SCIENCE & ENGINEERING INDICATORS

Public perceptions of science and scientists can influence willingness to fund S&T through public investment (Besley 2018; Miller, Pardo, and Niwa 1997; Muñoz, Moreno, and Luján 2012), as well as young people’s willingness to enter S&T training programs and choose S&T jobs (Besley 2015; Losh 2012). Committing resources—including money to fund science research and time to pursue S&T training—means trusting that such commitments will pay off over the long term for individuals, families, and society. General views about S&T may also be associated with opinions about specific technologies and research programs that could enhance lives or pose new risks (NSB 2018). This section summarizes whether Americans see promise in S&T and/or hold reservations about S&T, their confidence in the scientific community’s leadership and perceptions of scientists, and their views about federal funding of scientific research.

Overall, most Americans remain strong believers in the benefits of S&T; however, a considerable number also see potential harms. In 2018, nearly three-quarters of respondents (74%) saw more benefits than harms from science; this share has ranged between 68% and 79% since 1979 (Figure 7-1; Table S7-1 and Table S7-2). By comparison, 10% in 2018 said science creates more harms than benefits, and 10% said that the benefits and harms are about equal (Table S7-2).

It is also informative to ask about perceived benefits and harms separately (Binder et al. 2012). Regarding specific benefits, in 2018, almost all Americans (92%) agreed with the following statement: “Because of science and technology, there will be more opportunities for the next generation” (Figure 7-2; Table S7-3 and Table S7-4). This share of agreement included 38% of those who “strongly agreed” with the statement and 54% who “agreed.”^{​Because of rounding, the aggregate will not always equal the sum of components and this may result in slight differences between the text, figures, and/or tables.Because of rounding, the aggregate will not always equal the sum of components and this may result in slight differences between the text, figures, and/or tables.} U.S. public agreement (consisting of those who “strongly agree” and those who “agree”) that S&T provides more opportunities increased from 77% in 1985 to 90% in 2006 and has hovered around that level over the last decade.

Despite these near-universal positive perceptions, nearly half of Americans (49%, consisting of 14% who “strongly agree” and 34% who “agree”) agreed in 2018 that “science makes our way of life change too fast” (Figure 7-3; Table S7-5 and Table S7-6). This share has been generally stable over the last decade but was relatively lower in the mid-1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s.

Attitudes toward science may vary by level of education and income. For example, respondents with less education and lower income levels are generally less positive about S&T. The variation by demographic groups is generally small for the questions focused on the benefits of S&T, where respondents from all groups have positive views, but variation is somewhat larger for the question about pace of change, where attitudes vary more widely (Table S7-3 and Table S7-5). For example, more than 90% of Americans with the least science education and those with the most science education agreed (combining scores on “agreed” and “strongly agreed”) that science resulted in more opportunities. On the other hand, 57% of those with the least science education agreed that science makes “life change too fast” compared with 34% of those with the most science education.

Other surveys, including those in other countries, also show widespread support for, and only limited opposition to, the role of science in society, both recently and in the past (NSB 2018). For example, a recent 140-country survey about science by Gallup for the Wellcome Trust (2019), an English charity, found that about 7 in 10 people surveyed around the world think scientists’ work “benefits people like them.” The United States (83%) and the Northern European countries (80%) surveyed had some of the most positive views. People in North Africa (49%), South America (55%), and Southern Africa (55%) were among those least likely to believe that they receive benefits from scientists’ work. China’s own national survey, using a somewhat different question about benefits that is not directly comparable, found that about three-quarters of respondents agreed that “the public’s understanding and support for science, technology, and innovation lay the foundation for accelerating the building of China into an innovative nation” and that “major S&T achievements are an important manifestation of China’s improvement in comprehensive national strength” (China Research Institute for Science Popularization [CRISP] 2018).

