Chapter 7 | Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding

Public Attitudes about S&T in General

Related Content

• Related Content-
• Interest, Information Sources, and Involvement
• Involvement
• Public Attitudes about Specific S&T-Related Issues
• Public Knowledge about S&T

Overall, Americans remain strong believers in the benefits of S&T even while seeing potential harms. Surveys since at least 1979 show that roughly 7 in 10 Americans have said they believe the effects of scientific research are more positive than negative for society (Figure 7-10; Appendix Table 7-15 and Appendix Table 7-16). In the 2016 GSS, 72% saw more benefits than harms from science, including 45% who said they believed the benefits “strongly outweigh” the negatives and 27% who said the benefits “slightly outweigh” the potential harms. About 8% said science creates more harms than benefits, including 6% who indicated that they thought science caused “slightly” more harm and 2% who thought the balance was “strongly” toward harm.

Older respondents and those with more education, income, and scientific knowledge are more likely to believe in the benefits of science than others (Appendix Table 7-15). For example, 52% of those who had not completed high school said they believe science does more good than harm, but 84% of those with bachelor’s degrees and 94% of those with graduate degrees expressed this view (Appendix Table 7-15).^​

Americans also overwhelmingly agree that S&T will foster “more opportunities for the next generation.” In the 2016 GSS, 91% of Americans “strongly” agreed (39%) or agreed (52%) that S&T will create more opportunities (Appendix Table 7-17). This is up slightly from 2012 and 2014 but consistent with surveys from 2006 through 2010, during which 90%–91% agreed about the relative value of S&T. Overall, belief in opportunity from science has grown from 76% in 1985 (Appendix Table 7-17 and Appendix Table 7-18).

Although Americans are generally positive about science, concern about the speed at which science may be changing “our way of life” remains close to historically high levels. In 2016, about 51% of Americans “strongly” agreed (11%) or agreed (40%) that “science makes our way of life change too fast,” percentages similar to those in 2014 (Appendix Table 7-19 and Appendix Table 7-20). Demographic patterns are also similar to those found for the question addressing benefits and harms. Those with less education and less income were more likely to express worry about the pace of change. For example, 59% of those with a high school degree agreed that science was changing life too fast, whereas 41% of those with a graduate degree agreed with this concern. Age, however, was not substantially associated with concerns about the pace of change.

The current high level of concern is similar to that found in 1979, when 53% indicated concern about the pace of change. It is, however, difficult to know if there is an underlying trend because the main increase in concern occurred at the same time (between 2004 and 2008) that the underlying survey switched from a telephone survey to a face-to-face survey. Concern about the pace of change was, nevertheless, lower during much of the 1980s and 1990s.

Most survey respondents in other countries also generally report strong belief in the value of science, although these beliefs appear to be somewhat higher in the United States. In China, 84% of respondents said in 2015 that they thought S&T would lead to more opportunities for future generations (compared to 91% in the United States for a similar question) (Appendix Table 7-17). About 69% of respondents also said that they thought that “scientific and technological development will create more jobs than [it] will eliminate” (CRISP 2016). In Germany, 10% of respondents agreed that science does more harm than good, and 20% said that science would make life better for future generations. In contrast, 68% said it will lead to both benefits and harms (Wissenschaft im dialog 2016). The responses cannot be directly compared to the United States—where 12% said they believed benefits and harms were about equal (Appendix Table 7-15)—because the equivalent U.S. question does not explicitly give respondents the middle option. Respondents have to volunteer, without prompting, that they see both benefits and harms as equally likely. In Switzerland, 61% of respondents indicated that they generally thought science made life better by selecting 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale, where 1 indicated complete disapproval with a relevant statement and 5 indicated complete approval (Schafer and Metag 2016). Only about a third (34%) also agreed that science makes life move too fast (compared to 51% in the United States). About a third (34%) of Swiss residents also, however, approved of a statement that said the advantages of science and research made it worth the potential damages. In Chile, 39% of respondents said they thought S&T would bring “many” risks to the world, and another 31% said they thought S&T would bring “some” risks, whereas only 25% said S&T would bring “few risks” or “no risks” (CONICYT 2016).

While not as recent, a 2013 special Eurobarometer on S&T found that, across Europe, large majorities saw substantial benefits from S&T. More than three-quarters (77%) of respondents said they felt that S&T had a “very” (60%) or “fairly” (17%) positive influence on society in their home country (European Commission 2013). Europeans were asked whether they believe S&T would “provide more opportunities for future generations.” Three-quarters of Europeans (75%) agreed. A separate 2013 survey indicated that 74% of Canadians agreed that S&T would create more opportunities (CCA 2014). A third GSS question that was included in the 2013 special Eurobarometer focused on whether respondents agreed or disagreed that “science makes our way of life change too fast,” for which about 62% of Europeans agreed (European Commission 2013). The 2013 Canadian survey suggested that just 35% of Canadians thought science makes life “change too fast” (CCA 2014).

