CaSE Public Attitudes to Global-Facing R&D – June 2024

CaSE was awarded with a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to develop evidence-led public messaging on the value of UK-based R&D with a global impact.

As part of this work, we commissioned research agency Public First to conduct a nationally representative survey of 4,000 people on 27-29 June 2024. This survey explored attitudes towards major societal issues and how to tackle them, how UK-based R&D could be used as a tool for solving global issues, and how to convey the value of this type of R&D activity.

This report is based on research funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The findings and conclusions contained within are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Attitudes to issues facing the UK and the world

Key takeaways

• Many people interpret ‘global’ as meaning ‘elsewhere’, rather than ‘shared’
• When considering global issues, the public often think of political instability and conflict
• Younger respondents are more aware of economic issues and poverty
• Most issues are seen as affecting the UK and other countries equally
• R&D is seen as an effective way to tackle extreme weather and improve global health
• A majority (77%) agree that R&D should be used as a tool to solve global issues

The public are most concerned about the cost of living and quality of the NHS as UK issues, and about political instability and extreme weather conditions when thinking about global issues.

We first asked respondents what they saw as the most important issues facing the country at the moment, with the cost of living coming top (selected by 62% of 4,000), closely followed by the quality of the NHS (57%), and then the state of the economy (35%).

These issues have remained in the top three since CaSE started its public opinion research in 2022, although we have seen a slight decrease in the number of respondents selecting the state of the economy and an increase in those selecting the NHS.

Respondents were then asked about issues facing the world, with 35% selecting political instability and conflict, and 32% selecting extreme weather conditions. When focus group participants were asked to name global issues, many talked about national issues happening in other countries, such as the US election, and global conflicts, such as the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. This indicates many people interpret ‘global’ as meaning ‘elsewhere’, rather than ‘shared’. However, some did talk about climate change and the environment.

In polling, younger respondents were more aware of poverty and economic issues as global challenges, with 30% of 18-34s selecting global poverty and 34% selecting economic crises – compared with 17% and 11% of over-55s. Similarly, we see 44% of over-55s selecting political instability and 43% selecting extreme weather, compared with 27% and 21% for 18-34s, respectively.

We then asked whether certain issues mostly impacted the UK, other countries or both equally. For all issues tested, only a minority felt they affected the UK more than other countries. At most, 22% said global migration and refugees were a larger issue for the UK than in other countries. Issues that respondents tended to think affected other countries most included lack of access to education (61%), water shortages (59%) and food insecurity (47%).

Many problems were seen to affect both the UK and other countries equally, including cyber attacks and AI (where 71% felt this way), economic crises (66%) and global migration and refugees (59%).

For this project exploring R&D and global-facing R&D, we chose to frame our research around extreme heat and infectious diseases as examplars. Around half of respondents felt that each of global health and infectious diseases, and extreme weather, were equally a problem for the UK and other countries (52% and 48%, respectively), with more than a third saying each was more of a problem in other countries.

Investing in R&D was seen as the most effective way of addressing global issues, including tackling extreme weather or global health.

When asked about the most effective ways to deal with global issues, where they could select up to three answers, the most-selected intervention was to invest in the research and development of new solutions (41%), followed by “strengthen international cooperation” (32%). This was before the concept of R&D had been introduced to respondents, demonstrating that R&D feels like a credible and relevant tool to tackle these issues, even without prompting or further information. When asked to pick a single solution, 23% chose investing in R&D compared to 16% who chose “strengthen international cooperation”.

A further question focused on the two issues being considered in this project. Again, when asked to select up to three, investing in R&D came top for both extreme weather (38%) and global health (46%); a view that was held broadly across most demographics. When asked to pick just one solution, investing in R&D was again top, selected by 19% for extreme weather and 27% for global health. A later question – posed after respondents had seen a definition of R&D – supports the idea that the public naturally see R&D as a solution to big problems, with 77% of respondents agreeing that R&D should be used as a tool to solve global issues. This is consistent across most demographic groups, while those who have donated to charity in the past year are more likely to agree.

UK’s role in global problems

Key takeaways

• The public value partnerships between countries on R&D
• Many people think the UK does, or spends, about enough to help other countries, with messaging about ‘doing’ performing slightly better ‘spending’
• Younger respondents were much more likely to think the UK is not doing or spending enough to help other countries
• A plurality think the UK investing money into solving global problems will have a positive impact on the UK’s security, people, economy and international reputation

Who should solve global problems?

