Public Perceptions Of Science Research Articles

Social inequality determines science museums attendance in Latin America: a quantitative analysis of data from seven countries

ABSTRACT This paper examines cultural engagement with science in Latin America based on probabilistic models derived from quantitative data gathered on public perceptions of science. We explore the influence of social stratification and contextual factors -gender, age, education, socioeconomic level, and interest in science, among others- on visiting science museums in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Mexico, Panama, and Paraguay. The data suggest that museum attendance is subject to the same social determinants affecting other cultural practices. The position individuals occupy in society mediates their opportunities and subjective dispositions. Cultural participation in science is stratified by social inequalities, marginalizing the most unprotected social classes: citizens with lower levels of education and income, the elderly, women, and people living outside large cities and urban areas. This evidence challenges the management and communication of science museums: Inequalities question participatory democracy efforts and transform cultural engagement into a matter of equity and social justice.

Blind Trust, Blind Skepticism: Liberals’ & Conservatives’ Response to Academic Research

Public perceptions of science and scientific institutions have become more negative in recent years, especially among individuals who identify as ideologically conservative in the United States. While there is much work investigating the origins and implications of this decline, we focus instead on understanding the ways in which symbols of scientific expertise, like the university, convey information in a politicized environment. Universities are seen as trusted scientific experts or biased propagandists, depending on individuals’ ideological identification. Are individuals more likely to believe research coming out of universities that they perceive to reflect their own ideological biases? This project looks at the effect of the academic source cue – the university label – on individual assessments of the research that these universities produce. Drawing on results from two survey experiments focused on climate change and racial wealth disparity research, we find that while liberals are more likely to believe research that confirms their previously held beliefs, they are also more likely to believe incongruent information when it comes from a university that they believe shares their bias. Conservatives, on the other hand, remain skeptical of academic research despite the message or its’ source. The findings point toward both “blind trust” and “blind skepticism” in academic institutions.

Political Practices and Mechanisms of Influence on Public Perceptions of Science

The paper focuses on studying public attitudes toward science in Bulgaria and the role of political discourse in shaping public expectations and perceptions. The study's methodology includes an analysis of theoretical concepts and their empirical verification with data from a quantitative Eurobarometer survey (Special Eurobarometer 516) and a discourse analysis of the representation of the scientific sphere in the public debate. The Bulgarian social reality clearly shows a blurring of the role, nature, and participation of science in societal development, the imposition of populist societal expectations towards it, as well as political statements that abuse the reputation of the scientific sphere and its representatives.

Rethinking the Ph.D. dissertation in botany: Widening the circle.

Rethinking the Ph.D. dissertation in botany: Widening the circle.

Positive but not uncritical: Perceptions of science and technology amongst South African online users

Public perceptions of science and technology (S&T) have been measured globally since the 1970s. While there are initial findings for South Africans’ general and specific perceptions of S&T, we aimed to give an update on those perceptions, and account for the recent rise of digital media and broad public discussions on S&T-related issues (e.g. COVID-19) that might have affected public perceptions of S&T. We conducted an online survey with a sample of South African online users, quoted for sociodemographic characteristics, in November/December 2020 (n=1624). The findings show that, even with the rise of digital media and during the pandemic, a majority of respondents in this sample agreed that S&T holds promise, and they supported governmental funding of science. However, some reservations persisted. Gender and education did not affect these attitudes. It was rather age, location, degree of religiosity, interest, knowledge, use of sources of information, online engagement, and trust in science that were linked with these attitudes. In this sample, agreement to public funding of science correlated with beliefs in the promises associated with S&T as well as with having reservations about S&T. Significance: Our sample of South African online users agreed more to promises associated with S&T than they had reservations about S&T. Attitudes regarding S&T-related promises and reservations varied by age and location, and showed links with the interest in, knowledge about, use of sources of information on, and online engagement with S&T. Having reservations about S&T was nonetheless linked with support for governmental funding of science. The findings also indicate that social media were highly relevant sources of information about science for this sample of South African online users, who generally had high levels of interest in, knowledge about, and trust in science.

How representative surveys measure public (dis)trust in science: A systematisation and analysis of survey items and open-ended questions

ABSTRACT Over the past several years, scholars have debated the public’s (dis)trust in science. Since the ‘science and society’ paradigm of science communication has defined the crisis of trust between science and the public as a major concern, this article is interested in how public (dis)trust in science is measured in representative surveys of public perceptions of science and technology. The goal is to systematise survey measures using a theoretical model of (dis)trust in science as a multidimensional variable that is relevant to the relationship between the public, (intermediaries) and science. A systematic review of items and open-ended questions (n = 736) used in 20 representative surveys from various countries was conducted. The results show that surveys rarely measure distrust in science, and instead focus on trust in science – mainly at the macro-level – rather than trust in scientists (micro-level) or scientific organisations (meso-level). Benevolence is the dimension of trust considered most frequently; the media is predominantly included as a general type of contact with science without a direct link to (dis)trust. Hence, representative surveys cover a number of different aspects of public (dis)trust in science. However, there is room for improvement. Thus, this paper concludes with recommendations for future measures.

Political Identity and Confidence in Science and Religion in the United States

Abstract This article investigates changes in public perceptions of science and religion in the United States between 1973 and 2018. We argue that the deepening ties between science and religion and opposing moral claims reconfigured the relationship between political identities and confidence in science and religion during this period. Our analysis of 30 waves of General Social Survey data finds that while Republicans once were more likely than Democrats to be more confident in science than religion, Democrats are now more likely to than Republicans. And, while Democrats used to be more likely than Republicans to be more confident in religion than science, this difference also reversed. These findings underscore the growing importance of political identities as predictors of confidence in science and religion and suggest that the politicization of science and religion fueled a perception that they provide not just alternative frameworks but opposing ones.

The Corrupted Scientist Archetype and Its Implications for Climate Change Communication and Public Perceptions of Science

ABSTRACT In debates about policy responses to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), arguers sometimes challenge the credibility of scientists by alleging that those scientists have been tainted by financial and political commitments – in short, that they are Corrupted Scientists. Arguers use this technique to both challenge and support the scientific consensus on AGW. This study undertakes a detailed discourse analysis of 20 U.S. Congressional Hearings to examine how arguers invoke the Corrupted Scientist archetype to make arguments, how others respond, and the implications of both for climate change communication and public perceptions of science and scientists. Although the archetype might help reveal corruption, it could also distort the public’s understanding of scientific disinterestedness by characterizing it as a matter of individual virtue rather than institutional safeguards (e.g. peer review). This distortion of disinterestedness presents three rhetorical challenges for science communicators and others.

Science communication scholars use more and more segmentation analyses: Can we take them to the next level?

Science communication scholars are publishing more and more segmentation analyses as they further our understanding of different audiences and their characteristics. They follow different aims, are therefore difficult to compare and do not lend themselves to more generalisable and theoretical knowledge production. Our field has the potential to follow a demand for more systematic efforts by taking advantage of our high-quality representative data sets focusing on public perceptions of science. Beforehand, however, science communication scholars using segmentation analyses have to identify common goals and overcome a number of hurdles concerning variable selection, methodological approaches, and transparency. Ultimately, a collaborative and systematic application of segmentation analyses could result in truly relevant insights for our field.

Public responses to scientific research: Does disciplinary attribution matter?

Research has shown that the form and content of science communications can influence individuals' responses. This study examines whether individuals' perceptions of scientific research are influenced by the discipline to which the research is attributed. Two vignette experiments find that neither the perceived scientific-ness nor trustworthiness of a study originating from sociology is affected by attributing the study to a different social science or to a natural or medical science. These null findings contrast with surveys showing sizable disciplinary differences in public attitudes. It is possible that disciplinary attribution is a less salient cognitive shortcut when presented in longer communications as compared to survey questions that only provide the name of a discipline. We conclude with suggestions for further research on the role of disciplinary attribution on public perceptions of science.

Public Perceptions of Science

Scienceblind: Why Our Intuitive Theories About the World Are So Wrong . By Andrew Shtulman. 2017. Basic Books. (ISBN: 9780465053940). 311 pp., illus. Hardcover $30.00. Science denial has been a major issue of concern in recent years. Many factors have been proposed as the cause of science denial, including political ideology, religious ideology, and purveyors of misinformation and doubt like antievolutionists, anti-vaccination proponents, and climate change skeptics. In Scienceblind , Andrew Shtulman, associate professor of psychology and cognitive science at Occidental College, discusses yet another factor that contributes to skepticism about established science. Shtulman provides an overview of intuitive theories about the world that develop early in life, have been consistently found in people of all ages, across many different cultures, and throughout history. These intuitive theories can pose barriers for students trying to learn many of the well-established, but counterintuitive, theories central to the biological and physical sciences. Shtulman argues that, “To get the world right we need to do more than just change our beliefs; we need to change the very concepts that articulate those beliefs. That is, to get the world right, we cannot simply refine our intuitive theories; we must dismantle them and rebuild them from their foundations” …