U.S. public opinion has consistently and strongly supported federal spending on scientific research. In the 2016 GSS, 84% of Americans either “strongly agree[d]” (30%) or “agree[d]” (54%) that “even if it brings no immediate benefits, scientific research that advances the frontiers of knowledge is necessary and should be supported by the federal government” (Figure 7-11; Appendix Table 7-21). This is similar to the percentage in recent years, although it has risen from that found in the 1985–2001 NSF surveys, when the value ranged between 77% (1992) and 82% (1999) (Appendix Table 7-22).

Americans with relatively higher levels of education, more income, and higher scores on the indicators of science knowledge are particularly likely to support funding scientific research. For example, 77% of those for whom high school was their highest level of completed education agreed that funding was needed, but 88% of those with a bachelor’s as their highest degree expressed this view (Appendix Table 7-21).

The Pew Research Center (Funk, Rainie, and Page 2015) also found that, in 2014, most Americans said they think that “government investments” in both basic scientific research (71%) and engineering and technology (72%) “pay off in the long run.” Overall, 61% of Americans told the Pew Research Center that they thought “government investment in research is essential for scientific progress.”

Another indicator of views about S&T is the percentage of Americans who say they “think we’re spending too little money” on supporting scientific research and related topics. The 2016 GSS found that 38% of respondents said we are spending “too little” on scientific research, while 45% said the amount was “about right.” About 11% said it was “too much” (Figure 7-12; Appendix Table 7-23 and Appendix Table 7-24). In other words, 83% of Americans say they would like to see similar or increased funding for S&T in the years ahead (although the question does not specify who should be responsible for providing this spending). The percentage who said they thought we spend too little on science gradually increased from 1981 to 2006, fluctuating between 29% and 34% in the 1980s, between 30% and 37% in the 1990s, and then varying between 34% and 41% in the 2000s and 2010s. Also, as noted previously, older residents, those with more education, and those with more income were more likely to say that they believe too little is being spent on science.

Other S&T domains in which Americans consistently think there is too little spending according to the 2016 GSS include health (62%) (Appendix Table 7-25), improving the environment (63%) (Appendix Table 7-26), and space (21%) (Appendix Table 7-27). Space exploration is one of the areas for which the smallest proportion of Americans see too little spending (Figure 7-13).

Compared with support for spending in other areas, however, support for spending on scientific research may not be especially strong. In the 2016 GSS, Americans were more likely to say several other policy domains need spending more than does S&T (Figure 7-13). Although 38% of Americans say we spend “too little” on scientific research, education has consistently been the domain that Americans are most likely to say receives too little funding, with 72% giving this response in 2016.

Respondents in all other countries for which there are data, including both developed and developing countries, also support funding for scientific research. In China, 77% said science should be funded, even if it provides no benefits (compared to 83% for the equivalent question in the United States). In Germany, 49% indicated that, even if the government had to cut spending, it should try to maintain funding for scientific research. Another 45% said research for funding should be cut about the same amount as cuts to other areas (Wissenschaft im dialog 2016). In Switzerland, 73% gave a response of 4 or 5, where 5 indicated “total approval” and 1 indicated “complete disapproval” when presented with a statement about the need to fund science, even without immediate returns. The same proportion (73%) indicated approval for a more general statement that the government should fund scientific research (Schafer and Metag 2016). In Finland, 74% said they believe that investing in science was worthwhile (FSSI 2016). In South America, 91% of Chilean respondents said they agreed that the government should increase funding for scientific research, similar to surveys over the previous decade (CONICYT 2016).

More generally, a broad survey of Europeans found strong support for spending on scientific research in the past. For example, in 2010, 72% of Europeans agreed that scientific research should be supported even in the absence of immediate benefits (European Commission 2010a). A 2013 survey of Canadians similarly found that 76% of respondents said they thought the government should support scientific research (CCA 2014).

Few members of the public have the background knowledge or resources to fully evaluate evidence related to scientific questions in the public sphere. People, therefore, often rely on how they perceive decision makers and other cues as decision aids (Fiske and Dupree 2014). The public is also more likely to pay attention to quality information communicated by sources they see as trustworthy in terms of expertise, honesty, and shared identity (Kruglanski and Thompson 1999; Roskos-Ewoldsen, Bichsel, and Hoffman 2002). Public confidence in leaders of the scientific community should therefore increase the likelihood of public acceptance of findings and conclusions based on scientific research, although other factors also matter.

Since 1973, the GSS has tracked public confidence in the leadership of various institutions, including the scientific community. The GSS asks respondents whether they have “a great deal of confidence,” “only some confidence,” or “hardly any confidence at all” in the leaders of different institutions. In 2016, 40% of Americans expressed “a great deal of confidence” in leaders of the scientific community, 50% expressed “only some confidence,” and 6% expressed “hardly any confidence at all” (Figure 7-14). These results are nearly identical to recent years (Figure 7-15; Appendix Table 7-28). In general, men (45%) are more likely to have a “great deal of confidence” in the scientific community than women (36%). Also, those with more education and income are more confident than those with less, and young respondents are more confident than older respondents (Appendix Table 7-29). Some recent research suggests that political views are increasingly related to confidence in science (Gauchat 2012; McCright et al. 2013). Other research suggests a racial gap in confidence (Plutzer 2013).

