Last year, the Association of Science and Technology Centers (ASTC) published a study and report by Erica Kimmerling, PhD, and Eve Klein, MEd, which sought to explore the ways U.S. adults perceive science and understand the federal government’s role in scientific exploration.
Dr. Kimmerling formerly served in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and was a staff lead on the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ Public Face of Science Initiative. In an interview with FABBS, she broke down the study’s main findings and highlighted its relevance to our present political moment.
Q: To what extent do U.S. adults generally value science and scientific information in their daily lives?
Our data suggest that U.S. adults broadly view science as a public asset that delivers real value and benefit. Seven in ten people say science “benefits people like me,” and eight in ten people agree publicly funded science agencies are important to improving their quality of life.
We also found that scientific information is deeply woven into everyday decision-making. In our survey, we listed 11 different types of information that we know to be the products of scientific research and data collection including nutritional information, economic forecasting, public health updates, and air quality reports. Ninety-four percent of respondents said they used one or more of these types of information at least weekly. However, it is important to note that in the survey we did not describe these resources as “science” so it remains unclear to what extent people connect them with the federal scientific enterprise.
Q: To what extent do U.S. adults see the connection between federal policy and the proliferation and growth of scientific research?
Survey questions can’t fully capture how people understand complex issues, but our data raise interesting questions about public perceptions of the federal role in science. On one hand, nine in ten U.S. adults said federal investment in STEM education is important for future economic prosperity. This data point indicates that people do see a role for the government in supporting science. At the same time, half of the people who answered our survey believed that “corporations, foundations, and wealthy individuals would fund scientific research to fill the gap created by federal spending cuts.” This finding suggests that many may not fully understand the federal government’s unique role in enabling and sustaining the nation’s research ecosystem.
Q: How did the responses vary across political affiliations or demographic groups?
We explored politicization in our survey, and the findings were mixed. Across the political spectrum, most people said they want science to be free from political influence. When asked whether it’s important for “experts at federal scientific agencies to make decisions on scientific funding, regulations, and guidance free from political influence,” 85 percent agreed.
However, views shifted when questions were framed differently. We defined political appointees as “individuals chosen by elected officials (such as the President or a governor) to lead or work in government agencies. Unlike career civil servants, political appointees typically change with each administration.” When asked whether “political appointees should have the power to dispute scientific data and the results of government-funded research,” 43 percent of respondents agreed.
Agreement dropped to 31 and 28 percent respectively when “disputing” was replaced with “altering” or “censoring” results. While it’s encouraging that most respondents reject such actions, the absence of overwhelming opposition is notable given the seriousness of these behaviors. More than partisan affiliation, generational differences stood out: younger respondents were more likely than older ones to say political appointees should have the power to dispute, alter, or censor scientific results.
Q: What can the science community do to communicate to the public the importance of scientific considerations and implications for everyday life?
Our survey data suggest that simply emphasizing that science is important is unlikely to change minds since most people already agree. The scientific community needs to more clearly communicate how policy actions that are happening right now are impacting the things that people care about like the safety of food and medicine or the pace of medical advances. Effective communication should start with understanding what people value, recognizing that not everyone shares the same priorities.