The public want to see countries collaborate to solve problems, and they welcome the UK playing a role in this. However, many also think that those who cause problems should be the ones to find a solution, and want the UK to focus on solving problems at home first.

Multiple findings in CaSE’s public opinion research emphasise the importance that the public place on collaboration in this area.

Some 71% thought that higher income countries should work in partnership with lower income countries – although a majority (65%) also thought that higher income countries should invest more money into global issues. Some 57% said higher income countries have a responsibility to help lower income countries; this idea of ‘responsibility’ performed less well with older respondents. Those who are younger, non-white, or first- or second-generation immigrants are stronger supporters of partnerships.

Additionally, a majority said that individual countries should prioritise working together to find solutions to global problems, rather than finding solutions to their own problems. When asked about the UK in particular, 45% disagreed with the statement “It would be better for the UK to solve a global issue without the help of other countries” compared with just 23% who agreed.

Nearly two-thirds (64%) think it is better for the UK to work with other countries to solve global issues, to build stronger relationships with these countries. This is compared with 24% who think it doesn’t matter whether the UK solves the issue alone or in partnership, as long as the issue is solved. Just 6% think it is better for the UK to solve global issues alone to get the credit.

However, a majority of respondents (62%) also felt that those who cause global issues should be the ones to find a solution, and 61% said that the UK should focus on solving problems at home before helping other countries.

Meanwhile, half of respondents (49%) wanted the focus to be on addressing current issues rather than preparing for the future. This is similar to our previous polling; for instance in July 2022, 51% thought the UK’s top priority should be improving things for the future, compared with 49% who felt it should be improving things right now.

We saw similar attitudes in our focus groups. Although some felt the UK did enough and should address its own problems, many expressed a desire for partnership and a responsibility to get involved, either for altruistic reasons or to prevent impacts on the UK. Quotes from these participants can be seen at the end of the carousel below.

How does the UK’s contribution compare with others?

When considering the UK’s role in comparison with other countries, many people feel the UK does, or spends, about the right amount to help other countries – and this is thought to be as much or more than other countries.

Around a third (36%) said that the UK spends about the right amount to help other countries, while 42% said the UK spends too much. Just 13% say the UK doesn’t spend enough. Notably, when asked the same question but phrased as whether the UK ‘does’ (rather than ‘spends’) too much or too little, fewer people say that the UK isn’t doing enough. Some 40% say the UK does the right amount to help other countries, 37% say it does too much, and 15% say it does not do enough. Younger people are far more likely to say that the UK doesn’t spend enough (24% for 18-24s versus 9% of over-65s) and doesn’t do enough (29% for 18-24s versus 9% of over-65s).

The UK is generally seen to be doing as much as – if not more than – other countries to tackle global issues. Respondents were shown a list of Italy, France, China, Canada, Japan, Germany and the US. People felt the US was the most likely to be doing more than the UK, but still only by just over a third of respondents (35%). China and Italy were the most likely to be seen as doing less than the UK (46% and 34%, respectively). These views were echoed by some focus group participants.

More people think that the UK should try to solve problems affecting the world, even if other countries don’t (49%) compared to those who think the UK should only try to solve problems if other countries are doing the same (40%). Those who had given to charity in the past year were more likely to choose the former, with 60% of those who had given to international charities feeling this way, and 53% of those who had given to UK charities.

When asked about the impact of the UK investing money into solving problems that affect other countries, at least half thought that it would have a positive impact on the UK’s security (55%), people in the UK (51%), the UK’s economy (49%) and the UK’s reputation overseas (68%).

In separate questions, we found that a majority (69%) agreed that stabilising global issues is important for the UK’s defence strategy, and that helping other countries gives the UK more political power.

The role of R&D

Key takeaways

• Most people said the UK should be one of the leading nations in the world at R&D
• More than half think that R&D that takes 20 years to pay off is still worth investing in, and most think UK-based R&D will have a positive impact on global issues within 10 years
• A majority think the UK’s history of successful R&D means it should help solve global issues, and would feel proud of the UK investing in R&D to do so
• A majority support the UK investing in R&D to help tackle extreme heat in the worst-affected countries and to develop vaccines for malaria
• There is a great deal of appetite for R&D into cyberattacks and AI, and it is seen as the area that will bring the most – and quickest – impact
• The public think R&D on global issues will create jobs in the UK and improve international relationships, but there are concerns that it will prevent the UK from tackling problems at home

Attitudes to R&D, cooperation and timelags

The public view R&D as a global endeavour that brings benefits to countries around the world, and many are willing to accept timeframes of 20 years or more for research to deliver an impact.