These results also suggest that leaders of the scientific community compare well with leaders of other institutions in America. Only military leaders held greater public confidence in 2016, with 53% of Americans saying they had a “great deal of confidence” in them (Figure 7-14). Most other groups, unlike scientists and the military, have also seen an erosion in public confidence, with the most substantial decreases occurring between the 1970s and 1990s (Appendix Table 7-28 and Appendix Table 7-29).

The medical community, which is the only group besides scientists in the survey with a clear S&T focus, is one of the institutions that has seen a substantial decline in perceived confidence. Whereas the percentage of Americans saying they place a “great deal of confidence” in the scientific community has stayed relatively stable since the 1970s, the percentage expressing such confidence in the medical community has fallen from consistently above 50% in the 1970s and 1980s to 37% in 2014 and 36% in 2016 (Figure 7-15).

The 2016 GSS also included a set of specific questions aimed at capturing a more detailed understanding of how Americans see scientists. The responses to these questions reinforce the idea that scientists are seen as both competent and working to benefit society. Specifically, in 2016, 89% of Americans agreed that scientists were working toward the public good, and 88% agreed that scientists wanted to make life better for the average person (Figure 7-16; Appendix Table 7-30 and Appendix Table 7-31). Similarly, 94% of Americans agreed that scientists are “helping to solve challenging problems.” Further, while the overall percentage of respondents agreeing has generally stayed stable or improved over time, the percentage “strongly” agreeing has increased substantially. For example, in 2001, 17% of respondents “strongly” agreed that scientists help solve problems, but 28% gave this response in 2016. The percentage of Americans “strongly” agreeing that scientists work for the good of humanity and make life better has also increased since 2001.

One less positive trend for how scientists are viewed emerged, however, for a question focused on whether Americans see scientists as “odd and peculiar people.” In 2016, about 52% of Americans “strongly agree[d]” (9%) or “agree[d]” (43%) that “scientists are apt to be odd and peculiar people.” This is up from 36% in 2012 and 24% at its lowest, in 2001. Further, in 2016, 58% of those whose highest degree was high school agreed that scientists are “odd and peculiar,” compared to 37% of those with graduate or professional degrees.

The Pew Research Center has also asked about trust in science in specific contexts across three 2016 surveys and has generally found that scientists are more trusted than other groups. For example, 78% of respondents said they had “a lot” (35%) or “some” (43%) trust in scientists to give “full and accurate information about the health risks and benefits of eating genetically modified food.” In comparison, if the categories “a lot” and “some” are combined, 45% said they would trust the “news media,” 42% said they would trust “food industry leaders,” and 25% said they would trust “elected officials” (Funk and Kennedy 2016b). In another study, 78% said they trusted “climate scientists” to give complete information about “the causes of global climate change,” whereas 44% said they would trust the news media, 41% said they would trust “energy industry leaders,” and about 29% said they would trust “elected officials” (Funk and Kennedy 2016a). Finally, the same pattern was evident when Americans were asked about childhood vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella. About 90% of Americans said they would trust “medical scientists,” compared to 42% for the “news media,” 49% for pharmaceutical industry leaders,” and 32% for “elected officials” (Funk, Kennedy, and Hefferon 2017).

Residents of other countries also typically indicate they have positive views about scientists, although the available questions vary substantially, making direct comparison difficult. In China, 41% of respondents said they saw science as an occupation with a positive reputation, and 31% said the same about engineers (CRISP 2016). Only teachers (56%) and doctors (53%) were seen more positively than scientists. In Switzerland, using a 5-point scale, 57% of respondents indicated that they had confidence in scientists, in general, while 63% indicated they had confidence in university scientists and 35% indicated they had confidence in industry scientists (Schafer and Metag 2016). In Finland, 75% of respondents said they had “very” or “fairly” high trust in universities and colleges, and 66% of respondents said they trusted scientific research and the scientific community (FSSI 2016). In South America, 80% of Argentinians said they have a lot of confidence in scientists as sources of information, and 65% said they see being a scientist as prestigious (MCTIP 2015). In Chile, 79% indicated they saw S&E careers as prestigious, with only medicine (85%) being seen as more prestigious (CONICYT 2016).

Some surveys also found evidence of concern about the degree to which scientists communicate with the broader public. In Germany, only 39% of respondents agreed that scientists communicate enough about their work (Wissenschaft im dialog 2016). Similarly, in Switzerland, 45% of survey respondents indicated that they thought scientists should listen more to what ordinary people think (Schafer and Metag 2016). In South America, 62% of Chilean respondents indicated that they felt scientists do not adequately inform the public about the scientists’ research (CONICYT 2016).

The German survey did not include questions about general trust in scientists and instead focused on trust related to specific issues (Wissenschaft im dialog 2016). The survey found that while 53% of respondents said they trusted scientists on the topic of renewable energy, trust dropped to 40% when respondents were asked about climate change and 17% when respondents were asked about genetic engineering of plants (i.e., genetically modified foods).