Insights 2024:

Attitudes toward AI

Key Findings

Contents
Introduction

3

Highlights

4

Chapter 1: The current AI landscape5

Awareness of GenAI tools

5

Perceptions of GenAI

6

AI in practice6

Chapter 2: A future lens on AI

7

Perceived impact and benefits

8Perceived drawbacks

8

Expectations

9

Chapter 3: Shaping an AI-driven future

10

Exploring users’ concerns

10

Factors impacting trust in and comfort using GenAI tools

11

Actions for a GenAI-powered future

11

Key Findings - Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI

2

Introduction“The development of AI is as fundamental as thecreation of the microprocessor, the personal computer,the Internet, and the mobile phone. It will change theway people work, learn, travel, get health care, andcommunicate with each other.”Bill Gates1

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has entered themarket at an unprecedented pace, with most researchersand clinicians aware of its biggest applications, following
their emergence in late 2022.

What is GenAI?
GenAI, short for generative artificial
intelligence, refers to a category of artificial
intelligence systems and models that havethe ability to generate data, content, or other
outputs that are similar to those created byhumans. These AI systems are designed to
produce new and original content rather thansimply process or analyze existing data.2

The artificial intelligence (AI) landscape is changing
rapidly, and in order to ensure the technology has apositive impact on research and healthcare, it’s important
to monitor the views of those who could be using it.
The Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI research aimed
to do this, by surveying nearly 3,000 people working inresearch (including leaders and corporate researchers)
and in health (clinicians) from around the world.
The research examines the attitudes of researchersand clinicians toward artificial intelligence, including
generative AI, covering its attractiveness, perceived
impact, the benefits to them and wider society, thedegree of transparency to be comfortable using tools that
capitalize on the technology, and the challenges they
see with AI. It also looks at the current usage, and what
respondents think would help them trust AI tools.

Online survey
Insights 2024:
Attitudes toward AI
When:
What:
Who:

December 2023 to February 2024
15-minute online quantitative survey
2,999 respondents from across
123 countries- 2,284 researchers- 1,007 clinicians(of whom 292 are also included as researchers)

Results: To improve representativeness weweighted responses by region, basedon OECD and Pharma Factbook
population data, and to equally
represent researchers and cliniciansin totals. Clinicians are weighted
equally by doctors and nurses.

The main report explores these themes across threechapters. You can read summaries of them here.

Key Findings - Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI

3

Highlights
Awareness of AI is high, but usage is lower, withexpectations that this will grow. Institutions have notyet clearly conveyed their AI usage restrictions, or their
preparations for increased use of AI, to researchersand clinicians.

The outlook is optimistic: researchers and clinicians
foresee a range of benefits from AI. They believe it
will help...

95%
Accelerate knowledge discovery

96%

94%

Have heard of AI (including GenAI)- subsequent statistics exclude the
4% not familiar with AI

Rapidly increase the volume ofscholarly and medical research

54%

92%

Have used AI (including GenAI)

Provide cost savings to institutions
and businesses

31%
Have used it for work purposes

87%

11%

Increase work quality overall

Are very familiar with AI and have used it a lot

72%

67%

Also think it will have a transformative or
significant impact on their area of work

Of those not already using AI, expect to use
it within two to five years
Caution is evident in many areas, highlighting points
of attention for developers and institutions believe
it has the potential to...

94%

Specific actions can help increase trust, and by taking
and communicating them, providers of AI tools canincrease users’ comfort.

81%

Be used for misinformation

Expect to be told whether the tools they
are using depend on generative AI

86%

71%

Make critical errors or mishaps

Expect generative AI dependent tools’
results bebased on high quality trusted
sources only

81%
Erode critical thinking skills

79%
Cause disruption to society
Future uses of trusted AI tools amongst those who believe AI can benefit their work:
likelihood of using a reliable and secure AI assistant to…

Generate a synthesis of research
articles in a specific area
– 89% of researchers

Review prior studies, identify gaps
in knowledge and generate a newresearch hypothesis for testing– 94% of researchers and clinicians

Key Findings - Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI

Assess symptoms and identify
possible conditions or diseases– 94% of clinicians

4Chapter 1:

The current AI landscape
Explore the awareness, perceptions and usage of AI(including GenAI) among researchers and cliniciansaround the world.
➤

96% have heard of AI (including GenAI) – subsequentstatistics exclude the 4% not familiar with AI➤

54% have used AI (including GenAI); 31% have used it
for work purposes, this is higher in China (39%) than in
the USA (30%) and India (22%)➤

11% are very familiar with AI (including GenAI), i.e.
they’ve used it a lot➤

ChatGPT is by far the most well-known AI
product (89%)➤

25% have used ChatGPT for work purposes➤

49% of those who have not used AI cite a lackof time as the reason

Awareness of GenAI tools➤

42% of those who have ethical concerns about AI
cite as a top disadvantage that it is unable to replace
human creativity, judgement and/or empathy

In the current survey, almost all (96%) have heard ofor used AI. Awareness is highest in China, at 99% (seeaccompanying databook for full details). Globally, only
11% are very familiar with AI, having used it a lot. This ishigher among researchers (14%) than it is clinicians (8%).

Researchers and clinicians are on a journey fromawareness to usage to benefit when it comes to AI.
Awareness of AI in general is high among both researchersand clinicians, but relatively few say they are currently
very familiar, having used AI a lot. Over half of bothgroups who are aware of AI have used it, and almost
one-third have used it for a specific work-related purpose;
this is highest in China (40%). A lack of time to investigate
such tools is the main reason for not using AI.

Summary Report - Insights 2024: Attitudes to AI

ChatGPT is by far the most well-known AI product, with
89% of survey respondents globally being familiar with it.
Researchers (94%) are more likely than clinicians (84%) tohave heard of it.
The next most familiar GenAI tool is Bard (40% overall),followed by Bing Chat (39%), Gemini (22%) and MS Copilot(22%). Lesser-known tools are Semantic Scholar (17%),
ChatPDF.ai (13%) and OpenEvidence (8%). In all cases,
researchers are more likely than clinicians to be familiar
with the tools.

5Perceptions of GenAI
While awareness of certain GenAI tools is high among
both researchers and clinicians, attitudes to thetechnology are more variable, with 49% of respondents
globally saying they feel mixed about AI, able to see bothpotential and drawbacks.
However, sentiment is generally more positive about the
impact of AI than negative: 36% of respondents say AI isa welcome advancement, compared to just 1% who see
mostly drawbacks. Researchers (41%) are more positive

about the technology than clinicians are (32%) and US
respondents are less likely to feel positive, 28% in the US
vs. 46% in China, 41% in India. Clinicians are also moreunsure, with 17% saying they need to see how AI develops,
compared to 10% of researchers.
The vast majority (95%) of respondents believe GenAI will
have an impact on their work (1% think it won’t, 4% don’tknow), with 72% believing the level of impact will be eithertransformative or significant.

Overall feelings towards AI (including GenAI)% Total(n=2,999)
Positive – it’s a welcome advancement% Researchers(n=2,284)36

Mixed - I can see both potential and drawbacks

Significantly higher or lower than total

32

CL

50

48

13

17

10

1

RE

1

1

Significantly higher than Role/ Region/ Country (indicated by first two letters e.g. AP = APAC)
Asia Pacific = AP
Europe = EU

Fig 1.

41
49

Unsure – I need to see how this develops
Negative – I see mostly drawbacks% Clinicians(n=1,007)Mid. East & Africa = MEA
North America = NA

South America = SA
China = CH

UK = UK
USA = US

RE = Researchers
CL = Clinicians

Question: What are your overall feelings about the impact of AI on your area of work

AI in practiceOf those familiar with AI, more than half (54%) of
respondents in the current research have used AI, withresearchers (59%) more likely than clinicians (50%) tohave used it.

(31% and 19% respectively). Comparatively few (4%)
report using MS Copilot (in Word, Excel and PowerPoint).

Proportionally more researchers (37%) than clinicians(26%) have used AI tools for a work-related purpose.

The most common reason for researchers and clinicians
not having used GenAI is lacking the time to investigate orexperiment with the tools – 49% of respondents globally
cite this as the reason, including 52% of researchers and
47% of clinicians.

One-quarter (25%) of respondents in the current study
have used ChatGPT for work, with usage significantly
higher among researchers than clinicians

Other reasons given for not having used AI tools include
lack of access (26%), not having the right tools (25%) andhaving concerns about AI tools (22%).

Usage of AI and context for usage% Total(n=2,999)
Yes – for a specific work-related purpose% Researchers(n=2,284)
31

Yes – but just to test it or fora non-work purpose

37

23
44

Significantly higher or lower than total

26

CL

24

22

No
Don’t know/not sure

% Clinicians(n=1,007)

1

49

40

RE

1

1

Significantly higher than Role/ Region/ Country (indicated by first two letters e.g. AP = APAC)
Asia Pacific = AP
Europe = EUMid. East & Africa = MEA
North America = NA

South America = SA
China = CH

UK = UK
USA = US

RE = Researchers
CL = CliniciansFig 2. Question: Have you used an AI (including generative AI) product or an AI feature on a product you use regularly?

Key Findings - Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI

6

Chapter 2:

A future lens on AI
Discover researchers’ and clinicians’ expectations,
including the potential benefits and drawbacksof the technology.
➤

95% think AI will accelerate knowledge discovery➤

94% believe AI help rapidly increase the volume ofscholarly and medical research➤

92% foresee cost savings for institutions
and businesses➤

87% think it will help increase work quality overall➤

67% of those not using AI expect to use AI in thenext two to five years➤

42% of those who have ethical concerns about AI
cite as a top disadvantage that it is unable to replace
human creativity, judgement and/or empathy➤

71% expect generative AI dependent tools’ results
be based on high quality trusted sources only➤

72% believe AI (including GenAI) will havea transformative or significant impact on
their area of work

Researchers and clinicians recognize the growing
potential of AI tools, and if they’re not already using them,
most expect to do so in the coming two to five years.
Almost all respondents expect AI (including GenAI) to havean impact by helping accelerate knowledge discovery.

While they identify numerous benefits, they also thinkthat AI will not replace inherently human capabilities likecreativity and empathy. Transparency and quality will be
important in the future as GenAI use increases.

Positive impact of AI in various areas over the next two to five years% at least to some extent
Change the way students are taught and study in universities and medical schools

96

Accelerate knowledge discovery

95

Rapidly increase the volume of scholarly and medical research

94

Increase your work efficiency

92

Provide cost savings to institutions and businesses

92

Increase your work quality

87

Free your time for higher value work

85

Increase your work consistency

83

Increase collaboration

Fig 3.

79

Question: Thinking about the impact AI will have on society and your work, to what extent do you think over the next 2 to 5 years it will…?
A great extent, some extent, not at all. n=2,887

Key Findings - Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI

7

Perceived impact and benefits

Perceived drawbacks

The sentiment around AI is influenced by the impact
people expect the technology to bring in the future,some of it positive and some negative.

Respondents are not solely positive about AI – they also
identifiy a number of potential disadvantages of AI.
The majority (85%) have at least some concerns about
the ethical implications of AI in their area of work.

Research: 95% believe it will accelerate knowledge
discovery at least to some extent in the next two to
five years. Similarly, 94% of respondents think AI will
help rapidly increase the volume of scholarly andmedical research, with clinicians (96%) more likely thanresearchers (92%) to think this. About three-quarters(74%) expect AI to increase collaboration, which isvaluable to research success. Specifically, 95% of
respondents see benefit in using AI for research-related
activities (see detailed findings in full report).
High-value work: About nine in ten (87%) respondents
expect AI to improve their work quality, while 13% predict
there will be no impact in this area. Similarly, 83% think
the technology will increase their work consistency,
compared to 17% who expect no benefit.
Education: Almost all (96%) respondents to the current
survey expect AI to change the way students are taught
to some extent, and most (96%) see a lot of benefit
in AI for teaching and lecturing activities.
Clinical work: In the current study, 41% of respondents
see a lot of benefit in AI for clinical activities such as
diagnoses and patient summaries.
Publishing and funding: 92% of respondents believe AI
will bring some benefit in publication and monitoring
the impact of research, for example in authoring andreviewing. When it comes to funding, though, respondents
are not as optimistic, with 84% expecting AI to provide alot of benefit for funding-related activities, and
16% expecting no benefit at all.
Key Findings - Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI

The human element: People see its inability to replace
human creativity, judgement and/or empathy as the main
disadvantage, with 42% of respondents ranking this as a
top-three disadvantage of the technology. Clinicians (45%)
are more likely to say this than researchers (39%). And
women (46%) are more likely to say this than men (38%).
Regulation: Two-fifths (40%) of respondents cite the lackof regulation and governance as a top three disadvantage
of AI. The next most commonly cited disadvantage is that
outputs can be discriminatory or biased, with 24% of
respondents ranking this in their top three.
Accuracy: For 19% overall, being too dependent on
outdated data and/or information is a top three
disadvantage of AI. Similarly, 18% of respondents consider
hallucinations (i.e. when AI generates incorrect and/or
nonsensical outputs) to be a major disadvantage, withresearchers (25%) significantly more likely than clinicians(11%) to rank this in their top three.
Privacy: 13% of respondents consider the lack ofconfidentiality of AI inputs or prompts as a top three
disadvantage, and 11% rank the lack of confidentialityof outputs as such.