To understand broad attitudes to R&D, we asked respondents if they agreed with a statement: “All research & development is beneficial regardless of what it is looking into”. More than half (57%) agreed, demonstrating a good level of support for R&D in general.

To contrast against questions about collaboration on global issues more generally, we asked about attitudes to cooperation on R&D – without mentioning global issues. These questions came after respondents were shown a definition of R&D.

First, we explored the position of the UK as a world leader in R&D. A majority agreed that the UK should be one of the leading nations in the world at R&D (81%) and that the UK should be the best in the world in R&D (69%). It is notable that messaging that positions the UK as one of the leaders performs better than the UK being the best in the world, broadly aligning with our previous research. This was borne out in focus groups (see above). CaSE’s research has consistently shown that the public see R&D as a collaborative endeavour, and that positioning R&D as a competition – especially when the UK is pitted against named countries – is one of the least effective arguments for R&D investment.

This is further supported by a later question, where 56% said that the UK and other countries equally benefit from each other’s research, compared with 10% who think the UK benefits more from overseas research, and 20% who think other countries benefit more from UK R&D. Again, this was reflected in our previous research.

We recognise that the long timeframes associated with R&D can be a concern for advocates when engaging audiences and this question built on our previous research, which suggested that long timeframes are not necessarily a blocker to public support.

In this poll, more than half (54%) of respondents felt that a research programme that takes 20 years to pay off is worth investing in and takes the right amount of time, while 31% feel it takes too long to pay off to be worthwhile. Younger respondents and those who had donated to an international charity in the past year were less likely to feel the 20-year timeframe was too long than older respondents or those who hadn’t donated.

Attitudes to the UK investing in global R&D

The public think the UK’s history of successful R&D means it should help solve global issues, and that putting UK money into research will help solve those problems and make them feel proud. However, when comparing similar research projects, those which were more likely to impact the UK were viewed more positively.

The final sections of this June 2024 poll explored the connection between R&D and global issues, and tested pro-R&D messages that were chosen based on our previous findings about the UK’s history and pride being effective ways to engage.

A majority agreed that “the UK has a history of being good at R&D so we should use that to solve global issues” (66%), and that “as Brits, we have something special that makes us good innovators” (55%).

After a series of questions about global issues, respondents were asked whether investing UK money into R&D would solve the problems being researched, though it was not specified if these were global-facing problems. Half (50%) agreed that it would, while 25% said it would not solve the problem but was worth doing anyway. Just 8% said it wouldn’t solve the problem and wasn’t worth doing.

Older people, those in socioeconomic groups ABC1, and those who had donated to charity in the past year were more likely to believe investing in R&D would help solve those problems.

This was followed by a similar question, which didn’t mention R&D but instead focused on global issues. Here, fewer people felt that global issues would be completely solved with enough investment, at just 23%. However, those who had donated to international charities in the past year were more positive, with 30% feeling this way. Over half (57%) didn’t think global issues can be completely solved, but investing money helps make things better for the people facing them.

A later question explored where the public saw the UK having the greatest impact in the pathway to solving global issues – from creating new ideas through to deploying them. Some 26% said the UK is better placed to help at the beginning of research, with 23% saying it is better placed later on in manufacturing, and 35% saying it should prioritise these equally.

Respondents were asked how they would feel about the UK investing money into R&D to create solutions to problems facing other countries. A majority said this was important (60%), that it would have a meaningful positive impact (62%), and that they would feel proud (61%). Just under half (48%) said this would be a good use of taxpayer money, while 24% said it would be a bad use.  Again, those who had given to international charity were more likely to think it would be a good use of taxpayer money, with 63% selecting this option.

Respondents were then asked the same question but on the two focal topics in this project: the development of new vaccines to be distributed to other countries and dealing with extreme weather impacting other countries.

Overall, we saw very similar attitudes, with most people selecting the more positive options in all cases. Indeed, for vaccine development there was a stronger sense this was a good use of taxpayer money than the more general question asked previously. This supports one of the core findings from our 2022-23 public attitudes poll that the public are more supportive of R&D, and R&D investment, when framed around a specific issue.

Later in the poll, we explored support for the UK spending money on R&D focused on:

• Helping to develop technologies to achieve net zero
• Finding a cure for cancer
• Helping to develop vaccines for diseases like malaria
• Climate adaptation technologies for the countries most affected by extreme heat

Our aim was to compare attitudes between R&D that is more clearly focused on other countries, such as the final two options listed above. In general, there was more support for the first two, which could be expected to have more UK beneficiaries, but a majority supported R&D focused on both.

Attitudes to priority areas and when R&D will have an impact on global issues

A majority expect UK-based R&D to have a meaningful positive impact on various global issues within 10 years, and more than 40% would like to see more UK-based global-facing R&D. Cyberattacks and AI is the global issue generating greatest appetite for more UK R&D, and is viewed as the area that will have the most, and quickest, impact.

We explored how much of an impact the public thought R&D carried out in the UK would have on different issues. In general, the public is fairly evenly split between those who think UK R&D would have a moderate or significant impact, and those who didn’t know or thought it would have no or a small impact.

Cyberattacks and AI is the global issue where people think UK R&D would have an impact (55%, with 25% saying this impact would be significant); extreme heat is at the other end of the scale (42%, with 14% saying this impact would be significant).

For the same set of issues, we asked respondents if they would like to see more or less UK-based R&D. Cyberattacks and AI came top, with a majority (60%) wanting to see more UK-based R&D. The two main topics for this project were the least popular, although a plurality still supported more research on both extreme heat (48%) and the spread of malaria (41%).

When a similar question was posed in focus groups, many respondents expressed a desire for more R&D into cyberattacks and AI. Other priorities mentioned included global poverty, extreme heat and food insecurity. As mirrored in CaSE’s wider focus groups, participants consistently looked to understand how different proposed R&D projects would be relevant to, or benefit, them or their loved ones. (See quotes at the end of the carousel below.)

We then asked how long respondents thought it would take for UK-based R&D to have a meaningful positive impact on these issues. For all issues, at least 49% expected this to happen within 10 years. Again, we saw the most positive response towards cyberattacks and AI, with half (51%) saying it would have an effect in less than five years. This was followed by the spread of malaria (41%); extreme heat was seen as one of the slower issues to tackle.

Notably, around a fifth selected ‘Don’t know’ for each of the issues shown. In their messaging, advocates may want to reflect the challenge in predicting when R&D will have an impact, especially on complex issues. As noted our previous research, unknowns are not necessarily off-putting for audiences, if dealt with transparently.

Attitudes to benefits of UK-based R&D on global issues

The public think UK-based R&D focused on global issues will create jobs in the UK and improve relationships with other countries, while the biggest concerns are that it will prevent the UK from focusing on, or funding, work to tackle problems at home.

When provided with a list of potential benefits of the UK doing R&D to tackle global issues, the most-selected option was that it would create jobs in the UK, followed by improving relationships with other countries, and then improving global health and preventing the spread of disease.

We see some differences between groups: women are more likely to select improvements in global health than other options (29%), but for men this option is fifth (21%); while those aged under 35 are more likely than older respondents to say it improves the global economy (20%).

Respondents felt that the main disadvantages of the UK doing this sort of R&D were that it would prevent the UK focusing on the problems being faced at home, or take money away from other more important issues. Older respondents were more likely to say that there are no disadvantages (24% among over-65s, compared with 6% of 18-24s and 16% among all respondents).

We see similar attitudes among respondents when asked about the impact of the UK investing more – and less – in R&D that addresses global issues. Respondents said more UK investment in global-facing R&D would improve jobs in the UK (48%), potentially solve global problems (45%), and improve relations with allies (44%).

When asked about the impacts of investing less, respondents said this would risk making problems around the world worse (36%) and would mean problems facing the world went unsolved (34%).

In focus groups, participants talked about benefits to the UK’s economy, with a stronger focus on finding personal relevance or benefits. Many supported job creation, but this tended not to be a primary focus or something that came about unprompted. Participants also considered potential risks involved, with some discussing whether the research projects might not succeed and some expressing concerns about trust. Both of these points have been expressed in previous focus groups and has led CaSE to recommend that honesty and transparency are vital in any messaging about R&D. (See quotes at the end of the carousel below.)

Messaging and messengers

The poll included a set of questions to help advocates shape their messaging when talking to different audiences about global-facing R&D.

Respondents were shown three sets of the following statement, with certain elements randomised: “Imagine a group of researchers based in the UK were considering a new programme of research. The research would look to [objective] in [location]. The project would [Additional information].”

They were then asked to rate their feelings about the proposal on five scales, covering how likely it was to achieve its objectives; whether they would be proud the UK was involved in it; if it was a good use of taxpayer money; if it would have a meaningful positive impact; and if it was important to carry out.

Public First analysed these results at the aggregate level and evaluated them relatively, identifying which elements had a significant impact on attitudes compared to a base category. The table below sets out each of the categories, alongside the base category these were compared against, which is shown as the top row.

The main result from this experiment is that research objectives have an impact on attitudes, confirming wider findings in both this poll and our previous research. Our surveys have consistently shown that it is the problem R&D is trying to solve that drives public opinion. In particular, this study highlights that R&D focused extreme heat may face communication challenges.

Compared to a project to “develop new low-cost medical technologies”, projects aiming to reduce the risk of flooding or the impact of extreme heat were seen as less likely to achieve their goals or be a good use of taxpayer money. The latter project was also less likely to generate pride or be seen as having a meaningful positive impact.

In contrast, a project aiming to stop the spread of malaria was viewed more positively on almost all scales than the base category of developing new low-cost medical technologies. For example, people were more likely to indicate they would be proud of the UK for doing it, more likely to feel it was a good use of taxpayer money, and more likely to say it would have a meaningful positive impact. The public also responded more positively towards R&D investigating the risks of new pandemic diseases and exploring new ways of providing clean water.

Men and those with no degree were less likely to see any of the projects positively on any of the scales, while older people were less likely to think that any research project would achieve its goals or was a good use of taxpayer money.

In contrast, those who had given to an international charity in the past year were more likely to feel more positively about all of scales about all of the projects.

In our focus groups, we explored how best to make the case for investment in R&D, asking what arguments were compelling and how they might be convinced. Some of these responses are included above – such as benefits like jobs, the economy or the UK’s reputation. When thinking about what would convince them, participants spoke about making it relevant to the things they or others care about, with a strong focus on making a better future for the next generation. Participants also shared views on R&D and the actors involved in R&D more broadly, where a number showed positive responses to the role that R&D businesses could play. (Quotes are shown in the carousel below.)

Trust is also vitally important when considering both messaging and messengers. When asked how much they trusted certain groups to advise the UK Government on how to support R&D that aims to help address global issues, we found that those working in research in the UK were the most trusted, by 68% of respondents. At the other end of the scale were international governments, which were trusted to advise by 34%.

More details on how to engage with different audiences can be found in our Advocacy Toolkit, which includes a general guide for engaging with R&D and a specific one based on the results of this research into global-facing R&D.

Attitudes to UK-based research infrastructure and centres

Key takeaways

• More than half of people would prefer large R&D infrastructure to be paid for, and hosted, by the UK
• A majority would support a new research centre being built on a local high street, with greater support for centres hosting R&D with a UK focus

There is broad support for research centres being set up in local areas, regardless of the focus of their work, and more than half would prefer large R&D infrastructure to be paid for – and hosted – by the UK, rather than another country paying for it.

We explored attitudes to the location and cost of large-scale infrastructure for research, given this is a major factor in many globally-collaborative research projects. Respondents were told that major infrastructure can be costly and difficult to create, but, once built, can be useful to researchers from across the world who may travel to use them, helping to make the host country a hub for research. 

When asked to choose between two options about who should pay for this infrastructure, a majority (59%) preferred that it was paid for by the UK and built in the UK, so the UK can benefit from the jobs and being a key part of the research process. Some 24% preferred this infrastructure to be paid for by other countries and built outside of the UK, so that the UK could use the money on more pressing national issues.

Those in socioeconomic group AB and those who had given to charity in the past year were more likely to say they UK should pay for and host such infrastructure; those aged 18-24 were more likely to say other countries should pay for and build it.

A further question explored support for a research centre being opened on a local high street, but tested different purposes: two examples focused on health issues (one UK-based and one global) and two on extreme heat (one UK-based and one global):

• Finding a cure for Alzheimer’s
• Finding a way to deal with extreme heat in the UK
• Developing a vaccine for malaria
• Finding a way to deal with extreme heat waves in lower income countries

The centre researching Alzheimer’s received the most support, at 84%. The rest of the centres received support from around three in five people, with greater support for development of a malaria vaccine (64%); this was higher among those who had given to charities in the UK (72%) and internationally (77%).

For extreme heat, the centre with a UK focus had slightly more support (63%) than the one looking at lower income countries (59%). Both had stronger support among people who had given to charity, but there was a notable rise to 79% support among international charitable givers for the centre focussed on lower income countries.

We tend to see more support for centres researching extreme heat among younger people and those in socioeconomic group AB, and for Alzheimer’s among older people. People who had given to charity (whether UK or international) in the past year were more likely to support any of the research centres than those who hadn’t donated.

When asked about the benefits of a new R&D centre being set up locally, 51% selected that it would create new jobs in their local area, followed by 41% who said the UK would directly benefit from the research.

This aligns with our previous research, which found that 66% would support a new research lab being built in their area. Most of those respondents were motivated by the prospect of benefits to the local economy and more well-paid jobs in their area.

Attitudes at the end of the survey

At the end of the poll – when respondents had been thinking about global issues and R&D for around 15 minutes – they were asked a set of questions to gauge attitudes to R&D that solves global issues. A majority agreed that cutting funding for R&D that benefits other countries would be a mistake (53%); that they would support greater investment into R&D with global benefits (59%); and that R&D benefits the UK even when solving issues overseas (65%).

Audiences

Charitable giving

In addition to the standard demographic categories discussed throughout this analysis, there are notable attitudinal differences based on whether people had given to domestic or international charities in the past year.

These charitable givers were more open to global-facing R&D than the general public, with even stronger support among those who had given to international – rather than UK-based – charities. Although we see similar attitudes among all givers, it is also notable that there are differences between the groups. For instance:

• International givers were more motivated by global causes, and domestic givers by the issues affecting the UK
• Those who had given to UK-based charities were more likely to say that the UK’s history and traditions were one of the main strengths of the UK (43%) than either the general public (41%) or international givers (36%)
• Domestic givers were more likely to agree that the UK should focus on solving problems at home before helping other countries (general public: 61%; domestic givers: 60%; international givers: 53%). 

Our polling explored broader attitudes to charities, finding that most people disagree with the statement “donating to charity is pointless because no progress is ever made”, and disagree that “it is not in the interests of charities to actually solve problems”.

Aid sceptics and R&D enthusiasts

We used respondents’ answers to specific questions to group them into potential audiences, and make comparisons between them.

For this research, we wanted to consider how views towards international aid compare with attitudes to R&D. For the former, we asked whether the UK is already doing too much or too little to help other countries. For the latter, we used three attitudes:

• Agree/disagree cutting funding for global-facing R&D would be a mistake
• Agree/disagree that R&D benefits the UK even when it is solving issues overseas
• Support/oppose greater investment into R&D with global benefits 

Unsurprisingly, those who weren’t positive about R&D in general were less supportive of spending money on it, while those who were also sceptical about international aid were much less supportive of spending money on R&D for global issues.  

Looking at support for UK-based R&D focused on domestically relevant issues (net zero and cancer) compared with international issues (extreme heat in other countries and malaria vaccines), we found that attitudes to R&D had more of an effect on support for these projects compared to attitudes to aid. When looking at internationally-focused R&D, the proportion in support was:

• 94% among those who thought the UK wasn’t doing enough to help other countries and were positive about R&D
• 87% among those who were sceptical about aid but positive about R&D
• 59% among those who were not sceptical about aid and not positive about R&D
• 40% among those who were sceptical about aid and not positive about R&D

Support was higher for R&D to tackle problems at home in all cases, apart from among those who were not sceptical about aid and positive about R&D, where it was the same. 

We also found that those who think the UK is already doing too much to help other countries are more likely to feel that global-facing R&D prevents the UK from focusing on problems at home (41% versus 34% on average) and that it takes money away from other more important issues (40% versus 33% on average).

We also see differences between the groups when exploring the main advantages of the UK doing R&D to help tackle global issues:

• Those who are not sceptical about aid and positive about R&D choose improving global health (34%) and improving international relationships (29%)
• Those who were sceptical about aid and not positive about R&D were most likely to choose job creation (32%), leading to discoveries that help the UK (26%), and benefitting the economy (25%). International collaboration (15%) and global security (9%) perform poorly
• When looking just at those who thought the UK was already doing too much for other countries, the most commonly selected advantages are that it could lead to discoveries that help the UK (26%) or benefitting the UK economy (25%)

R&D to tackle extreme weather and global health 

In consultation with organisations with an interest in global issues and how R&D can solve them, CaSE identified two areas to explore in this project: extreme heat and infectious diseases. Throughout the polling, we tested attitudes towards R&D generally, and to these topics, as a source of comparison.  

