New Pew Poll of Public Science Beliefs
It is a reasonable assumption that scientists know more about science than non-scientists. This is the premise of a recent Pew poll comparing the attitudes of the general public with the attitudes of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Many issues have a large gap between public and scientific belief, and the reasons for these gaps is worth exploring.
The PEW research center published some of this data back in January, but are now releasing what appears to be more complete data, including a breakdown of demographics.
The largest gap existed with the statement, “it is safe to eat genetically modified food.” 88% of AAAS members agreed with this statement, while only 37% of the general public did, a gap of 51 points. This gap may be due to several factors: GM technology is still relatively new in the public consciousness and is not well understood. Food can also be a highly emotional issue – it is easy to trigger our disgust reflex with the idea that food is tainted or unnatural.
Perhaps the biggest factor, however, is the anti-GMO campaign that has been waged by organic competitors and ideological groups. There is a great deal of misinformation about GMOs in the public, and scientists are only recently trying to address some of this misinformation.
Other issues with large gaps between public and scientific opinions include (scientists vs public opinion):
favor using animals in research: 89 vs 47%
safe to eat food grown with pesticides: 68 vs 28%
the earth is getting warmer mostly due to human activity: 87 vs 50%
humans and other living things have evolved over time: 98 vs 65%
The demographic breakdown for these issues is also interesting. For the GMO, animal research, and pesticide questions the gap between the public and scientists was greater for women, minorities, and those with less scientific education and knowledge. There was very little difference in age, ideology, or political affiliation. This implies that rejection of the scientific consensus on these particular issues may be due to a subculture that cuts across traditional political identity.
For the global warming and evolution questions the trends were quite different. There was almost no gender difference. There was a large ideological difference, however, with conservatives rejecting the scientific consensus and liberals accepting it at much higher rates. However, even among liberals there was a large gap between public and scientific opinions, just not as large as for conservatives.
For these latter two issues there was also a trend toward a greater gap with increasing age, so younger people accepted the scientific consensus at a higher rate. Minorities also had a smaller gap, but this might be explained by ideology and party affiliation.
For all the issues having more scientific knowledge correlated with a smaller gap between public and scientist opinions. This was smallest for the pesticide question – 47% acceptance among those with low scientific knowledge and 52% among those with high scientific knowledge.
Regardless of the demographic details, the survey clearly shows the need for much greater science education and public communication from scientists regarding the major science issues of the day.
Source: Major Gaps Between the Public, Scientists on Key Issues
Why isn’t there a demographic breakdown for the AAAS members? They couldn’t possibly be influenced by such things as ideology and gender? Or are there too few women, non-Asian minorities, and conservatives to get anything statistically significant?
I like your skepticism, but you didn’t take it far enough. Here’s the appendix section on the AAAS survey: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/appendix-b-about-the-aaas-scientists-survey/
Ideally, if 88% of scientists agree with a statement, should 88% of the public agree with it, or should 100% of the public agree with it because it’s the scientific consensus?
Though when over one in ten scientists say that something is unsafe to eat, it’s probably safe but I’d avoid eating it.
The poll does nothing to say that scientists with any knowledge in the field were the only ones asked, therefore it is safe to conclude that some of the scientists that felt it unsafe to eat GMO’s should have no opinion at all as they have no relevant knowledge in the field of Genetic Engineering, it is just that, their opinion, and not, in fact, the scientific consensus.
Not necessarily. How many of those scientists are well versed in molecular biology and related fields? A physicist may not agree that GMOs are safe to eat, but they are still a scientist and thus considered on the science side.
The fact that there is not breakdown of anything limits polls like this. 88% is statistically significant, considering that not all the scientists polled were likely of that field and thus less exposed to the research.
‘Is it safe to eat food grown with pesticides?’. Do they mean once, or every day in a life time? What pesticides? How much of them, in what combinations?
‘Favor of using animals in research’. What kind of animals? Mice, drosophila or chimps? For what? To test some skin cream? To make them swim to food? To cut them open, inject them with diseases and make them suffer like hell? Hard to answer questions if they are unspecific like that..
Um, link to the poll maybe? Pretty please?
It’s not a matter of scientific consensus. The AAAS includes people in a lot of fields, if the research of most of the climate scientists agree about climate change then there is scientific consensus, what the biologists think about it doesn’t really matter.
But I think one can expect AAAS members to generally be experienced with the scientific method, attentive to science news in general and trained to know how technology and science are different from in the movies. At least at a higher rate than the general public.
I’m sure that the majority of scientists would have agreed that the world was flat at the time of Copernicus. Did that mean they were right. Opinions are like rectums. Everybody has one.
The problem with the using nonhuman animals in research question is that it’s more of an ethical one than a factual one, as the others are.
For instance, I would wager that at least some of those who disagree with using nonhuman animals in research would be fine with using humans in research instead, which is something that most of the scientists who stated that nonhuman animals were necessary for medical research would not even consider.
But, those who disagree with using nonhuman animals in medical research could argue that we would yield much more accurate results if we used humans instead, and the evidence seems to back this up.
So, I’d guess that the scientists weren’t answering that question: they were answering the question “do you favour using animals in research for human benefit without considering using humans in research?”.
In some areas, it’s true that there aren’t alternatives to using either human or nonhuman animals in medical research. So, by that standard, we should still be using animals.
Factor that could skew these results:
Scientists are notorious for splitting hairs, especially with “is it possible” kind of questions. If you asked a neurologist if it cell phones could cause migraines, there is a good chance they will come up with some one in a million possibility, and be forced to say yes. This would have a tendency to underestimate scientific consensus.
Also, some of these questions, particularly the one about animal testing, is less about scientific truth and more about being able to do their jobs. It is less of a gap of understanding between scientists and the public, and more about different senses of priority.
My only question is why do you allow bs ads? I’m not talking all ads, I’m talking the Dr. Oz types… Why?
This vastly oversimplifies the entirety of the paper. To read it in full, see:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/07/01/americans-politics-and-science-issues/
This was among the best posts and episode from your team it let me learn many new things.
How many physicists said GMOs are safe to eat, and does their opinion matter?
A breakdown by discipline would certainly be helpful. Geneticists and chemists may be the experts on how to engineer GMOs and pesticides, but they may also have a conflict of interest, while epidemiologists and ecologists may be more qualified to assess the safety to humans and the environment.
I am an AAAS member and a former professor of meteorology. I am now ordained as well. It is important in all these blogs and articles about science and public perception to recognize that “safety” is not the only issue here. Science might be able to answer questions about what is “physically true.” However, it has nothing to say about the questions of, “What is moral and just?” and “What is beautiful?” Morality is a very big question when we look at the application of science. Is it moral to genetically modify foods to accept poisons, or to inhibit the basic function of reproduction so as to maintain an economic monopoly on our food? I would suggest that the answer is NO and therefore we must look at that part of the equation as well. Thanks.
Very blatant statements… I doubt that most scientists would agree intotality without caveats. Anyway… Old question, what constitutes a scientist? What qualification and experience does one need to have to objectively verify each of those questions? Different qualifications for each I would hope? And if that werent the case, then how accurate are these results… Hence, I call Bullshit right now.
Does numerous pre and post graduate qualifications in Engineering and Science disciplines put me on the Scientist side?
I would typically always tend to agree or catagorize as fact something which has been tested and peer reviewed and published to a medium which has little economic insentive and more educational drive. Oh and using the scientific method as the driving force of the research or study.
The AAAS is not an honest advocate for science. It also promotes faith-medicine and clairvoyance.
Drive’s collection of apps are Web browser-based mostly, though there are iOS and Android versions,
linked under.