During the Brexit debate, one comment stuck in my mind and seemed to resonate with people on both sides of the argument. Responding to expert claims in June that Brexit would damage the UK economy, Leave campaigner Michael Gove delivered a line that sent shivers down the spines of our colleagues in all fields: “People in this country have had enough of experts”.

Four months on, we can start to see the results of the vote to leave the European Union. The markets are volatile, the future is uncertain and many of us are left trying to figure out what has caused the big divide in our country. Disillusionment, austerity and misinformation have all been blamed for the polarised result. So, what does this mean for science?

For centuries, Britain has been at the forefront of science and engineering. Science is not just part of our heritage, it is part of our future; the UK’s competitiveness and economy depend on it. But when Mr Gove made this statement, it made me wonder if our relationship with experts and scientists was changing.

Mr Gove’s comments are believable, since trust in many sectors has declined sharply in recent years. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme says that trust in the financial sector was shattered by the recession. Trust in charities has also dipped from a rating of 6.7 out of 10 to 5.7 since 2014, with people citing reasons such as aggressive fundraising tactics and the collapse of Kids Company as the cause of this dip. Trust in MPs also fell after the expenses scandal, according to Ipsos MORI. These events have shaken confidence in the people and institutions we considered to be experts.

Are scientific experts next to undergo a sharp decline in trust? What could this mean for the UK and our place in the world?

At the British Science Association, we monitor the relationship between science and society, and it’s complicated. On the surface, trust in scientists is very high – more people trust scientists to tell the truth (79%) than the police (53%) or the clergy (67%), according to Ipsos MORI’s Veracity Index. The Institute for Government also found that most of us want experts to be involved in policy decisions (85%), and for their evidence to be used by politicians (83%).

Delve a bit deeper and you find that this trust is less robust than it first seems. Our research shows that only 12% of the population actively seek out scientific information, media content or events. Around 52% are open to science but don’t actively seek it out, and 27% completely avoid it. With most of our citizens disengaged from science, is their trust in experts resilient?

This low level of engagement suggests that our relationship with science and expertise is based largely on blind trust. We allow scientists and scientific institutions to get on with their work, often with public funding, without much questioning or scrutiny. We rely on science to police itself. But who can blame us when science is so inaccessible: an academic article in a non-open access journal can cost more than £40 to read; funding decisions are made behind closed doors; and many scientists are not recognised or rewarded for their engagement with people outside their profession.

This blind trust has been analysed by sociologist Anthony Giddens as ‘civil inattention’. Many of us have no choice but to trust experts because it is difficult to challenge people who have more specialist knowledge than us. Events such as the MMR controversy, GM food protests, the BSE crisis and Climategate then come as a shock to those in the scientific establishment who are not used to being challenged.

From these examples, it’s clear that people get involved and question things when they matter to them, or when their trust in others is eroded. On the back of a public outcry over MPs’ expenses, charity fundraising and the financial sector, new regulators have been established to push for responsible conduct but it’s not yet clear whether the recent drop in trust for these groups will force them to re-evaluate the way they function. It has taken a crisis in these areas to force good practice.

Back in the world of science, many of our colleagues and partners are concerned that a scandal will destroy the seemingly fragile trust many have for researchers and experts.

At the British Science Association, we think it’s time to get ahead of the curve and make some radical changes. We’re working to enable people to access, question and scrutinise research. We think it’s a fast track to accelerated innovation, a democratic society and stronger citizenship. We want to see a population that is keen to actively engage as critical friends, with institutions that are open to challenge and scrutiny.

We organised the Huxley Summit to bring non-scientists into the leadership and decision-making structures of science. We hope that by bringing together leaders from across our society, we will blur the lines that separate science from business, politics, media, and the arts. With provocative talks from speakers such as Rt. Hon. the Lord David Willetts, former science minister; Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Officer; Karen Blackett, Chair of MediaCom and Sacha Romanovitch, CEO of Grant Thornton UK, we hope the Summit will spark the conversations I believe are needed to move our country forward in these uncertain times. All of the Summit speeches will be made available online so that these conversations can continue.

We named the Summit after Thomas Henry Huxley, a self-trained biologist who in 1860 gave his ferocious support to Darwin’s theory of evolution at the BSA’s annual meeting. Crucially, the debate included voices from science alongside those from religion and other areas. Huxley fought for a radical new idea against a powerful establishment, built a network of supporters and pushed for what he believed in. We hope the Summit will provide a platform for leaders of innovation to spark debate and build trust in the 21st century.

We at the British Science Association envision a world where everyone can learn, use and question the knowledge created by our institutions and contribute their ideas and findings. We want everyone to feel united in the aim of scientific and societal progress. To do this, we need support from all types of organisations and people.

We want to see an opening up of what happens inside science. More accessible communication is a first step towards being fully open and transparent. This means more dialogue between citizens and institutions, and crucially before the big decisions are made. Another step is citizen-led scientific research. After that, could we see new and disruptive ways to access information from organisations that take us away from blinkered trust and toward a sense of shared ownership and accountability?

We want to see a proactive approach to openness, to help rebuild the relationship between people, experts and institutions. We hope that this will help to prevent scandals in science and other sectors. These ideas are universally applicable across business, charity and government, and we hope to provide a platform to discuss them today.