The United States ranks among the countries where reported trust in science is highest, but the national figure conceals internal divides far sharper than those observed in other advanced economies. This is the picture that emerges from the 2025 edition of the Wellcome Global Monitor, an international survey conducted with Gallup of more than 140,000 adults across 140 countries.
Fifty-two percent of US respondents say they have "a lot" of trust in science, compared with a global average of 26%. The finding contrasts with the image of a country permanently divided over vaccines, public health, and the authority of scientific institutions. It does not erase those tensions, but rather places them in a different perspective: overall trust is widespread, yet unevenly distributed across social groups and regions.
For healthcare professionals, this distinction matters. Decisions regarding vaccinations, prevention, access to care, and adherence to clinical guidelines do not depend solely on national averages. They depend on the relationships that different communities build with doctors, hospitals, research, and institutions. A pro-science majority can coexist with pockets of mistrust large enough to complicate public health campaigns and risk communication.
A high average, but far from uniform
The Monitor, funded by the British foundation Wellcome for its 2018, 2020, and 2025 editions, measures attitudes and perceptions rather than the accuracy of respondents' scientific knowledge. In the latest survey, conducted as part of the Gallup World Poll through in-person, telephone, and online interviews, global estimates were weighted to reflect the demographic weight of the countries included.
In the United States, the share of people who believe science benefits most of society has also grown: from 48% in 2018 to 57% in 2025. Globally, over the same period, that percentage dropped from 42% to 37%. The comparison suggests that the American relationship with scientific research cannot be interpreted solely through the most visible controversies in the public arena.
The same dynamic appears in willingness to receive vaccinations recommended by a doctor or nurse. 45% of Americans say they would get vaccinated right away; in Germany, this response is chosen by 28%. The figure does not represent a complete picture of vaccine hesitancy, because people can adopt intermediate stances, ask for time to consider, or postpone a decision. However, it indicates a relatively strong inclination to act quickly when the recommendation comes from a healthcare professional.
A comparison with Germany also helps avoid overly simplistic interpretations. The share of those stating they would not get vaccinated at all is 8% among Germans and 13% in the United States. In other words, within the American sample, a greater willingness to be vaccinated immediately coexists with a larger segment of outright refusal. Attitudes, therefore, appear more polarized.
The divides running across the country
The analysis of Wellcome Global Monitor data reported by STAT identifies particularly sharp divides in the US across three dimensions: religious affiliation, place of residence, and education level. Among high-income countries, the average gap between religious and non-religious people who view science as beneficial to most of the population is five percentage points. In the United States, it surges to 24 points.
Geography matters as well. Between urban and rural Americans, on the same question regarding the benefits of science, there is a 19-percentage-point gap. In other high-income nations, the average gap is just three points. This does not mean that cities and rural areas form two homogeneous blocs, nor that place of residence alone explains opinions and behaviors. It does signal, however, that national health communication encounters profoundly different local contexts.
Education is the other major dividing line. 71% of US four-year college graduates believe that science benefits the majority of people in the country; among those without that degree, the figure drops to 47%. These percentages highlight a practical problem for hospitals, healthcare systems, and public authorities: evidence-based messaging never arrives in a social vacuum. It is interpreted through individual experiences, access to information, trust in institutions, and a sense of belonging.
This does not imply that the blame for the gap lies with less-educated individuals or those living far from major urban centers. The survey questions measure perceptions and do not establish causal relationships. However, they highlight a constraint well known to healthcare organizations: a single campaign, designed for an abstract audience, can fall short where trusted intermediaries, priorities, and credible information sources differ.
Hospitals and clinics do not enjoy unlimited trust
Trust in science does not automatically translate into trust in healthcare providers. Only 40% of Americans report high trust in hospitals and clinics in the United States. This is the same share observed in Portugal and Uruguay. The gap between general appreciation for science and the concrete assessment of healthcare institutions warrants attention, especially in a healthcare system where direct patient experience includes costs, accessibility, and relationships with healthcare professionals.
The Monitor does not offer a definitive explanation for this gap, nor does it establish why the United States outpaces many countries in declared trust in science. Matthew Motta, an associate professor at the Boston University School of Public Health and an expert on public opinion, noted that Americans tend to choose extreme survey responses more often. This trait may help explain why the country simultaneously has more people ready to get vaccinated immediately and more people who rule out vaccination entirely compared to a case like Germany.
This is an interpretive hypothesis, not a solution to the problem. Response differences in surveys are not enough to explain the geographic, religious, and educational divides revealed by the study. Nor do they allow for the conclusion that the measured trust translates seamlessly into concrete health behaviors. Between recognizing the value of science and choosing a service, a vaccine, or a therapy, economic, relational, and organizational factors come into play that aggregate data cannot fully capture.
What changes for public health
For American healthcare institutions, the finding provides a less pessimistic foundation than public debate would suggest, but it does not justify a one-size-fits-all communication strategy. A majority reporting high trust in science is a significant asset during emergencies, vaccination campaigns, and the dissemination of preventative practices. The value of that asset will depend on the ability to make it accessible even to groups that currently feel most disconnected from research or healthcare facilities.
The priority is not simply increasing the amount of information disseminated. The data indicates that starting points are not the same for everyone: education, place of residence, and religious affiliation correspond to different levels of trust in the social benefits of science. For hospitals, clinics, and public health authorities, it therefore becomes essential to identify recognized representatives within individual communities and distinguish the reputation of research from that of the institutions tasked with translating it into care.
Future editions of the survey will tell whether the increase observed in the United States will take hold and whether internal divides will narrow. For now, the Monitor's message is less straightforward than an international ranking: the US shows an overall favorable relationship with science, but the very polarization of the responses makes any interpretation based solely on the national average fragile.