8Expectations
Use of AI is predicted to grow: 67% of those who have
yet to use AI tools expect to do so in the next two to five
years with China (83%) and India (79%) outpacing the
US (53%) significantly. While respondents were optimistic
about their future use of AI, they also shared a number of
expectations around how they believe AI should develop.
The top expectation overall is that generative AI will
always be paired with human expertise, with 83% of
respondents globally agreeing with this. Clinicians (86%)
are more likely than researchers (81%) to agree.

Institutions are also expecting the use of AI to increase– and they’re preparing for it. Actions institutions aretaking include building a plan or protocol to evaluate
the purchase of tools that include AI (reported by 16% ofrespondents), setting up a community of practice aroundit (14%) and providing ethics courses (14%). Overall, 12%
plan to acquire tools that include AI in 2024 or beyond.
It is less common for institutions to be appointing new AI
leadership (6%) or operational functions such as GenAI
Librarian (10%).

Expectations of AI% Disagree% Total(n=2,836)% Agree% Researchers(n=2,156)% Clinicians(n=964)Generative AI to always be paired with humanexpertise (i.e. qualified people validate outputs)

7

83

9

81

6

86

To be informed whether the tools I use dependon generative AI

6

81

6

81

6

81

To be given a choice to turn off generative
AI in the tools that I use

9

75

9

76

8

74

Generative AI will work well with non-text modalities (i.e. chemical or biological compounds,chemical reactions, graphs, plans)

8

74

10

72

7

77

RE

Generative AI dependent tools’ results be basedon high quality trusted sources only

6

71

6

68

6

73

RE

Significantly higher or lower than total

RE

Significantly higher than Role/ Region/ Country (indicated by first two letters e.g. AP = APAC)
Asia Pacific = AP
Europe = EUMid. East & Africa = MEA

North America = NA
South America = SA

China = CH
UK = UK
USA = US

RE = Researchers
CL = CliniciansFig 4. Question: Thinking about the use of generative AI in your area of work, how much do you agree or disagree with the following either presently
or in the near future? By near future, we mean in the next 2-5 years.

Likely uses of a reliable and secure AI assistant

94%

91%

94%

of survey respondents who believe
AI can bring benefit in research
are likely to use an AI assistant toreview prior studies, identify gaps
in knowledge and generate a newresearch hypothesis for testing.

of researchers who believe AI canbring benefit when preparing a paper
are likely to an AI assistant to proof
their paper and 89% to generate
a synthesis of research articles
in an area.

of clinicians who believe AI canbring benefit across clinical activities
are likely to use an AI assistantto assess symptoms and identify
a disease or condition.

Key Findings - Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI

9Chapter 3:

Shaping an AI-driven future➤

94% believe AI will be used for misinformation➤

86% are concerned AI will cause critical errors
or mishaps➤

81% worry AI will erode critical thinking➤

58% say training the model to be factually accurate,
moral, and not harmful would strongly increase theirtrust in that tool

Knowing the information the model uses is up to date was
the most selected information area by respondents forincreasing their comfort in using an AI tool
Understanding not only their concerns but the factorsthat build researchers’ and clinicians’ trust in AI tools andtheir comfort using them can help technology developers
create better tools and institutions maximize their benefit.
Almost all respondents are concerned that AI will be
used for misinformation and could cause critical errors
or mishaps. Factual accuracy and up-to-date information
would help increase trust among users.

Exploring users’ concerns
Understanding users’ (and potential users’) concerns
around GenAI is an important step in developing tools
with minimized risks. Some of the biggest concerns arearound misinformation and errors.
Overall, 94% of respondents (95% of researchers and 93%
of clinicians) believe to some extent that AI will be used
for misinformation over the next two to five years. Most
researchers and clinicians (86%) are also worried about
critical errors or mishaps (accidents) occurring, with 14%
not expecting this not to happen at all.

