91TV

Our approach

This report has been inspired by the Public understanding of science report led by Sir Walter Bodmer FMedSci FRS in 1985 (colloquially known as the Bodmer report (footnote 7)). In revisiting this report, 40 years on, the Royal Society set out to establish what has changed, and what has not. The nature of public engagement with research has shifted dramatically to a more dialogue-driven, two-way engagement model, yet many of the problems set out in the 1985 report still feel relevant today. In producing this report, the Royal Society has, where appropriate, mirrored the chapters set out in the 1985 report; each chapter has been led by a Fellow of the Royal Society supported by a steering group of sector experts. These groups determined what they wished to cover and the specific recommendations relevant to their chapter. In that sense, this report has had many different authors, just as it has many different audiences.

In choosing to revisit the areas highlighted in the 1985 Public understanding of science report, we acknowledge that some areas where science and society interact are not covered. This is a far-reaching topic, and there are inevitably areas that have not been addressed in this report, or areas where only a small aspect of a much wider subject has been considered. Nevertheless, the Society has set out to show why a public voice is essential to the development of science, and how science is fundamental to the lives of every one of us.

Audiences

The primary audience for this report is the scientific community, which comprises many different groups of people, from those active in scientific research in academia, industry or the third sector. This also extends to those who enable or support science as funders, press and communications teams and the public engagement with research. As with the original Bodmer report, there are also recommendations for the Royal Society itself.

In addition, there are further audiences who are key stakeholders in any report considering the interactions between science and society. This includes those with the power to directly influence work in this area, such as government and policy makers more generally, research funders, media and other organisations, and those with whom the scientific community may seek to engage, such as local and national community groups and organisations.

All the recommendations in this report specify the audience for which they are intended.

Setting the context

As the Royal Society began to consider the different chapters for this report, it became clear that there were cross-cutting topics that provide context for how science and society shape one another. This introduction aims to bring together just some of the examples that were common across the individual groups looking at each chapter. Some of these are familiar from the report led by Sir Walter Bodmer FMedSci FRS in 1985, others were not even imagined 40 years ago.

At the outset of this report, the Society wants to set out why science matters and why it is important to have meaningful dialogue and engagement with the public not just about how science is involved in everyone’s daily lives but also the nature of science and the role of uncertainty. Moreover, engaging with the public provides direct benefit to both researchers and their institutions, as can be seen in the academic scientific community chapter.

Science provides knowledge, innovation and solutions that support progress, including economic and societal. Beyond its economic contributions (footnote 8), it informs decision-making, inspires curiosity and equips society to tackle emerging problems – from pandemics and climate change to technological transformation. The increased spread of misinformation has reinforced the need to uphold the value of science and clearly communicate the transparency and integrity that make science trustworthy.

Public attitudes to science

Public attitudes to science are fundamental to the findings and recommendations in this report. The findings of the 2025 Public attitudes to science (PAS) survey, undertaken by Ipsos, in partnership with the British Science Association, on behalf of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), are considered throughout each chapter (footnote 9).

PAS survey data show that the public continue to value the contributions of science and scientists in their daily lives, to wider society and the economy. However, three-fifths of those surveyed felt that they heard too little information about science, and they wanted greater dialogue on science issues. They also raised concerns about equity in science and believed that the opportunity to pursue science was not open to all. This concern reflects the fact that access to science is not equitable (footnote 10).

There are variances across different groups of people. The PAS survey highlights some potential warning signs for policymakers and the scientific community more generally; the Royal Society encourages readers to look at the full PAS report for more information than can be conveyed here. What is clear, however, is a wish for the public to engage more with science, but this should not be taken for granted.

Researcher attitudes towards public engagement

The capacity, aspirations, barriers and concerns of researchers with regard to public engagement is another fundamental consideration of this report. As part of the report, the Royal Society commissioned Technopolis to undertake an updated version of the Factors affecting public engagement by UK researchers survey (footnote 11), last undertaken in 2015. Survey responses show a clear and growing wish among academic researchers to support public engagement.

As discussed in Chapter six: Academic scientific community, researchers still face considerable barriers to undertaking meaningful public engagement activity. Public engagement is often not considered as a core activity or as an important part of career progression, which makes prioritising this activity difficult, especially when time and money are limited. The importance of public engagement to researchers is evident, as is their willingness to participate, but they need support to do so.

Changes to the public engagement sector

Public engagement with research in the UK has undergone substantial development since the late twentieth century, emerging from early efforts in science communication to become a formalised element of national research policy. A pivotal moment came with the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee’s 2000 report, which criticised the ‘deficit model’ of science communication, where the “public was viewed as a passive recipient of” expert knowledge, and advocated for more dialogic and participatory approaches to science-society relations (footnote 12).

In the time since the 1985 Public understanding of science report was published, the public engagement landscape has expanded to include new facilities and organisations, including the creation of new science centres, festivals and events. The Science Media Centre was set up in 2000, and many research institutions have established public engagement, community and civic outreach, participatory research and patient involvement programmes.

The multitude of opportunities now available to connect science with public audiences are a real success story for the UK and one that we should nurture and resource; however, opportunities are not distributed equally or equitably (footnote 13), and much more needs to be done to engage underserved communities across the UK. Financial pressures across the public engagement landscape in recent years have caused many of the dedicated support roles for engagement activity to be reduced or removed completely.

