A nationally representative survey from the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Public Policy Center finds that public trust in vaccine scientists has held steady despite years of misinformation campaigns — and in one key area, vaccine scientists actually come out ahead.
Years of misinformation about vaccines and the researchers who develop them have done little to erode the American public’s confidence in vaccine scientists, according to a new survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) at the University of Pennsylvania.
The survey, conducted Feb. 3–17, 2026, among 1,650 U.S. adults, found that nearly 7 in 10 Americans (69%) say they trust vaccine scientists a moderate amount or more to act in the best interests of people like them. That figure is statistically indistinguishable from the shares who expressed similar trust in medical scientists (72%) and scientists in general (70%).
Comparable to Police and Military Trust
The level of confidence Americans place in scientists — including those working on vaccines — rivals trust in institutions often considered pillars of public confidence. The survey found trust in scientists is on par with trust in police officers (70%) and the military (70%), and significantly higher than trust in journalists (49%), religious leaders (47%), elected officials (36%) and business leaders (30%).
“It is reassuring to see that the public trusts vaccine scientists to act in their best interests just as much as scientists in general, despite the unfounded attacks on vaccine research,” Laura A. Gibson, an APPC research analyst, said in a news release.
How Researchers Measured Trust
Beyond a single trust question, APPC researchers applied a five-factor framework — known as the Factors Assessing Science’s Self-Presentation, or FASS model — to assess how people perceive scientists across dimensions of credibility, prudence, self-correction, bias and the broader benefit of their work. The tool was first described in a 2023 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Half the survey sample was asked to evaluate vaccine scientists; the other half evaluated scientists in general. On four of the five factors — credibility, self-correction, bias and perceived benefit to society — vaccine scientists scored statistically the same as scientists in general. Both groups received their most favorable marks on credibility and the perceived benefits of their work.
The one notable distinction: vaccine scientists were rated as more prudent than scientists in general. Prudence was measured by asking respondents whether they agreed that scientists feel superior to others, create unintended consequences, or cut corners to secure grants and publications. On each of these items, respondents were more likely to disagree when asked about vaccine scientists. For instance, 24% disagreed that vaccine scientists feel superior to others, compared to just 16% for scientists in general. Similarly, 33% disagreed that vaccine scientists cut corners to publish, versus 26% for scientists overall.
“Scientists need to ask why they are perceived as lower on prudence relative to the other factors of trust in science and scientists,” added Patrick E. Jamieson, the director of APPC’s Annenberg Health and Risk Communication Institute and a co-author of the original FASS article.
Transparency Around Funding
The survey also probed public perceptions of financial transparency. More than half of respondents said they trust vaccine scientists (55%) and medical scientists (57%) at least “some” to be open and honest about who funds their research — a dimension of trust that has come under scrutiny as critics have alleged financial conflicts of interest in vaccine development.
Why It Matters for Students
For college students and young professionals entering science, public health, or policy fields, the findings carry real significance. Misinformation campaigns targeting vaccine researchers — including debunked claims about mRNA vaccines altering DNA, microchips in vaccines, and profit-motivated researchers — have intensified since the COVID-19 pandemic. The data suggest those efforts have largely failed to reshape broad public opinion.
The findings also offer a data point worth considering for students who may encounter vaccine skepticism in their communities or workplaces. Public trust, the survey suggests, is more resilient than the volume of online misinformation might imply. At the same time, the prudence gap — the relatively low marks scientists receive for not appearing arrogant or reckless — highlights an ongoing communication challenge for the scientific community as a whole.
APPC has tracked American attitudes on vaccination and public health continuously since April 2021 through its Annenberg Science and Public Health (ASAPH) panel survey. The Feb. 2026 wave carried a margin of error of ±3.5 percentage points. Data were collected by SSRS using a nationally representative probability sample.
Source: Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania