Science has a unique position in public life – most Britons trust it. But a recent report by the Wellcome Trust and More In Common reveals cracks in that confidence. People worry about who funds research and suspect that political agendas skew scientific findings. Many feel overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information and simply tune out.

As Philippa Michael – Head of Public Initiatives at Wellcome – emphasises, the public rarely rejects science itself. Instead, people question how scientists work, who they answer to, and whether they understand everyday concerns.

When people see practical improvements to their lives, though, they feel hopeful. Trust in science relies heavily on this visible progress. If scientific institutions want to keep public support, they need to show how their work matters. Challenge prizes can do exactly this.

Traditional research grants operate under the radar. A funding body gives money to an established scientist based on a proposal. The public often doesn’t see this process. This lack of visibility breeds suspicion, as people worry that financial backers quietly manipulate the results. To rebuild confidence, the scientific community must make its independence visible.

Challenge prizes use a completely different model. A sponsor defines a technical problem and offers a cash reward to whoever solves it first or best. The sponsor publishes the rules and assessment criteria before anyone starts working. The money is only awarded if a participant proves their invention works. This structure shows the public that funding buys a verified solution. It prevents anyone from paying for a biased conclusion.

Prizes also change who gets to do science. The public often sees scientific institutions as an exclusive club that talks down to them. Prizes lower the barriers to entry and invite participation from anyone. A solution might come from a university lab, a corporate team, or a group of keen amateurs working in a shed. Opening the process shows that problem-solving belongs to everyone.

Nearly 40% of the British public feel there is too much information to know what is true about science. Traditional research communication struggles to overcome this fatigue. It usually announces a finished paper and asks people to care about a technical process they never saw. A challenge prize solves this problem by introducing a storyline. It turns an abstract scientific hurdle into a race with a clear finish line. The cash reward sets the stakes and the resulting drama gives the audience an emotional reason to engage with the science. People intuitively understand a race.

This narrative structure also builds public acceptance of new ideas. When people observe a competition, they see the technology tested in real time. The scale of media coverage generated by a high-profile race acts as free advertising for neglected problems. It helps science communicators reach audiences who usually ignore traditional research announcements.

Prizes also force innovators to focus on applied technology. They demand working prototypes rather than abstract theories and compel teams to bridge the gap between the lab and the market. Whether a team is engineering a smart wheelchair or a rapid diagnostic test, they must demonstrate their solution works outside of a controlled environment. When people observe these technologies succeeding, the abstract promise of scientific research becomes tangible. Delivering these practical products and services provides the exact kind of visible progress that makes the public feel optimistic about the future.

If you want people to trust science, you must also give them a say in what scientists do. We tested this idea with the Longitude Prize. Nesta and the Longitude Committee shortlisted six global challenges. We did not let experts make the final choice. We asked the public to vote on a BBC television programme. The public chose antimicrobial resistance. The resulting competition offered £8 million for a rapid diagnostic test for bacterial infections (which was subsequently won by the PA-100 AST System from Sysmex Astrego).

We ran dialogue workshops to help write the prize criteria. Participants told us the challenge had to be ambitious but solvable, have a global reach, and benefit society as a whole. Inviting the public to direct science also raised difficult ethical questions. Some participants worried that large companies would profit unfairly from the prize.

We have to navigate these concerns openly. We must ask if an innovation distributes its benefits fairly. We also have to avoid assuming that a new technology is the right way to fix every social issue. 

The public values honest explanations of limits and trade-offs. Inviting public direction means admitting the limits of technological solutions. By setting clear goals, inviting anyone to participate, and communicating these trade-offs with respect, challenge prizes offer a practical way to show the public that scientific research works for them.

In the same spirit, Challenge Works’ search for the next Longitude Prize is an open process, with 15 initial prize concepts acting as a catalyst for a global conversation. We know that great challenges aren’t found in a vacuum, and so we are inviting the greatest minds to iterate on our ideas with us, and put forward their own suggestions for which issue the next Longitude Prize should tackle. 

If you want to be involved in this process, take a look at the prize ideas, or get in touch with the team.