The growth of the public understanding industry was driven by a belief that the public needed to know more about contemporary science. The shift towards public engagement models has placed more emphasis on the recipients - not as passive consumers but as individuals with opinions and beliefs that are worth hearing and understanding.

As well as surveys looking at public attitudes to specific issues - cloning, use of animals, GM crops - attempts have been made to take the temperature of public opinion in wider contexts. How does the public view science and scientists? What does it see as the key issues? Where do its concerns lie?

The past 15 years have seen a steady stream of reports and surveys assessing and analysing public perceptions of science, scientists and technology. August bodies have made sonorous pronouncements on who thinks what and why; banks of telephonists have gathered gainful employment ringing carefully selected cross-sections of the public to find out whether they approve or disapprove of this or other aspects of science; the fortunate few have been treated to coffee, biscuits and a detailed examination of their views in focus groups. The result is a significant body of evidence on public opinions of science (see box below).

Are there consistent messages emerging from these often weighty tomes? Are we any the wiser? And how do they help us move forward in public engagement?

Pro and anti

At first sight, some of the messages appear anomalous. Science and Society, from the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, warns of a perceived ‘crisis of confidence’ in science and a ‘crisis of trust’. Yet Science and the Public, a MORI poll on behalf of the Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust, finds people holding essentially favourable views of science. Three-quarters are ‘amazed’ by the achievements of science. The common ground is the public’s concern with the regulation of science and its application, with the public in general having little knowledge or faith in the UK’s regulatory framework. This lack of faith is exacerbated by the perceived rapid pace of change, with a significant minority (36 per cent) believing that science and technology are developing out of control.

The evidence also suggests that scientists are not mistrusted or undervalued, but are stereotyped. Perceptions still revolve around the other-worldy, occasionally mad professor, wedded to a lab coat and the laboratory - most graphically illustrated when school children are asked to draw scientists. Yet a MORI survey for the Cancer Research Campaign and Imperial Cancer Research Fund (which have now merged to become Cancer Research UK) found that the public had great admiration for scientists - Marie Curie and Albert Einstein were considered more inspiring than Victoria and David Beckham, respectively - but few could imagine actually becoming one.

Do the public trust scientists? The evidence is mixed, but far from gloomy. A MORI poll found that scientists were reasonably well trusted (65 per cent of respondents trusted them to tell the truth). Levels of trust are not as high as for doctors, but are higher than for civil servants or the man/woman in the street, and considerably greater than for politicians. ‘Independence’ is highly valued, with scientists associated with government or industry tending to fare less well. And according to Science and the Public, 84 per cent of people think that scientists and engineers make a valuable contribution to society.

Interestingly, surveys of scientists suggest that researchers (at least those of a biomedical persuasion) are actually more pessimistic than the evidence warrants. A survey carried out by MORI on behalf of the Wellcome Trust found that researchers significantly underestimated levels of public trust and held erroneous views on the trust placed in other sources of information - the media are much less trusted than scientists believe. However, while they considered the public to have more negative perceptions of scientists than is actually the case, their self-perceptions were nevertheless significantly more positive than those of the public.

Crisis? What crisis?

So is there a crisis of confidence in science? Anecdotally some may feel there is, but the situation is more complex than that. Science is seen as a positive force and there is no evidence that trust is declining.

Perhaps science is simply experiencing what many other forms of authority have experienced in the past 50 years - an increasingly well-educated, empowered, consumerist populace more willing to question figures of authority and with more platforms on which to do the questioning.

The public may now act with more scepticism than in previous times and, with governments exquisitely sensitive to nuances of ‘public opinion’, may be more aware of their ability to wield influence. Moreover, the growth of a less deferential, questioning population has coincided with the emergence of a host of issues where public impact has collided with scientific uncertainty, leading to a good many questions to be asked: would pig organs transplants be safe? What is the risk of a vCJD epidemic? Are mobile phones safe?

It is difficult to argue that science should be exempt from these democratising principles, particularly as so much science is funded by the public and is carried out, in theory, for the public good. As the House of Lords Select Committee put it, "In modern democratic conditions, science like any other player in the public arena ignores public attitudes and values at its peril. Our call for increased and integrated dialogue with the public is intended to secure science's ‘licence to practise’, not to restrict it."

So if we are not to ignore public opinion, how do we go about capturing it in the future? What may now be facing us is a greater sense of complexity. Bundling everyone together as ‘the public’ combines any number of communities with varying needs, expectations, aspirations, attitudes and opinions; Science and the Public made a first attempt to break down respondents according to views and patterns of behaviour, but undoubtedly other approaches could be taken. And science itself is a far from homogeneous concept - encompassing facts, uncertainties, regulation, methodologies - and raises ethical issues with few simple answers.

Perhaps now we need to look more closely at what opinions are captured, from whom, on what, and how that information is used. This may be the challenge for the next 15 years - and, very probably, beyond.

See also

• A matter of opinion: Article about projects exploring innovative ways to communicate complex medical and ethical issues with the public.
• Public attitudes to science - surveys: An online bibliography provided by the Wellcome Library
• Science and the Public: A Review of Science Communication and Public Attitudes to Science in Britain: Download the PDF or order a copy of the report
• The Role of Scientists in Public Debate: Survey of scientists conducted by MORI: Download PDFs of the summary or full report

External links

• Search the Royal Society’s library catalogue for reference details of the 1985 Bodmer Report
• Wolfendale Report (published October 1995)
• Public Consultation on Developments in the Biosciences (published October 2000)
• Science and Society: House of Lords Science and Technology - Third report (March 2000)
• Eurobarometer: European Commission Reports Access
• Open Channels: Public dialogue in science and technology. View online reports and download the PDF of the report summary
• psi-com: Useful public engagement with science documents and further Internet resources