Support for research in climate change and nuclear energy, but less so for fracking: Born-free South Africans’ attitudes towards scientific controversies

Research into public perceptions of science and technology has often focused on scientific controversies (such as biotechnology or fracking), in order to inform policy decisions or to develop better communication strategies. Recent trends in this field of research acknowledge that the general public consists of various social segments that have quite different attitudes towards scientific controversies. While there is some data available for South Africa, the present study is the first to compare perceptions of different controversial scientific fields for a unique South African public: so-called born-frees; hence, the future leaders of the country. To investigate attitudes and support for public funding of science for different controversial scientific fields, in the present study 310 born-free South Africans were surveyed. The findings highlight that most born-free South Africans support the public funding of different controversial scientific fields tested in this study. However, they are more positive about climate change and nuclear energy research, and more undecided in the case of fracking and evolution. The study also shows that for each of the controversial scientific fields, unique influencing factors seem to shape perceptions, and the often-stated correlation between positive attitudes and support for public funding does not hold for all controversial issues.

The Political Context of Science in the United States: Public Acceptance of Evidence-Based Policy and Science Funding

In recent years, professional science organizations in the United States, including the National Research Council, National Institutes of Health, and National Science Foundation, have expressed concern about waning policy influence, declining government funding, and the growing politicization of science. Given this background, a number of theoretical questions motivate this study. First, what is the political context of scientific authority in the contemporary United States? More specifically, how can we best understand the association between political ideology and public perceptions of science in the current polarized environment? Using data from the National Science Foundation’s Survey of Public Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Science and Technology (2006–2012), this study finds that the American public is culturally and politically divided in its support for the intersection of science and the state. Various models of political and cultural polarization are tested. Overall, ideological challenges to the cultural authority of science cannot be reduced to left-right political polarization or to conservative religious beliefs. Instead, skepticism on the political right is multifold, involving distinct modes of thought and concerns about the institutional ties between science and the state.

The Scientist’s Education and a Civic Conscience

A civic science curriculum is advocated. We discuss practical mechanisms for (and highlight the possible benefits of) addressing the relationship between scientific knowledge and civic responsibility coextensively with rigorous scientific content. As a strategy, we suggest an in-course treatment of well known (and relevant) historical and contemporary controversies among scientists over science policy or the use of sciences. The scientific content of the course is used to understand the controversy and to inform the debate while allowing students to see the role of scientists in shaping public perceptions of science and the value of scientific inquiry, discoveries and technology in society. The examples of the activism of Linus Pauling, Alfred Nobel and Joseph Rotblat as scientists and engaged citizens are cited. We discuss the role of science professors in informing the social conscience of students and consider ways in which a treatment of the function of science in society may find, coherently, a meaningful space in a science curriculum at the college level. Strategies for helping students to recognize early the crucial contributions that science can make in informing public policy and global governance are discussed.

Risk management in public sector research: approach and lessons learned at a national research organization

As the Canadian federal government's main research body and a public sector agency, the National Research Council (NRC) must manage numerous strategic as well as operational risks, including those at the project, program and portfolio levels. Such risks might arise from political and other stakeholder interests, intellectual property ownership and policy, funding structures, public perceptions of science and technology, occupational health and safety, management of highly qualified personnel, availability of receptor capacity for research being undertaken, and unknown markets for very new research areas, to name a few. Varying risk management practices have existed across NRC institutes and programs in the past as a result of the relative autonomy afforded to these groups. In seeking a more systematic approach, driven by both external and internal interests, NRC researched best practices, models and frameworks for risk management. NRC needed an appropriate model and approach for managing risk that could be applied throughout different levels and within the various arenas of its activities. The approach selected is based on the concept of enterprise risk management, allowing NRC to look not only at specific areas of risk but the larger picture – effectively assessing, controlling, exploiting and monitoring risks from all sources that might threaten the achievement of its goals. At the same time, such an approach also ensures that potential opportunities that could facilitate achievement of its goals are not missed. This paper shares some of NRC's findings of its research (including best practices), describes its current framework and approach, as well as some of its challenges.

