Blog15th April 2026
In my role as Director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCOB), I am often asked whether I think technological progress drives social trends or societal need directs scientific advancement. In honesty, I think it is a bit of both, and for the most part, I think this is OK. But balance is key, and currently that balance is at risk.
Innovation is, in its nature, seeking to provide an answer to a problem or a better way of doing something. People rarely set out to exacerbate an issue or widen inequality. However, the increasing pace of science, coupled with government focus on innovation as a driver for growth – within the NHS as well as industry – means the time needed to identify ethical implications and meaningfully engage the public risks being deprioritised. This puts us in a precarious position of both missing the opportunities research can create and eroding trust in science. The 2025 Public Attitudes to Science (PAS) study supports this concern.
The PAS survey, which canvassed opinion from more than 5000 UK adults, reports a high amount of public value being placed on science and scientists, and it is encouraging to find that more people are discussing science than ever before. However, there has been a clear decrease in public trust in – and certainty towards – research since the COVID pandemic. There are many now showing more neutral or uncertain views, both about whether scientists are ethical or unethical, and towards the potential benefits of technology.
If the past has taught us anything, it is that robust ethical insight is fundamental to securing a positive public perception of science and a higher degree of trust in how a certain technology will be used. This aligns with the PAS finding that most people list ‘being ethical’ as the most important trait for scientists to have.
Looking back at the example of genetically modified (GM) crops, a highly contested area of research, its lack of transparency and public engagement contributed to a detrimental loss of public trust in the technology. On the other hand, the UK’s handling of genome editing in farmed animals demonstrated the value of taking a more considered and collaborative approach. The Precision Breeding (Genetic Technology) Act 2023, which set out the legislative framework to pave the way for use of this technology in farming, was informed by in-depth ethical analysis and extensive public engagement. The findings played a pivotal role in the design of the Act, meaning that if a future government decides to bring forward the enabling regulations required to permit genome editing in animals, it can do so with greater confidence that its use will reflect public priorities and secure both public trust and acceptance in the technology.
The challenge of supporting responsible scientific innovation is increasing as the pace of advancements outstrip current governance structures. We are witnessing a huge amount of effort and financial investment being directed towards the development of frameworks aimed at supporting a more agile approach to regulation. Sandboxes are one example of this, with published insights suggesting that this approach serves to strengthen relationships across regulators and industry. However, currently, ethical insights and the public’s voice within these attempts to inject agility in our innovation ecosystem remain quiet.
Investing time to anticipate the ethical implications of emerging technologies would put us in a much stronger position to effectively navigate inevitable trade-offs and identify any ethical red lines. These insights could then assist in the design of governance frameworks – helping to ensure both that technologies are used in a way the public can accept, and that scientists are confident in the frameworks that they operate within. The consequences of not doing so are stark. The PAS findings reveal that ‘unethical or irresponsible conduct’ is the primary reason for loss of trust in science. In short, prioritising ethics is critical to strengthening public support for science.
At the NCOB, we routinely work to combine the ethical exploration of an innovation with public deliberation on its potential future trajectories. This approach produces the evidence decision-makers need to navigate and, if needed, mitigate against societal impacts. My call to those working to meet the challenges the PAS survey has highlighted is to embrace ethics and meaningfully embed it into any action plans they develop – failing to do so risks losing the trust that is vital to representing and benefiting the public.