Public Attitudes to Science 2005

Chapter 7 of the 'Science & innovation investment framework 2004 - 2014' highlights:

...the importance the Government attaches to taking action to achieve greater public confidence and improved engagement in science and technology. This includes intelligent regulation of research, openness, dialogue, effective communication with the public and responsiveness to public priorities and concerns.

In his speech at the Royal Society in May 2002, Tony Blair said:

The benefits of science will only be realised through a renewed compact between science and society.

During 2004, the OST commissioned MORI to conduct quantitative and qualitative research among the UK public to explore attitudes to science and technology. The report, 'Science in Society', clearly shows a largely positive attitude among the UK public about science and perception of science issues.

The report, which examined public attitudes to science and scientists, found that more than 80 per cent of adults think science makes a good contribution to society and that science will make our lives easier.

The key findings from the MORI survey 'Science in Society'

86% of adults think science makes a good contribution to society.

82% of adults think that science will make our lives easier.

Positive associations of science with advancement of progress - particularly in the field of healthcare - far exceed negative images of science.

Positive images of scientists as skilled people who are expert in their field are more widespread than negative stereotypes.

Engineers are more readily thought of as machine operators or mechanics and, like scientists, are regarded as skilled people by almost a quarter, while 1 in 7 associates engineers with blue collar jobs.

Looking at trends, more people now believe that science makes a good contribution to society, and that science will make our lives easier (up five and ten points respectively in the last two years). Also strength of feeling has become more marked, with at least a quarter of adults now strongly agreeing with each statement.

Participation in and information on Science

The importance of young people having a grasp on science is almost universally recognised

4 in 10 very or fairly well informed about science and scientific research or developments

Television (both news and documentaries) is the most commonly used source of information about science. The print media - particularly (national newspapers, followed by magazines, are the next most commonly used sources. Closely behind magazines are national radio and the internet as current sources

There is broad participation in science centres and museums. A little over half (56%) have been involved in some science-related activity in the past year

Over half of UK adults (say they) have heard of National Science Week. This is high in comparison with other science events

Trust in scientists

There is a clear majority (70%) who trust scientists to tell the truth.

There has been a seven point increase (from 63% to 70%) in the level of trust in scientists to tell the truth over the last five years.

Competence, credentials experience and honesty are the key factors determining trust.

For a third of the public, it is important that scientists listen to, or share, their concerns.

Scientists working for industry and government are much less widely trusted than those working for universities or charities.

The level of trust in university scientists is dependent on their source of funding. Those funded by medical charities and environmental groups are more trusted than those funded by industry, government or campaign groups.

Many feel that the funding of science is becoming too commercialised and this now sees a sharp increase in strength of feeling this issue.

There is a low level of trust in the media on science issues, with 72% agreeing that the media sensationalises science.

Trust in different forms of the media varies considerably, from television documentaries, which are the most widely trusted source of scientific facts, to people working for tabloid newspapers, who are the least trusted.

Consultation

A huge majority (81%) feels the public should be consulted on decisions about the development of science, but more people feel there should be 'a fair amount' than 'a great deal' of consultation.

Dialogue for the sake of it will do little to build trust and confidence. It is critical that the public be shown that outcomes are listened to and acted on.

The main benefits of greater public involvement in science are seen as improved decision making greater accountability, less media manipulation, reducing fear and mistrust in science, career opportunities and job satisfaction, increased funding for science and scientific progress.

There is widespread doubt that government listens to or acts on the outcomes of public consultation, with many feeling that consultation is unrepresentative and is just public relations.

Yet, around half would want to participate in national debates on science, but feel that it is important for the views expressed to be acted upon by those seeking their views, and that this should be seen to be done.

Breakdown of attitudes to different issues

Perceived benefits to society

There are significant differences between scientific developments in how widely they are seen as being beneficial for society.

Health-related applications: medicines, transplants, surgery generally, cures for diseases and genetic testing - as well as computers and the internet - are widely seen as beneficial.

Cloning, radioactive waste, 'designer-babies' and GM food are generally perceived in negative terms.

Computers are now regarded more positively than five years ago in terms of their perceived benefit to society.

Genetic testing, new operations and transplants are regarded less favourably.

Genetic modification and GM food are regarded less negatively than before (98/99 MORI/OST - "Attitudes to Bioscience").

Risks versus benefits

GM food - far more say that the risks exceed the benefits (58% versus 16%) and this gap has widened considerably since measurements began in 2002.

Genetic testing - a majority of the public is positive towards this development, and far more now than two years ago say the benefits of genetic testing outweigh the risks (68%).

The discovery of climate change is viewed positively overall, but the public clearly feels that the risk around the issue of climate change itself outweigh the benefits.

Radioactive waste - a large majority now feels the risks of radioactive waste outweigh the benefits (71% versus 12%), representing a considerable increase in the last two years.

Radiation from mobile phone handsets - twice as many are now saying the risks outweigh the benefits, as the benefits outweigh the risks. This represents a complete reversal of the pattern of two years ago when more than twice the proportion believed the benefits exceeded the risks.

Cloning evokes predominantly negative feelings - with far more saying the risk outweigh the benefits than that the benefits exceed the risks (63% versus 15%).

Nanotechnology - although more people regard nanotechnology as a good than a bad thing (30% versus 13%) there is low awareness of the term. Nanotechnology received the highest 'no opinion' figure of all the 13 developments tested (28%).

Regulation of science

Few people say they know anything about the way science is regulated, with most people assuming that it is government that regulates science - thus there is no great knowledge about self-regulation, ethical codes or standards, or peer review.

Among those who are aware of science being regulated, reasons given for trusting the regulation of science more often stem from feelings that, because science is regulated, we have to trust the regulation - rather than from any real understanding of how science is regulated.

Some people who do not have very much or any confidence in science regulation say this is because they do not know enough about the subject.

There are also concerns among those lacking confidence in the way science is regulated that the truth gets concealed, about a lack of accountability, and that previous incidents have occurred (BSE, foot and mouth,even going back as far as thalidomide).

Stakeholders

The BA has welcomed the publication during National Science Week of two key reports: the survey on 'Science in Society (carried out by MORI on behalf of the Office of Science and Technology and 'policy through dialogue' (the report by the Council for Science and Technology).

'The time is ripe to act upon the huge public appetite for greater access to scientific information and for more meaningful involvement in those key science issues which affect our lives, ' says Sir Roland Jackson, Chief Executive of the BA.