Key takeaways

• The public identified greater investment in R&D as the most effective method to deal with both extreme weather and infectious diseases 
• Extreme weather is considered a more important issue than global health, but both issues are less of a priority for the UK public than other global issues 
• The public expects malaria to be a much quicker issue to solve than extreme heat 
• Diseases tend to be seen as more solvable than climate change challenges  
• UK investment into “inventing new vaccines which could be distributed to other countries” generated strong senses of pride, importance, and meaning among the public 

When asked to cite the top three most important issues facing the world, 32% of respondents listed extreme weather conditions, such as extreme heat and flooding. This was the second-most frequent response after political instability and conflict (35%). Global health was ninth from the list provided, being selected by 15%. 

People who already feel positively towards R&D are more likely to be concerned about extreme weather (38%), the environment (28%), and global poverty (28%) than members of the general public. There were no significant trends across different audiences or demographics when it came to concern about global health, with it coming consistently low across groups. 

Despite not ranking these issues highly overall, roughly half of respondents feel that extreme weather (48%) and global health (52%) are equally problems for the UK and other countries. However, 40% of respondents said extreme weather conditions are more of a problem in other countries compared with 35% who said the same about global health. 

When asked to identify the most effective methods of dealing with each of global issues generally and then these two example global issues – extreme weather, and global health – greater investment in R&D was the most-selected method for each, being chosen by 41%, 38%, and 46% respectively.  

There were notable differences between the next most effective ways the public cited, demonstrating awareness of different methods and offering insights into how the public naturally thinks these issues could be addressed. 

• For extreme heat, developing monitoring systems and emergency response mechanisms came second (28%), followed by investing in infrastructure (25%) and strengthening international cooperation (25%) 

• For global health, improving public awareness and education came second (29%), followed by developing monitoring systems and emergency response mechanisms (28%), and encouraging information-sharing on effective solutions (27%) 

Looking at R&D’s role in more detail for specific global issues – such as extreme heat, the spread of malaria, water shortages, global poverty – we see that the public does expect UK-based R&D could have an impact. Some 52% expect UK-based R&D to have a moderate or significant impact on the spread of malaria, but fewer (42%) feel this way about extreme heat. In contrast, cyberattacks and AI came out slightly ahead, at 55%.  

Despite this, there is still support for more UK-based R&D on these topics; 48% of respondents said they would like to see more UK-based R&D into extreme heat and 41% said they would like to see more UK-based R&D into the spread of malaria. This is compared with 10% and 11%, respectively, who would like to see less R&D into these areas. However, there is more appetite for other types of R&D: cyberattacks and AI (60% would like to see more UK-based R&D on this topic), food insecurity (56%), water shortages (53%), and global poverty (49%). 

Elsewhere in the survey, we found that 65% said they would support the UK investing money on R&D to help develop vaccines for diseases like malaria and climate adaptation technologies for the countries most affected by extreme heat. 

When looking at how quickly global issues could be solved, respondents expected malaria to be quicker to solve than extreme heat. Some 20% of the public expects UK-based R&D into extreme heat to take over 10 years to see positive impacts, with a further 11% saying this will never have a positive impact on extreme heat.  

Earlier in our poll, respondents were asked about attitudes to the time it takes for R&D to see results (without specifying the issue it was addressing). Nearly a third (31%) said that research programmes that took 20 years to see results took too long to be a worthwhile investment. Just 20% said the same about 10-year projects.  

When asked about attitudes towards global-facing R&D, vaccine distribution to other countries, and devising solutions to extreme weather in other countries, the public was in greatest support of UK investment into “inventing new vaccines which could be distributed to other countries.” This generated a strong sense of pride, importance, and that it would have a meaningful positive impact.  

When asked if they would support a research centre opening in their area to tackle particular issues, we saw greater levels support for a centre working to develop a malaria vaccine (64%) than a centre researching extreme heat in lower income countries (59%). We tend to see more support for centres researching extreme heat among younger people and those in socioeconomic group AB. People who had given to charity (whether UK or international) in the past year were more likely to support any of the research centres than those who hadn’t donated.