Environmental and health crises

Human activity is changing the climate of our planet and destroying its biodiversity at an unprecedented rate. Climate change is increasing the risk of extreme weather and rising sea levels, harming our ability to grow food, and making it harder for biodiversity to thrive – potentially impoverishing our planet in ways that will hamper the benefits we can derive from it.

Antimicrobial resistance threatens to undermine our control of infections. While the Bodmer report was being written, awareness was rising of a new viral infection, HIV/AIDS, which has killed more than 40 million people (footnote 14) (for a further exploration of the effect this had on the relationship between scientists and the public see case study: AIDS activism in the US). COVID-19 has been the most disastrous example of a series of epidemics and pandemics over the past four decades. In the UK, the pandemic highlighted complexities in the relationship between science, policymaking, politicians and the public (footnote 15). It raised numerous considerations, including the role of different areas of science in shaping policy during health crises, managing uncertainty while attempting to communicate clearly with the public and the public spotlight on scientific advisers.

At the same time, scientific advances to find solutions to these problems are emerging all the time, with incredible progress being made to address societal and global problems, not least the rapid development of vaccines to reduce the effects of COVID-19 by scientists working in academia and industry and collaborating across borders.

Advances in genetic technologies

While methods of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sequencing to read DNA were first developed in the 1970s, new methods and rapid advancements in genetics have been transformational since the publication of the original Bodmer report. Advances have led to the complete genome sequence of humans, and many animals, plants and microorganisms.

As well as genetic technologies helping to advance healthcare, DNA is a vital part of forensic science, with DNA evidence regularly cited in courtrooms and in TV and film dramas. 91TV has published a primer for the courts on DNA evidence as part of its science and the law programme (footnote 16), but the potential benefits of genetic technologies must also be weighed against ethical and societal concerns about how they might be used. Effective regulation and ethical boundaries are essential.

A digital world

In 1985, 13% of UK households had a home computer (footnote 17). The internet was two years old. The world wide web was unveiled in 1989 and went public in the mid-1990s. These inventions transformed people’s access to information and their relationship with technology, particularly following the launch of smartphones. These advances provided instantaneous access to almost all human knowledge. They also revolutionised how people communicated with one another and shared information, particularly with the emergence of social media. Anyone born after 1985 (when the Bodmer report was published) has grown up immersed in a digital society. This has profound implications for where people obtain information, from whom and how they consume it (footnote 18). With new channels of communication, opportunities for public engagement are enhanced, but science faces greatly increased competition for people’s attention.

The rise of AI

The unprecedented speed and scale of progress with AI in recent years suggests society may be living through an inflection point. Platforms that can generate human-like text and image content have accelerated public interest in the field and raised flags for policymakers, who have concerns about how AI-based technologies may be integrated into wider society. These concerns are shared by the public. The PAS survey 2025 shows that the public is very polarised about the benefits and risks of AI (footnote 19).

The potential benefits of AI include its capability to accelerate scientific discovery or to provide the means for non-experts to interact with and translate complex code, data and information. However there are also significant societal risks from a global system whose employment, financial and energy systems are becoming increasingly enmeshed with the rapid expansion of AI capacity (footnote 20).

Public trust in scientists and institutions

Despite some concerns, public trust in scientists working for universities is still very high at 87% (footnote 21), although scientists working in industry and government are less well trusted. Further, the role of science and scientists is recognised, with 83% of people stating that scientists make a valuable contribution to society.

However, trust in government ministers – and politicians generally – is low (footnote 22), suggesting an undermining of key authorities. Trust in journalists, traditionally key mediators of information to the public, is also relatively low, although nowhere near as low as trust in social media influencers. The question of trusted sources is considered in Chapter three: Mass media and misinformation.

Misinformation and disinformation

The internet has transformed the way people consume, produce, and disseminate information about the world. In the online information environment, internet users can tailor unlimited content to their own needs and desires. This shift away from limited, gatekept and pre-scheduled content has democratised access to knowledge and driven societal progress.

The unlimited volume of content, however, means that capturing attention in the online information environment is difficult and highly competitive. This heightened competition for attention presents a challenge for those who wish to communicate trustworthy information to help guide important decisions. The poor navigation, or even active exploitation, of this environment by prominent public figures and political leaders has, on many occasions, led to detrimental advice being disseminated among the public. This has caused significant concern, with online misinformation content being widely discussed as a factor that affects democratic elections and incites violence. In recent years, misinformation has also interfered with how scientific topics have been perceived by the public, including vaccine safety, climate change and the rollout of 5G technology (footnote 23).

Financial constraints and public benefit

There are always financial constraints and economic considerations and governments and organisations need to make difficult decisions on where to prioritise spending. At the time of writing, there are significant concerns about the state of the UK economy following major blows such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the current geo-political situation.

As the Royal Society considers the recommendations in this report, we must be mindful of the current economic position for all key stakeholders involved in engaging the public with science and their need to prioritise spending.

Yet, it is more important than ever that the role of science be understood and discussed publicly and the value of those individuals who work in public engagement and science communication is recognised. The scientific, technological and social shifts seen over the past 40 years reinforce the key messages from the 1985 Public understanding of science report that science and technology are central to the future prosperity of the UK and profoundly shape people’s everyday lives.