Having grown up in Kenya, my dad is a natural history TV obsessive, and some of my earliest childhood memories are of watching BBC wildlife documentaries with him, invariably narrated by David Attenborough. The naturalist has been an authoritative voice throughout my life, so when he turned 100 earlier this year, it felt like a genuinely poignant milestone, seven decades spent translating the wonders and the warnings of the natural world for an audience that spans generations. If there is a single figure you can trust when it comes to being informed about science and the environment, it’s him.

So when Diffusion commissioned research into UK public trust in science communication, for our Breakthroughs and Barriers Report 2026, we expected Attenborough to top the list of trusted voices. He did, comfortably, chosen by 59% of respondents as a reliable source of accurate scientific and environmental information. No other individual came close.

What stood out for me was the rest of that stat. Four in ten people, didn’t consider a figure who’s spent his entire adult life explaining how the natural world works as trustworthy. If even Attenborough cannot command near universal confidence, what hope is there for anyone else?

The answer, as you would expect, depends enormously on who is doing the talking. Luckily, we found scientists still command meaningful public respect, trusted by 44% as a reliable source of information on new scientific developments. CEOs by contrast, manage just 7%, alongside a mere 8% for the Prime Minister. The very people responsible for funding, commercialising and regulating new scientific innovations are, in the public's eyes, among the least credible when it comes to explaining them.

As PR professionals, we understand CEOs and founders will always need to be front and centre, but they clearly can't carry the science communication burden alone. Scientists and researchers have traditionally been wary of the media, often fearing their work will be misrepresented or sensationalised, but that reticence now comes at a cost. When scientists stay silent, less credible and more malign voices often fill the gap instead, to the detriment of public support and funding for continued research and development.

We need to see a big shift in the role that scientists and researchers play, not only doing brilliant work in the lab, but selling the benefits of that work to stakeholders. Comms professionals have a big part to play in making that happen, by giving them the language, confidence and platforms to become credible supporting voices. Yes, media training is a useful first-step but it’s also about prioritising formats like background briefings, contributed articles and pre-record broadcast interviews, where scientists have more control and therefore feel more comfortable. And this isn’t just about traditional media relations. Our research found strong public appetite for getting their science news from social video and podcasts, especially among under-35s. These are formats that let scientists speak for themselves, build trust and credibility without a media filter.

The messenger is important, but it’s not the whole story, science communication itself needs to evolve. Our research has informed a wider set of "New Rules" for what that change should look like. Based on our current work with clients, three stand out to me as growing priorities.

Silence cedes space to alternative facts

Timing has now become the critical factor when it comes to trust in new science. Early voices carry disproportionate weight and set the terms of the debate. For innovators, that means starting conversations with the media, the public and stakeholders sooner than would traditionally feel comfortable. I know that can be easier said than done! The Achilles' heel of science communication is too often allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Waiting until every supporting research paper has been published, funding secured, or a pilot successfully completed before starting external comms may feel like best practice, but in the age of conspiracy, it just increases the risk of ceding control of the narrative to detractors. The game has changed.

Public opinion is not a monolith

When we look more closely at attitudes to emerging science, overall population-level data only tells half the story. Beneath the headline figures we find significant differences in trust, awareness and acceptance, across gender, age, and social class. Whether its support for cultivated meat or geo-engineering, we consistently found a "Persuadable Middle", a sizeable group whose views on new science have yet to solidify. This is precisely where taking a more insight-led approach to segmenting undecided audiences and tailoring messages accordingly, improves our chances of positively shaping overall public support. A ‘one press release fits all’ approach is no longer fit for purpose.

Risk needs better context and explanation

Lastly, when it comes to new breakthroughs, risk often ends up being communicated in absolutes, when the public is now craving more nuance. We found consumers feel they are not always getting the full story and are demanding more balanced media reporting on the trade-offs, uncertainty and longer-term implications of new science. Counterintuitive as it may seem, being more open about risk may be the key to building stronger public trust in science. However, that requires us to invest in creating the tools and language to better explain risk: relatable comparisons, honest acknowledgement of uncertainty, and language that helps people better weigh up the potential implications of action, against the potential implications of inaction.

Taken together, the approaches above are just some of the steps that can help strengthen trust and better combat the conspiracists. The hard truth is that misinformation isn't going away. As science comms professionals we can't out-shout it, but we can try to out-trust it, by adapting our strategies and tactics.

We know the likes of David Attenborough, sadly, won't be with us forever, and the splintering of the public sphere means we can no longer look for a single ‘saviour’ to try to reach the majority of the country all at once. Instead, we need to build an army of credible voices, each able to command trust with diverse demographics and subcultures. That includes more scientists and researchers stepping up to explain and advocate for their own work, to the public and to policymakers alike. Everyone who believes science and technology can build a better future needs to play their part in earning back the public’s trust in it.