Support for Scientific Funding Doesn’t Have to Be Partisan If Scientists Learn How to Make the Case

Support for scientific research funding is often framed as a political tug-of-war, with conservatives portrayed as skeptical and liberals as supportive. But a new study from the University of Florida suggests that this familiar narrative misses the real issue. According to the research, the growing distrust in major U.S. science agencies has less to do with political ideology and more to do with something called science-related populism—a belief that scientific elites are disconnected from everyday people and wield too much power over decisions that affect the public.

The study focuses on public trust in federal science institutions such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). These agencies became central to national debate in early 2025 when they faced sweeping budget cuts, sparking intense public discussion about whether taxpayer money should continue to support large-scale scientific research.

At first glance, the debate appeared predictably partisan. Conservatives were more likely to approve of the cuts, while liberals tended to oppose them. However, when researchers looked deeper into public attitudes, they found that political party affiliation alone did not explain the level of distrust many Americans felt toward these institutions.

What the Study Set Out to Examine

The research was led by Austin Hubner, a professor in the University of Florida’s College of Journalism and Communications. His team wanted to understand what truly drives public support or opposition to federally funded science. Rather than treating science skepticism as a simple left-versus-right issue, the study examined underlying beliefs about power, expertise, and trust.

To do this, the researchers surveyed 500 Americans in early 2025, at a time when science agencies were under intense financial and political pressure. Participants were asked about their trust in federal science agencies, their support for research funding, their political ideology, and their views on scientists as a group.

The results were striking. The strongest predictor of distrust was not whether someone identified as conservative or liberal. Instead, it was whether they held anti-elite attitudes specifically directed at scientists.

Understanding Science-Related Populism

Science-related populism is not the same as general skepticism or anti-intellectualism. It reflects a belief that scientists function as an elite group, operating in insulated environments and making decisions without sufficient input from the public. People who score high on science-related populism tend to believe that ordinary citizens should have more authority over what kinds of research get funded and how scientific priorities are set.

The study found that individuals with strong science-populist beliefs were significantly more likely to distrust every federal science agency surveyed. They were also more likely to support cutting federal research budgets, regardless of their political ideology.

In every statistical model the researchers tested, science-related populism was a stronger predictor of distrust than political ideology itself. This means that even people who do not strongly identify with conservative politics may still oppose science funding if they feel scientists are out of touch or overly powerful.

Not a One-Party Problem

One of the most important findings of the study is that scientific populism is not limited to a single political party. Unlike ideological beliefs, which are often deeply entrenched, science-related populism cuts across partisan lines. It can appear among conservatives, liberals, and independents alike.

This distinction matters because it changes how scientists and policymakers might respond to public skepticism. Political ideology is often resistant to change, but science-related populism may be more flexible. It is influenced by perceptions of transparency, relevance, and fairness—factors that scientists can potentially address through better communication and engagement.

Why Communication Matters More Than Messaging

The researchers argue that restoring trust in science will require more than political messaging or appeals to authority. Instead, scientists need to actively explain the value of their work to the people who fund it through taxes.

This includes using plain language, avoiding unnecessary jargon, and clearly showing how scientific research benefits everyday life. According to the study, many people who distrust science are not rejecting knowledge itself—they are reacting to what they see as distant institutions and confusing bureaucratic systems.

Confusion about how science agencies operate and how funding decisions are made often fuels resentment. When people do not understand why certain projects receive funding or how research priorities are chosen, it becomes easier to view scientists as self-serving elites rather than public servants.

Building Trust Through Connection

Another key insight from the research is that perceived similarity matters. Hubner is now testing factors that may increase trust in scientists, including whether people feel scientists share their values, backgrounds, or concerns.

When scientists are seen as real people—rather than abstract experts working in isolated labs—trust can improve. This suggests that relationship-building may be just as important as data when it comes to public support for science.

Rather than framing science as something people should trust automatically, the study suggests that scientists need to earn trust continuously by showing openness, accountability, and relevance.

The Broader Context of Science Funding

The findings come at a critical time for U.S. science. Federal research funding supports not only medical breakthroughs and public health initiatives but also technological innovation, economic growth, and national competitiveness. Agencies like the NIH and NSF fund basic research that often does not attract private investment but lays the groundwork for future discoveries.

Cuts to these agencies can have long-term consequences, including reduced innovation, fewer research jobs, and slower responses to public health and environmental challenges. Yet the study shows that public resistance to funding is not simply about cost—it is about trust and legitimacy.

Why This Research Matters

The study challenges a simplistic view of science skepticism and offers a more nuanced explanation for why public support can erode. By identifying science-related populism as a key factor, it opens the door to more constructive solutions.

If distrust were purely ideological, there would be little room for change. But because scientific populism is shaped by perceptions and experiences, it can potentially be addressed through better engagement with the public.

The message is clear: sustaining federal research funding may depend less on political alignment and more on how well scientists communicate what they do, why it matters, and how it serves the public interest.

A Practical Takeaway for Scientists

For scientists and research institutions, the study offers a practical takeaway. It is no longer enough to assume that scientific authority speaks for itself. In an era of tight budgets and public scrutiny, scientists must be willing to step outside traditional academic spaces and engage with broader audiences.

Making research outcomes concrete, explaining how funding decisions are made, and showing tangible benefits to communities can help counter the perception of an isolated scientific elite.

In short, support for science does not have to be partisan. But it does require effort, clarity, and a willingness to listen as much as to explain.

Research paper:
https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470251400317