by the survey is the need to think about the relationship between citizenship and science as an ecological issue, rather than as a simple deficit. It is not about filling gaps in knowledge, but about understanding how knowledge, emotions, contexts and values are intertwined. Science is not perceived solely as a set of facts, but as part of a collective conversation about what is legitimate, true and valuable in a society seeking guidance in the face of uncertainty.

This ecosystem includes, among other dimensions, interest in science, perception of available information and the degree of scientific literacy. Although interest remains steady or is even growing, many people still consider themselves poorly informed. Furthermore, the higher the level of education, the more the shortcomings of the available scientific information are perceived: people appreciate what is there, but they notice what is missing. This gap can be interpreted, however, as a sign of vitality: interest is present and opens up space to strengthen the channels that feed it in a sustained manner.

To understand why this gap persists, it is also worth looking at how and where scientific information circulates in everyday life. The circulation of scientific information does not only take place in the media. It also occurs at home, at work and in informal networks. The figures who mediate between science and society—teachers, communicators, doctors, journalists—play a key role as translators, interpreters and validators. This mediation is not neutral: those with greater cultural capital not only have access to more information, but also reinterpret it with greater authority. Thus, science circulates through channels that reflect, and sometimes reproduce, social inequalities.

In this framework, scientific literacy occupies a central place, understood not as technical erudition, but as the ability to interpret evidence-based discourse. It is not enough to know formulas; a toolbox is needed to distinguish between a well-founded claim and an empty technicality, between reasonable doubt and fallacy. Nor is this literacy evenly distributed: it depends on life experience, cultural capital and early experiences with science. And these underlying inequalities affect not only access to knowledge, but also its distribution and social legitimacy.

The public image of science that emerges from the survey is, in this sense, nuanced. Its usefulness, legitimacy and capacity to generate rigorous knowledge are recognised. But its limits, contradictions and risks are also questioned, in a display of critical thinking rather than mistrust. This is not a naive or anti-scientific citizenry: it is a critical citizenry, capable of valuing the contributions of science while questioning its uses, funding and instrumentalisation. Risk awareness does not negate trust, but it does modulate it. In fact, mistrust is not usually directed at science as such, but at the power structures that condition it.

This same critical and vigilant attitude also extends to citizen participation: it is valued as a principle, but does not always translate into active or equitable practices. In terms of participation, the data reveal a gap between the abstract desire for citizen involvement and its actual exercise. The possibility of participating is valued, but it is delegated to experts; the importance of expressing opinions is recognised, but without taking on an active role. Participatory experiences are limited and uneven, and often those who most need to participate are those who have the fewest resources to do so. Participation, like trust, cannot be decreed: it must be built. And to do so, it is necessary to create conditions of equal access, genuine listening and respect for social epistemologies.

All these dimensions converge on a key issue: trust. This is not a monolithic block, but a network of links. People trust the technical competence of science, but doubt its independence. The scientific method is valued, but institutional neutrality is questioned. Results are respected, but the interests that frame them are viewed with suspicion. This tension is not a problem in itself: it is a healthy form of democratic vigilance. Trust, when well founded, does not imply submission, but rather a critical understanding of how science works: its rhythms, its disagreements, its uncertainties. When science does not offer immediate answers or when experts disagree, society does not lose trust, because it has not placed its trust in a promise of infallibility, but in a process guided by replicability, review and transparency. And a society that understands this is better prepared to live with complexity.

In short, EPSCT 2024 does not offer a single narrative, but many. There is no single way for citizens to relate to science, nor is there a single way to value it. What emerges is a critical ecology, in which adherence and reservations, recognition and vigilance, a desire to learn and a need to question coexist. Cultivating this ecology involves strengthening scientific education, but also humanistic education; encouraging rigorous dissemination, but also public deliberation; promoting access to knowledge, but also the ability to interpret it critically. Only then will a truly democratic contract between science and society be possible, where knowing, trusting and participating are not privileges, but shared rights.

"Social perception surveys on science and technology are tools used by public science and technology policies to understand society's expectations or fears regarding scientific and technological development and, consequently, to formulate communication policies that bring science closer to society by promoting a culture of scientific literacy among citizens.

The 2024 Social Perception of Science and Technology Survey, conducted by the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT), thus reinforces its role as a solid and long-standing tool for analysing citizens' attitudes towards science and technology in Spain. With a historical series dating back to 2002, this study makes it possible to detect longitudinal changes in interest, trust and attitudes towards science and technology. It also allows for comparison with international trends using indicators compatible with surveys such as Eurobarometer, data compiled in Science and Engineering Indicators in the United States, and various surveys conducted in Latin American countries.

The results of the 2024 edition show that the general public is interested in science and has a high level of trust in scientific institutions and professions, although there is also a clear demand for greater social connection. A structural gap persists between interest and perceived information, which is noticeable both in relation to science and technology in general and in relation to environmental, medical and health issues. This phenomenon is not unique to Spain, as it is observed repeatedly in other European and Latin American countries. In any case, it reflects a challenge for science communication policies.

The inclusion of topics such as artificial intelligence (AI) and climate change is particularly timely. The study reveals ambivalent attitudes: citizens are beginning to recognise the increasingly widespread use of AI-based technologies and acknowledge their benefits, while at the same time expressing mistrust regarding their governance, impact on employment and data protection. In the climate sphere, there is widespread concern about the seriousness of the problem and its human origin, although this is tempered by scepticism about the effectiveness of institutional measures and a growing demand for distributive justice. These data are consistent with theoretical approaches that emphasise the complexity of attitudes and highlight the importance of both trust and informed criticism in relation to the risks of scientific and technological development.

In terms of information channels, the use of digital media and social networks is becoming more widespread among young people, while traditional channels (television, press, radio) remain highly influential. The survey warns of the impact these channels have on trust. Thus, a key challenge for democratic health is linked to the difference in views on scientific activity between those who obtain information from official or specialised sources (with more favourable views) and those who resort to informal media such as social networks or messaging channels (with tendentially more critical views).

It is also important to highlight that the results show different social gaps, in line with the evidence accumulated in the time series. For example, generational or socioeconomic gaps in relation to interest, access to information, or opportunities for cultural participation (visits to science museums, for example). Scientific culture is asymmetrical and, in many ways, a reflection of social inequalities and the greater difficulties experienced by the most disadvantaged social groups.

Finally, it is true that among the limitations of opinion polls, the expected effects of self-reporting bias and the difficulty of capturing more complex opinions through closed formats are worth highlighting. However, the biennial design, the breadth of topics covered and the socio-demographic segmentation reinforce the robustness and usefulness of the results. The implications are clear: to strengthen the link between science and society, it is not enough to increase funding or scientific output.

The continued application of the survey confirms that it is essential to improve public communication, strengthen critical culture, promote citizen participation in knowledge governance and actively address the ethical and political tensions that emerge around science. Perhaps one of the most significant findings is the growing demand for science that is more accessible, transparent and oriented towards the common good. It is significant that, although universities, hospitals and public research centres are viewed positively, a smaller proportion of the population (37%) believes that scientists take citizens into account in their research.

In summary, the survey outlines a citizenry that values and trusts scientific activity. It is significant that there is still broad consensus on the importance of investing in R&D. However, the public expects more dialogue, better communication and greater social involvement from those involved. In short, there is a demand for science with a human face, that is understandable and more socially responsible. The FECYT survey is a key tool for guiding public science and technology policies that respond to these concerns in society.