china 2016: overview of public opinion about science with a special focus on genetic engineering and...

U.S. and Global Public Opinion on Science and Technology Issues: Key Results from SEI 2016

John C. BesleyAssociate Professor and Ellis N . Brandt ChairCollege of Communication Arts and Sciences

Views are my own and not necessarily those the National Science Foundation

or the National Science Board

(+ some bonus material for genetic engineering and nanotechnology )

A bit of background

• Every two years• By the U.S. National Science Foundation

(NSF)/National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) on behalf of the National Science Board (NSB)

• Sent to Congress and the White House• Chapter 7 focuses on public opinion

• Core data collected through General Social Survey (n = 1,500+, F2F)

• Supplemented by review of other sources

“Very Interested”

International Comparison:Eurobarometer 2010

Very interested …USA, 2010: 41%EU, 2010: 30% (11%-55%)

Factual Knowledge Comparisons

Not included in scale used to track trends …

Section 2: Factual Knowledge Trends

General Attitudes, Better/Worse

SEI Moves to GSS

General Attitudes, Better/Worse

World Values Survey (2010-2014)

General Attitudes, “More Opportunities”

1985 1992 1995 1997 1999 2001 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 20140

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Because of S&T, there will be more opportunities for the next generation: 1985–2014

Percent

Agree or strongly agree

Disagree or strongly disagree

International Comparison:Eurobarometer 2010

Agree ‘more opportunities …’USA, 2010: 91%EU, 2010: 75% (61%-89%)

Section 3: General Attitudes, Funding

General Attitudes, “Great Deal of Confidence”

A question:To what degree are general attitudes about science consistent with attitudes about specific scientific issues(e.g., nuclear, genetic engineering, nanotechnology)?

General attitudes General support

Specific attitudesGeneral support

General attitudes Specific support

Specific attitudesSpecific support

Specific Attitudes: Environmental Issues

As support for science has stayed stable or improved, environmental attitudes have edged down

Specific Attitudes: Nuclear Energy

2016

Even as support for science has stayed stable or improved, positive attitudes about nuclear energy have edged down

Specific Attitudes: Genetic Engineering (% positive)

Limited recent data but … About a 1/3 of Americans seem to think genetically engineered food is safe …

Pew

19851987

19891991

19931995

19971999

20012003

20052007

20092011

20130

102030405060708090

100

Pew (basically or generally safe) ABC news (safe) Gallup (health hazard, no)Gallup (support) Harris Poll (benefits > risks) CBS/NYT (buy)IFIC (Industry Sponsored)

NSF

IFIC

Gallup

Some decrease in positive attitudes over time(seems to be poll specific)

Specific Attitudes: Genetic Engineering (Pew)


Who most likes GE food?• Traditional power groups

(i.e., white men in the U.S.)• The educated …• Political conservatives (?),• Those who think scientists

understand the topic most support GE food


Who most likes GE food 2.0?• Ideology not

significant in later analysis (significant for other subjects)

• Education/Knowledge (?)

Specific Attitudes: Genetic Engineering

Kahan, D. M. (2015). Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology, 36, 1-43. doi:10.1111/pops.12244


Who most likes GE food 3.0?• New data

suggests limited connection between ideology and GE food risk views(y axis: risk perceptions; x axis: ideology Kahan, D. M. (2015). Climate-science communication and the

measurement problem. Political Psychology, 36, 1-43. doi:10.1111/pops.12244

Specific Attitudes: Genetic Engineering My initial model for GE support (2005)

Key variables• Trust

(with ceiling effects)

• Views about scientists

• Demographics and media use minor predictors of GE support

Besley, J. C., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Media attention and exposure in relation to support for agricultural biotechnology. Science Communication, 26(4), 347-367. doi:10.1177/1075547005275443


My research shifted to “psychology of fairness

Key variables:• Fair distribution of

risk/benefits• Fair access to

information• Education not sig. (?)• Awareness was (?)

McComas, K. A., Besley, J. C., & Yang, Z. (2008). Risky business: The perceived justice of local scientists and community support for their research. Risk Analysis, 28(6), 1539-1552. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01129.x


Key variables:• Risks & benefits• Distribution of

risk/benefits• Process fairness• Context (specific

vs. non-specific threat)


Townsend, E. (2006). Affective influences on risk perceptions of, and attitudes toward, genetically modified food. Journal of Risk Research, 9(2), 125-139.

• Some evidence of that ‘dread’, ‘ethics,’ and worry are key drivers of genetic engineering risk perceptions

• Dread may be associated with ‘involuntary’ exposure


Townsend, E., Clarke, D. D., & Travis, B. (2004). Effects of context and feelings on perceptions of genetically modified food. Risk Analysis, 24, 1369-1384.

Affect/Emotion• Dread, risk,

ethics, disgust key motivators of willingness to purchase GE food

Specific Attitudes: Genetic Engineering • Benefits perceptions increasing

• GE plants (vs. animals) seen most favorably• US/Asia similar on most measures

(but US sees more benefits)

Summary of key lessons from GE studies …• Demographics matter a little• Knowledge matters a little• What really matters is how people see

scientists and decision-making processes• Emotions/affect also likely key

Specific Attitudes: Nanotechnology

2006 (n = 1,864) 2008 (n = 1,505) 2010 (n = 963)0

102030405060708090

100

Benefits will outweigh harmful results Benefits will be about equal to harmful results

Harmful results will outweigh benefits Don’t know

Benefits greater

Harms greater

Not sure …

• NSF/GSS last surveyed on nanotech from 2006-2010

• Will poll again in 2016

• About 4/10 saw more benefits• Only 1/10 saw more harms


Many/most say they know little about nanotech


Most see more benefits than risks, or are not sure


Some relationship between familiarity and support


Trust, familiarity, education, and gender most consistent nanotech attitude predictors


Who most likes nanotech …• Like GE, limited

connection between ideology and nanotech views

Kahan, D. M. (2015). Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology, 36, 1-43. doi:10.1111/pops.12244


McComas, K. A., Besley, J. C., & Yang, Z. (2008). Risky business: The perceived justice of local scientists and community support for their research. Risk Analysis, 28(6), 1539-1552. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01129.x

My own works also show …• Familiarity, and

interpersonal fairness perceptions are associated with less nanotech concern, similar to GE concern

Summary of key lessons from nanotechnology studies …• Demographics matter a little• Knowledge matters a little• What really matters is how people

see scientists and decision-making processes

(Note: These are the same as what I said for genetic engineering)

Overall Conclusions?• Wish we had more international data• Wish we had more issue-specific data• But, Americans (and others, too) …

• … are somewhat interested in science• … know a bit about science• … think science is pretty great

(they like scientists too)• … Trust/fairness perceptions

drive most issue specific attitudesDon’t forget: Views are my own and not necessarily those the National Science Foundation

or the National Science Board

Editorial comment …

Most people like scientists but that can change. We need to earn our respect through positive engagement with our communities.