Most Americans have consistently reported holding a range of positive attitudes about scientists; however, some surveys also find specific areas where substantial groups of people hold negative or ambivalent perceptions. As with overall attitudes about science, people with more education are consistently the most likely to report positive views.

Leaders of the scientific community have had the second strongest confidence rating among 13 types of institutions between 2012 and 2018. Leaders of the military have had the most positive rating, with substantially higher levels of confidence than any other group for nearly 20 years. In 2018, 44% of Americans had a “great deal” of confidence in the “people running” the “scientific community” (Figure 7-4; Table S7-7 and Table S7-8). A similar share (47%) said they have “some” confidence. Although those expressing a “great deal” of confidence in 2018 (44%) is near its historic high, U.S. public confidence in the scientific community has generally fluctuated within a narrow range since 1973 (37%) (Figure 7-5). The relatively stable level of confidence in the scientific community contrasts with declines in confidence for many other institutions. Pew Research Center also found that scientists rank second only to the military in a 2018 survey (Funk and Kennedy, 2019).

By contrast, confidence in medicine—which might also be considered a science-related topic—has declined since the 1970s and is now relatively low compared with historical levels. Several other institutions have seen similar declines (Figure 7-5).

Men and people with more education and income tend to express higher levels of confidence in leaders of the scientific community. Education is also positively associated with confidence in medicine (Table S7-8).

A broader survey on trust by Pew Research Center shows similarly high levels of confidence in the scientific community; however, question wording varies. The Pew Research Center survey shows small increases in confidence in “scientists” and “medical scientists” between 2016 and 2019 compared with stable levels in the GSS (Funk et al. 2019).^{​It is not clear why earlier Pew Research Center data were lower than the GSS data, although the question asked is slightly different because it specifically asks about confidence of scientists “to act in the best interests of the public,” whereas the GSS question asks about the “scientific community” rather than “scientists.” It is also noteworthy that respondents to the GSS had the choice of “a great deal of confidence,” “only some confidence,” or “hardly any confidence,” whereas Pew Research Center respondents chose among “a great deal,” “a fair amount,” or “not too much.” This middle category, in particular, may have been seen as more positive than the equivalent middle category in the GSS.It is not clear why earlier Pew Research Center data were lower than the GSS data, although the question asked is slightly different because it specifically asks about confidence of scientists “to act in the best interests of the public,” whereas the GSS question asks about the “scientific community” rather than “scientists.” It is also noteworthy that respondents to the GSS had the choice of “a great deal of confidence,” “only some confidence,” or “hardly any confidence,” whereas Pew Research Center respondents chose among “a great deal,” “a fair amount,” or “not too much.” This middle category, in particular, may have been seen as more positive than the equivalent middle category in the GSS.}

People in other countries also report having a relatively high level of confidence in the scientific community. For example, in China’s national survey, Chinese respondents ranked “scientists” as the third most prestigious career behind teachers and physicians (CRISP 2018). These results are similar to the 140-country Wellcome Trust (2019) survey results that suggest that the United States has trust levels similar to the European average, although less than several specific European countries (e.g., the United Kingdom, Spain). This survey also found somewhat lower trust levels in China than in Europe or the United States. U.S. respondents reported much less trust than several relatively small countries (e.g., Uzbekistan, Niger).

Beyond overall confidence, almost all Americans say that they believe scientists want to make a positive difference in the world. As in previous years, a large majority of Americans agreed with the following three statements in 2018 (Figure 7-6; Table S7-9 and Table S7-10):

• “Scientists are helping to solve challenging problems” (93% agree).
• “Scientific researchers are dedicated people who work for the good of humanity” (90% agree).
• “Most scientists want to work on things that will make life better for the average person” (89% agree).

The 2018 data are very similar to the 2016 data. However, although overall agreement with these statements about scientists has been relatively high in all years in which data were collected, there has been an increase over time in the percentage of people who “strongly agree” with the statements (Table S7-10).

