Does the Public Understand Science?
Am I the only science communicator alive who was unaware of the journal called Public Understanding of Science?
I recently discovered it, and for anyone interested in knowing how opinions about science and technology form in the public mind, what factors influence them and how science can be “framed” in a positive light, this journal is a must-read.
Poring over the archives as well as the most current issue, I found these highlights. Some of them seem like no-brainers, but that’s not the point. The great news is that these findings are based on research – not intuition, “gut feelings” or presumed “common sense.” No more pounding on the table to make your points heard. You can now cite research studies and let them make the points for you.
- The public prefers public science over privately funded science because they understand that when profits are involved, their needs play second fiddle.
- University scientists are more trusted and more likely to be considered working for the public good than those in commercial companies.
- Even though the public’s understanding of nanotechnology is still low, its perception is more positive than negative. Why? Because university and government scientists, who are doing most of the nanotechnology research at the moment, benefit from the public’s general trust in their benevolence.
- Framing nanotechnology as beneficial to human health or environmental health lowers the risk perceptions of the general public.
- When it comes to biotechnology, the public distinguishes between “red” (animals, e.g., animal cloning) and “green” (plants and pesticide resistance, for example). Red trumps green at the moment because the public remains skeptical of the low benefits of green biotechnology.
- Risk judgments about nanotechnology are influenced by social context. If small or medium-sized companies are seen as benefiting, then the public will be less likely to assume the worst about nanotechnology risk.
- Television weathercasters can become prominent science communicators (“station scientists”) and, with the help of professional development and training, broaden the range of topics about which they educate the public. Indeed, one in seven weathercasters has a contract clause that includes community service.
- The late 20th century saw the end of the social contract between science and society, e.g., “the provision to science of prestige, autonomy and support in return for its role as the leading agent of social progress, prosperity and emergent rationality.” The new view? Better make that plural. There are many views, but the two negative ones divide as follows. Science is a subordinate instrument of corporate profitability. Or science is subjective and prone to underestimate technological risk. (I’m not sure which is worse.)