Over four in five (82%) doctors think use of AI will mean
physicians become over reliant on the technology to makeclinical decisions. This concern was echoed in the Clinicianof the Future Education Report, in which more than half(56%) of students feared the negative effects AI can haveon the medical community.4
Social disruption is also a concern for 79% of respondents,for example with AI causing the unemployment of large
numbers of people.
Ethical concerns are also important to respondents. In
the current survey, most respondents (85%) have at least
some concerns, with only 11% reporting no concerns
about the ethical implications of AI on their area of workand 11% reporting fundamental concerns. This is higher inEurope (17%) and North America (14%).

Negative impact of AI in various areas over the next two to five years% At least to some extent
Be used for misinformation

94

Cause critical errors or mishaps (e.g. accidents)

86

Physicians become over reliant on AI to make clinical decisions (doctors only n=673)

82

Erode human critical thinking skills

81

Cause disruption to society (e.g. unemployment for large numbers of people)

79

Fig 5.

Question: Thinking about the impact AI will have on society and your work, to what extent do you think over the next 2 to 5 years it will…?
Lot of extent, some extent, not at all. n=2,829

Key Findings - Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI

10Factors impacting trust in andcomfort using GenAI tools
More than half (58%) of respondents say training themodel to be factually accurate, moral, and not harmful
would strongly increase their trust in that tool.
Some of the other factors respondents say would increase
their trust in AI tools relate to quality and reliability. For
example, 57% say only using high-quality peer-reviewed
content to train the model would strongly increase theirtrust, while just over half (52%) say training the modelfor high coherency outputs (quality model output) would
strongly increase their trust.
Transparency and security are also important factors.
For 56% of respondents, citing references by default(transparency) will increase trust in GenAI tools. Keeping
the information input confidential is a trust-boosting
factor for 55%, as is abidance by any laws governing
development and implementation (legality) for 53%.

We asked respondents which information areas would
increase their comfort is using a tool dependent on AI:
Reliability: More than one-third (37%) of respondents
identify knowing the information the model uses is up
to date as one of the top three factors affecting comfort,
and 28% identify actions having been taken to prevent
unfair bias. Over one-quarter (26%) say an explanationof how the solution worked is one of the top-threefactors that would make them more comfortable.
Governance: 36% rank feeling more comfortable if robust
governance on data and information was used to train themodel in their top three, and 36% if there is accountability
through human oversight.
Awareness of potential impacts: 27% of respondents
say privacy being respected on outputs generated
is a top three comfort factor, and 30% if the real-world
impact on people.

Actions for a GenAI-powered future
Based on the survey findings and secondary research,
we recommend actions for technology developers andinstitutions.
GenAI technology developers can:➤Enhance accuracy and reliability➤

Increase transparency➤

Strengthen safety and security

Institutions employing researchers and clinicians can:Key Findings - Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI➤

Establish policies and plans and communicate
them clearly➤

Build governance and expertise➤

Provide training and capacity➤

Ensure access

11

References
1.

Bill Gates. The Age of AI has begun. Gates Notes. 21 March 2023.
https://www.gatesnotes.com/The-Age-of-AI-Has-Begun

2. OpenAI. ChatGPT. April 2024.
https://chat.openai.com/chat3.

Elsevier. Clinician of the Future 2023. Page 22.
https://www.elsevier.com/connect/clinician-of-the-future

4. Elsevier. Clinician of the Future 2023 Education Edition.
https://www.elsevier.com/promotions/clinician-of-the-future-education-edition

Notes
For a detailed methodology, including sample bases by region/country,
see the appendices of the main report.
For more about the AI views and usage of clinicians,
see the report Insights: Clinician of the Future attitudes toward AI.
https://tinyurl.com/ai-cotf
For more on AI usage and perceptions among researchers,
see the report Insights: Researcher attitudes toward AI.
https://tinyurl.com/ai-researchers

https://tinyurl.com/attitudes-ai
Follow Elsevier Connect on
X (formerly Twitter), Facebook and LinkedIn

Report Authors
Adrian Mulligan (a.mulligan@elsevier.com)
Nicola Mansell
Lucy Goodchild (lead author)
TellLucy.com

Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI
Elsevier July 2024