Science, engineering and technology touch everyone’s lives. From medicine and transport to computers and mobile phones, the pace of development is rapid and seemingly inexorable. People’s opinions of these developments vary, as is only to be expected. Some people are enthusiastic for change, some are sceptical of the ability of Government to regulate science, and some have no interest in science at all.

The potential benefits and drawbacks of scientific developments are debated in many different forums - the media, the Government, academia and so on - and public opinion has an essential part to play in the development of policy and practice. Although many scientific issues will affect all sections of society, not all sections voice their opinion. Lack of interest, lack of information or lack of access to information can all lead to a feeling of exclusion from crucial debates. Science communication activities aim to address this problem, but they often reach only those audiences that were interested in science in the first place.

Realising this, many science communicators have changed their approach. In the past, many ‘public understanding of science’ projects aimed to give people more information about science - the so-called ‘deficit’ model of science communication. More recently science communicators have turned their attention to the ‘engagement’ model - bringing together the public, scientists and policy makers in discussions and dialogues about scientific developments. This strategy requires an in-depth picture of what British people think about science, their hopes and fears for the future, and how they receive information about science. To help science communicators plan their future programmes, the Wellcome Trust and the Office of Science and Technology therefore sponsored a national survey of public attitudes to science, engineering and technology in the UK.

The national picture

More than 1800 people - from across the country and from all walks of life - were asked about their attitudes to science, life and authority, and their leisure interests. In general, opinions of science were very positive, with three-quarters of the people interviewed saying that they were ‘amazed by’ science, and two-thirds agreeing that science and technology is making our lives healthier, easier and more comfortable. Most people were at least moderately interested in health issues and new medical discoveries, and only a fifth said that they were not interested in science and did not see why they should be.

The need for future research was also appreciated: eight out of ten people agreed that the UK needs to develop science and technology in order to enhance its international competitiveness. Moreover, 72 per cent agreed that, even if it brings no immediate benefits, scientific research that advances knowledge – ‘basic’ research - is necessary and should be supported by the Government.

Despite these positive views, the survey highlighted several concerns about the regulation of science and the ability of the Government to control science. Four out of ten people thought that the speed of development in science and technology means that it cannot be controlled properly by Government, and half thought that politicians are swayed by the media and that the Government should take more of a lead. What might go on ‘behind closed doors’ in research institutions was also of concern. Over two-thirds agreed that rules will not stop researchers doing what they want behind closed doors, and over half thought that scientists seem to be trying new things without stopping to think about the risks.

Clusters of opinion

The results of the national survey were analysed statistically, and six broad groupings of opinion – ‘attitudinal clusters’ - were identified: the Politically Confident, the Technophiles, the Supporters, the Concerned, the Not Sures, and the Not For Mes (see box below). Each respondent was then assigned to a ‘cluster’ according to the responses they had given to the statements. People within a cluster have more similar attitudes to each other than they do to those in other clusters, judged by the factors used, although there is still considerable variation within each cluster.

Some clusters are already well catered for in terms of science communication, being well informed, interested in developments, and able to find out new information when they need it. Other clusters are less in touch with scientific developments, and it is these groups that science communicators need to address if all sectors of society are to participate in national debates. Certain activities designed to communicate science are more suited to some clusters than others, and by linking attitudes to science to use of the media and leisure time, as well as to demographic characteristics such as age, sex, social grouping and ethnicity, science communicators can begin to devise suitable communication strategies for different groups.

With the publication of the report, a consultation period has begun, with scientists and science communicators discussing their objectives and practices, and debating the development of science communication policy and practice at the national level. The report presents new challenges to science communicators - to develop new ideas to excite existing audiences and to reach out to those who have not yet become involved in the issues raised by modern science.

See also

• Public attitudes to science: Download the short or full report (pdf)

External links

• Office of Science and Technology