Mapping how the world talks about science

A global survey reveals how 72,000 people in 68 countries encounter and discuss science — and why understanding these differences matters for engagement and democracy.

How do people across the world learn about science — and how do they talk about it? A new global study offers an comprehensive overview of how societies engage with science. Covering 68 countries and more than 71,000 respondents, it is one of the most ambitious efforts ever to trace what researchers call “science information diets.”

The picture that emerges is both familiar and surprising. Social media now serve as the main entry point to science in most regions, especially in Southeast Asia and Africa. At the same time, traditional news outlets — from newspapers to public broadcasting — continue to play a crucial role in Northern and Western Europe, where journalism remains a trusted filter for science information.

The study also shows that in many countries with limited resources or digital access, people are not cut off from science. Instead, they often engage through community spaces, local conversations or fiction. And while higher education still correlates with scientific literacy, the authors find that those with less formal education are often more outspoken about science — a reminder that engagement takes many forms, not all of them predictable.

From information to participation

Here is a summary of the main findings of the research:

1. Where people meet science

Across 53 of the 68 countries surveyed, social media — Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram — are where people most often encounter science. In Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and the Philippines, respondents reported seeing science-related content several times a week. A similar pattern appears in Kenya, Nigeria and Uganda, where online networks fill the gap left by expensive print media or scarce science museums.

In contrast, traditional news media still dominate in Finland, Switzerland and Germany, where pluralism and public-service broadcasting support a strong culture of science journalism. In these countries, readers encounter science mainly through news, not algorithms.

Conversations and messaging apps — WhatsApp, Line, Telegram — form another important bridge, especially in East Asia. They carry discussions about vaccination, climate or technology into everyday exchanges. Fiction and museums play a smaller role overall but remain relevant: in parts of Africa, fiction keeps science visible; in countries like Australia or Mexico, where museum entry is free, formal science communication attracts steady audiences.

2. How people communicate about science

The survey distinguishes three levels of communication: attitudinal (the willingness to speak up about science), conversational (how often science is discussed), and political (participation in protests or civic actions on science-related issues).

Here, the results challenge assumptions. In many sub-Saharan African countries, respondents are both highly outspoken and active in discussing science. In East Asian contexts such as Japan, South Korea or Hong Kong, collectivist traditions and social restraint appear to limit open disagreement, leading to quieter conversations.

But political restrictions do not automatically silence public life. In Türkiye, Egypt and Indonesia, for example, people still report joining protests or rallies on scientific matters — from climate action to pandemic policies — despite tight constraints on expression.

Another striking result is the education paradox. Populations with lower average education levels tend to discuss science more often and express their opinions more freely. This may reflect strong civic energy, but it also raises a challenge: enthusiasm does not always go hand in hand with understanding. The study warns that a louder conversation is not necessarily a more informed one.

3. What the global picture tells us

Behind the data lies a clear message: context matters.

• In countries with lower GDP, social media often replace traditional outlets as the primary source of science news.
• Where internet access is limited, people still encounter science in physical spaces — museums, schools, public talks.
• And even in societies with reduced press or academic freedom, scientists and journalists often find ways to reach audiences.

These findings call for communication strategies that adapt to local realities rather than importing Western models. In some places, strengthening museums or radio networks may matter more than investing in digital campaigns; elsewhere, supporting independent journalism can do more for engagement than opening another social media account.

4. Engagement as the measure of connection

The way people encounter science says much about how they participate in public life. Engagement is not simply about spreading facts; it is about creating spaces where science becomes part of the social conversation.

Observing how information flows — through platforms, stories, classrooms or civic action — helps identify where participation is growing and where it risks being lost. Each pattern offers clues about the state of democracy, trust and inclusion.

The global picture drawn by Mede and colleagues reminds us that building engagement begins not with more communication, but with better listening — to how people already talk about science, in their own languages, their own media and their own terms.

Further reading: Public Communication about Science in 68 Countries: Global Evidence on How People Encounter and Engage with Information about Science