Prediction markets such as Polymarket and Kalshi have gained popularity over the past few months. From betting on epidemics to betting on artificial intelligence, many of their markets are linked to science and research. So how do Polymarket’s prediction powers compare to the opinions of subject matter experts?
In prediction markets, users bet on a future event by buying and selling stocks in favor of different outcomes. The price of each share is determined neither by expert opinions nor by the odds set by the “house”. Rather, prices are based on demand, reflecting the market’s collective belief in the probability of the outcome.
But in addition to providing a gaming platform, prediction markets offer a test of the concept of wisdom of crowds – the long-standing idea that the collective predictions of large groups of people tend to be better than those of specialists on the subject. According to the Polymarket website, prediction markets can often determine outcomes more accurately than experts or surveys because “economic incentives ensure that market prices adjust to reflect true probabilities as more knowledgeable participants join.”
On supporting science journalism
If you enjoy this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribe. By purchasing a subscription, you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Research has shown that prediction markets sometimes outperform other forecasting methods in political elections, but some researchers are not convinced they can compete with the work of expert scientists.
Prediction markets are “potentially useful forecasting supplements” to science, says Richard Borghesi, who researches financial markets and forecasting at the University of South Florida in Tampa. Markets can be useful in assessing how scientific information is received by the public, he says, but they are “not a substitute for models, peer review, or expert judgment” and are less informative when traders lack specialized knowledge on the subject.
There are also growing concerns about market manipulation and insider trading on Polymarket and Kalshi. In October last year, Norwegian officials overseeing the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize investigated an increase in betting for Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado hours before receiving the award.
Possible pandemics
Epidemics are an area of science in which researchers question the effectiveness of market predictions. When a hantavirus outbreak broke out reported on a cruise ship in early Maya Polymarket predicts a 19% chance that the World Health Organization (WHO) will declare a hantavirus pandemic this year. But it sank after the shock of the first news; When this article was published, the market was at a 5% chance, with about $14 million worth of shares traded so far. A similar market from Kalshi predicts that there is a 7% chance that the WHO will declare a hantavirus outbreak a public health emergency of international concern in 2026.
Users of these markets follow certain scientific evidence, with comment sections referencing WHO updates and case numbers. In comparison, researchers typically predict disease spread using mathematical models and a variety of data, including hospital surveillance, genomic data and even school absences.
It is difficult for experts to accurately assess the likelihood of a pandemicbut the risk of a global hantavirus outbreak “is very, very low,” says Vaithi Arumugaswami, an infectious disease researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles. Forecasts from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest the risk of the virus to the American public is extremely low, and the WHO says human-to-human transmission is rare.
The way users trade may be an effect of pandemic anxiety, which seems particularly present since the COVID-19 pandemic, says Bill Hanage, an epidemiologist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “In this regard, Polymarket betting “tells you something about how the public feels.”
Climate forecast
Another scientific topic generating buzz in forecasting markets is climate change. In this area, some bets seem “reasonably consistent with expert estimates,” says Zeke Hausfather, a climatologist at the research organization Berkeley Earth in California.
A Polymarket predicts that there is a 34% chance that 2026 will be the hottest year on record, and a 60% chance that it will be the second. Kalshi also gives this year a 32% chance of being the hottest yet. The father of the family own real-time projections — based on data from the European Space Agency’s Copernicus Earth observation program — give a 28% chance that 2026 will be the hottest year so far, and a 67% chance that it will be the second hottest year. Last week, a report from the World Meteorological Organization has warned that a year of record heat is almost certain by 2030.
Quantum predictions
Polymarket users are also betting on the possibility that a quantum computer will soon be able to “crack” the Bitcoin cryptocurrency by deriving the private key associated with an existing Bitcoin address. The market gives a 3% chance that this objective will be achieved by the end of 2026 and 16% by the end of 2027.
Progress this year have advanced the timeline for quantum computers deciphering such keys, but it will still take time for researchers to assemble a system on the scale needed to threaten cryptography, says Scott Aaronson, a theoretical computer scientist at the University of Texas at Austin. The deadlines proposed by Polymarket are undoubtedly too optimistic, he believes, but some specialists believe that the feat could be possible in the coming years.
One unknown is how long it will take to overcome some of these issues. the biggest obstacles preventing quantum computing for real-world use, says Chloe Martindale, who researches post-quantum cryptography at the University of Bristol, UK. Such a breakthrough could happen this year, or “it could be in 30 years,” she said.
Borghesi cautions that prediction markets should not be taken as “definitive proof that a scientific risk is serious or not serious, when the market may only reflect short-term sentiment or the way a contract is written,” he says. The “value of these markets would be higher when they were treated as one signal among many others, and not as a substitute for scientific expertise”.
This article is reproduced with permission and has been published for the first time June 1, 2026.
It’s time to defend science
If you enjoyed this article, I would like to ask for your support. Scientific American has been defending science and industry for 180 years, and we are currently experiencing perhaps the most critical moment in these two centuries of history.
I was a Scientific American subscriber since the age of 12, and it helped shape the way I see the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of respect for our vast and beautiful universe. I hope this is the case for you too.
If you subscribe to Scientific Americanyou help ensure our coverage centers on meaningful research and discoveries; that we have the resources to account for decisions that threaten laboratories across the United States; and that we support budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In exchange, you receive essential information, captivating podcastsbrilliant infographics, newsletters not to be missedunmissable videos, stimulating gamesand the best writings and reports from the scientific world. You can even give someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you will support us in this mission.
