A new US survey suggests that while scientists remain highly trusted sources of cancer information, levels of trust vary substantially across the political spectrum. The findings highlight an important communication challenge for clinicians and cancer organisations seeking to support evidence-based decision-making in a politically divided environment.
The nationally representative analysis, published in JAMA Network Open, examined data from more than 6200 adults who participated in the 2024 Health Information National Trends Survey. Respondents were asked how much they trusted scientists for cancer information, using a four-point scale later grouped into high or low trust. Trust Is High Overall — But Not Uniform.
Overall, trust was strong: 86% of adults reported “some” or “a lot” of confidence in scientists for cancer information. However, trust declined steadily with increasingly conservative political views.
-
Very liberal respondents: 93.7% reported high trust
-
Moderates: Trust remained high, though slightly lower
-
Very conservative respondents: 70.5% reported high trust
After adjusting for age, education, and other variables, each step toward more conservative ideology was associated with a 25% reduction in the odds of high trust in scientists. The relationship persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, suggesting that the association between political viewpoint and trust is robust.
Education and Age Also Influence Trust
College education was associated with higher trust, while older adults were somewhat less trusting of scientific sources. Trust in cancer information from clinicians was strongly associated with trust in scientists, suggesting that credibility can be transferred between messengers.
Why This Matters for Cancer Communication
The authors note that public trust in science plays a key role in the uptake of cancer prevention advice, screening recommendations, and emerging treatment information.
For those working in oncology communication or clinical practice, several insights stand out:
-
Scientists remain a cornerstone of trusted information, even in a period of political polarisation.
-
Messaging may need to be tailored to ensure it resonates across ideological groups.
-
Clinician voices are uniquely influential, and shared communication between clinicians and scientists may help bridge gaps.
-
Plain-language explanations, transparent discussion of uncertainty, and respectful, values-aligned communication are likely to improve engagement.
Despite these challenges, the study authors emphasise:
“Despite heightened political polarization, scientists remained broadly trusted figures in cancer communication. This resilience in public trust provides a valuable foundation for continued efforts to promote science-based information and reduce the burden of cancer across all communities.”
The study also draws on social science models suggesting that dialogue, cooperation, and acknowledgment of personal concerns can help strengthen trust, particularly when cancer-related topics provoke feelings of vulnerability or existential threat.
Limitations
The authors caution that the survey’s low response rate may introduce bias, though weighting was applied. Trust and political ideology were each measured with single-item questions, limiting nuance.
Paper: Wheldon, C., et al. Public Trust in Scientists for Cancer Information Across Political Ideologies in the US. JAMA Network Open. 2025;8(12):e2546818. Access online here.