Responding to scientific uncertainty in U.S. forest policy

Abstract Scientific uncertainty plays a significant role in forest policy and planning. Ecological complexity, the gap between science and policy, and public perceptions of science all contribute to the challenge of dealing with scientific uncertainty. This paper provides an overview of the role of scientific uncertainty in U.S. forest policy and an analysis of the requirements for responding to uncertainty under the National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Endangered Species Act. The analysis includes a review of a broad range of literature and relevant statutory and regulatory language, along with several illustrative examples of case law. Findings include that all three laws allow for considerable agency discretion in cases of scientific uncertainty, and none prescribes a particular response to uncertainty. Approaches such as adaptive management may provide a way to proceed despite uncertainty, and while this approach represents something of a new paradigm in public land management, it is not incompatible with the current legal framework. The article concludes with recommendations, such as increased transparency and changes in the norms of judicial review, for increasing the accountability of decisions when uncertainty is involved. Also considered are other suggestions, such as peer-review, Daubert standards, and Bayesian inference techniques.

Attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union

Public attitudes toward biotechnology in the European Union have been characterized as negative using Eurobarometer data, but so far little attention has been paid to building a robust metric appropriate for emerging public opinion issues which combine high salience with very limited knowledge by the public. On the basis of the general literature about the formation and structure of attitudes and about public perceptions of science, this article presents a new metric and analysis: first, for estimating the level of awareness and knowledge of biotechnology in Europe; second, for assessing the stability and depth of these evaluative perceptions; and third, for exploring the roles of canonical socio-demographic variables, the knowledge variable and general attitudinal schemas for understanding the perceptions of both benefits and risks of biotech applications. The results show the importance of general value orientations or “worldviews” in shaping positive attitudes, and more of these general cognitive schemas should be measured in future research. The same multivariate model was unable to account for a significant percentage of the total variance in the perception of risks, suggesting that new measures are needed to tap this critical area in the acceptance of biotech in Europe.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM: NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS? THINK AGAIN1

When Stephen Jay Gould died on May 20, he left behind unfinished business. The matter occupied a lot of his time but had nothing directly to do with land snails, punctuated equilibrium, or the spandrels of adaptation. Nor was it mentioned in staid journals or annual meetings where scientists usually trade data. No, Gould left behind a festering controversy of another sort, one involving public perceptions of science rather than the latest fossil find or molecular phylogeny. In fact, the increasingly boisterous brouhaha has more to do with religious and political agendas than it does evolution. I'm speaking of course of creationism in its latest mutation/incarnation, intelligent design or ID. Most biologists treat creationism like a dead skunk, dismissing the subject as too smelly to touch. Or, being much ado about nothing, it's not worth their time. But Gould knew better. If ID creationism has its way, the prospects for science as currently practiced are far direr than many reading this essay can conjure.

Anxious history: The High Flux Beam Reactor and Brookhaven National Laboratory

THE HIGH FLUX Beam Reactor ( HFBR) was one of the key instruments in the history of Brookhaven National Laboratory and of neutron physics. Its story intersects with many others— not only with changing scientific directions, the history of the lab, and the history of its funding agency, the Department of Energy ( DOE), but also with local and national politics, local and national anti-nuclear groups, public perceptions of science, and more. These different intersecting stories make it hard for participants and historians to say where one story ends and the others begin. The result might be called “ anxious history.” 1. A CAREFREE DECADE

Issues in agricultural and environmental biotechnology: identifying and comparing biotechnology issues from public opinion surveys, the popular press and technical/regulatory sources

The formation of public perceptions of science is a very complex and problematic process, but a major factor is the information that is available and presented most frequently to the public. Issues of public concern over agricultural and environmental biotechnology were identified from opinion surveys, the popular press and technical/regulatory sources. A frequency index based on content analysis was used to rank issues within categories of genetically engineered foods, plants, animals and microorganisms; and the social/legal, risk assessment/regulation, science education and international aspects. These issues were compared to those similarly identified from scientific/regulatory sources. Results revealed that the scientific/regulatory communities have dealt primarily with one subset of issues (research oriented), while the public is largely concerned with a different subset (issues of ethics, safety and value). This paper describes each issue in detail, and the implications of the two subsets of issues are briefly discussed.