It’s no secret that in recent years we’ve seen big parts of the British public drift away from a focus on global health following the pandemic.

Research conducted in 2024 showed global health ranked at the bottom of the list of public concerns about global issues. And we can assume this will only have slid further down the rankings given the increasing prominence of security in an increasingly unstable world.

It’s likely, of course, that this lull in attention paired with a generally more inward-looking public sentiment will be well known by policymakers. Indeed, the cuts made by the UK government to international development and global health funding in 2025 may have received opposition from some in the sector but barely any political backlash. Especially compared with issues of central ideological importance such as welfare, which have nearly toppled the government.

This, then, presents a challenge for us in the global health and malaria community. It means our theory of change must engage the public much more thoroughly if we are to expect decision makers in power to listen and prioritise our issues. And this will mean getting outside of our comfort zone. Whilst technical arguments will continue to play a vital role when speaking to policymakers, building trust to re-engage the public will require something different and new.

Thankfully, there are some solution which might be right under our noses. Research shows that scientists are among the very few groups who command high levels of trust across otherwise very fragmented voter audience segments. And not only do people generally trust them but they find them exciting and engaging too, according to additional research. Furthermore, there is a hunger for more science content, with 62% of the British public saying they see or hear too little about science – the highest in a quarter of a century.

However, many still think scientists can be confusing – so we must communicate clearly. And around 1 in 4 don’t think scientists are representative, which is perhaps understandable when around only a third of the public have university degrees – meaning we must ensure we’re relatable and familiar, too.

Interestingly, there’s also evidence to suggest that this could be bolstered by engaging people locally. Polling showed that beyond trust in scientists, the only other unifying ‘institution’ British people trusted more or less unanimously was their own neighbours. This tallies with the fact we live in a more disparate information environment, meaning we should consider prioritising communicating on a local level.

Finally, evidence suggests that the public are keen to feel more personally involved in science activities and so we must learn not to broadcast but to open a two-way interaction. 52% say they’d like to volunteer in a citizen science project and 57% would like to contribute to decisions on science impacting their local area. 

All of this can start to build a new foundation of trust with the general public in order to explain, on their terms, the benefits of global health and malaria science. And this should happen in parallel to important ongoing efforts to directly engage policymakers.

We at Malaria No More UK are starting to develop thinking around a strategy akin to this in collaboration with partners from across the UK global health sector. We would love to hear the thoughts of malaria scientists in particular on this approach as it continues to evolve. In particular, the role you think you can play as a trusted messenger to better speak to the general public.

If this sounds of interest, please do get in touch with Louie on louie.freeman-bassett@malarianomore.org.uk