The high trust that Americans place in scientists contrasts with half of Americans agreeing that “scientists are apt to be odd and peculiar people” in 2018, up from 24% in 2001 (Table S7-10).^{​Previous research has shown that these perceptions are associated with a range of additional negative views about scientists (Besley 2015) and that these types of negative views might affect the degree to which people are willing to support a group (Fiske and Dupree 2014).Previous research has shown that these perceptions are associated with a range of additional negative views about scientists (Besley 2015) and that these types of negative views might affect the degree to which people are willing to support a group (Fiske and Dupree 2014).}

A Pew Research Center study on trust (Funk et al. 2019) also investigated beliefs about specific types of scientists, such as medical, nutrition, and environmental research scientists, and science professionals (e.g., doctors, dietitians, environmental health specialists). This study also found that most Americans have “mostly positive” general views about people associated with science but gave somewhat less positive responses when asked specific questions. For example, 57% of respondents said they have “mostly positive” views about environmental research scientists, but just 40% said that they thought such scientists “do a good job” “all or most of the time.” Responses about research, medical, and nutrition research scientists followed a similar pattern.

Although recent data on perceptions of scientists are rare outside the United States, data from Germany also suggest a mix of positive and negative perceptions (Wissenschaft im Dialog 2018). For example, in 2018, nearly two-thirds (64%) of Germans agreed that they trust scientists because scientists are “experts in their field”; however, about two-thirds (67%) also agreed that a reason to distrust scientists is because they “are strongly dependent on the funders of their research.” Overall, although most American respondents indicated that they thought scientists were trying to help society, less than half (40%) of Germans agreed that “scientists work for the benefit of society.”

In 2018, a strong majority of Americans (84%) continued to agree with this statement: “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 7-7; Table S7-11 and Table S7-12). High public support for federally funded basic research, measured by those who “agree” or “strongly agree,” has remained relatively consistent since first asked about in 1985. Americans with lower educational attainment are somewhat less supportive of government funding for basic research but still largely positive. For example, in 2018, the percentage of Americans who agreed with the aforementioned statement was 78% for those with the least science and mathematics education and 95% for those with the most science and mathematics education (Table S7-11).

As in past years, results are similar to those in other countries that have done such surveys (NSB 2018). In the most recent data from China, for example, 82% of 2018 survey respondents agreed with the statement that “even if it brings no immediate benefits, basic research should be supported by the government” (CRISP 2018). The share of Americans who agreed with a similar statement in the GSS in 2018 was nearly identical (Figure 7-7).

Although there is strong public support for federal funding of basic research, a separate question focused on perceptions of current spending levels found that 43% of Americans believe that “too little” is being spent in the United States to support “scientific research” (Figure 7-8). The 2018 level is as high as it has been and similar to 2006 (41%), having risen from 30% in 1990 and having largely remained in the middle to high 30% range during the 2000s and 2010s (Figure 7-9; Table S7-13). More recently, between 2010 and 2018, a rising share of Americans indicated spending was “too little” for science-related topics such as health, the environment, and space exploration.​^{Pew Research Center also published a report on Americans’ views about space and found that many had positive views about the role of government in space exploration (Funk and Strauss 2018).Pew Research Center also published a report on Americans’ views about space and found that many had positive views about the role of government in space exploration (Funk and Strauss 2018).} The pattern for nonscience topics varied somewhat, but overall, Americans increasingly said that multiple issues receive too little funding.

Higher levels of educational attainment tended to be associated with reporting “too little” science-related funding, although this was not the case for health spending (Table S7-14 and Table S7-15). A higher percentage of women than men reported that they believe there is “too little” spending on health and the environment, whereas men tended to report perceiving “too little” spending on space exploration (Table S7-15 through Table S7-17). Relatively younger respondents were more likely to report “too little” spending on the environment. For example, although 57% of respondents in the 65 or older group said “too little” was being spent on the environment in 2018, 74% of the two youngest age groups (18–24 and 25–34) shared this view (Table S7-16).