New research out today finds huge gaps between public opinion and scientific consensus on a variety of topics from climate change and evolution to the safety of genetically modified foods and animal research.
A collaborative report from the Pew Research Center and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS - perhaps best known as the publisher of the journal, Science) analyzes data from a pair of surveys - one of 2,002 members of the public and another of over 3,000 scientists who are members of AAAS. Both groups were asked about their feelings on a number of science-related issues and when the results from both sets are placed side-by-side in the final report, some stark differences are revealed.
The biggest gap in agreement between the public and scientists is around genetically-modified foods, often referred to as GM foods or "GMOs:" The report claims 88 percent of AAAS scientists believe eating GM food is safe, while only 37 percent of the public feel the same. This 51 percentage point gap in agreement is the largest demonstrated in the report, but there is also a 42-point gap over the issue of using animals in research, with 89 percent of scientists in favor, but only 47 percent of the public in agreement. Tangentially related to the GMO question is whether or not foods grown with pesticides are safe to eat - 68 percent of scientists say they are, compared to only 28 percent of citizens. Rounding out the top five questions with the biggest gaps are the primary cause of climate change - 87 percent of scientists say it is mostly human caused, while only 50 percent of the public agrees - and whether humans have evolved over time, something 98 percent of scientists believe, compared to only 65 percent of the public.
The public is also more likely to favor offshore drilling than scientists by 20 percentage points and says that astronauts are essential for the future of the U.S. space program by 12 percentage points.
During a press conference, AAAS CEO Dr. Alan Leshner addressed some of the larger gaps in agreement on scientific issues.
"In the case of genetically modified foods, I think the basic reason is a misunderstanding in the public about what genetically modified foods are... Scientists understand that foods that have been genetically modified have to go through a variety of safety tests. The public just have sort of a general notion of what it is. When you get to climate, you get to a very different category of issues where, in fact, it is extremely politically inconvenient, to have to worry about the climate. And it takes a lot of money to fix it."
Each issue that the report touches on warrants multiple book-length volumes to chronicle the science, history of public communication and understanding around the issue, but I'll briefly touch on two.
Leshner's interpretation of the huge gap in agreement between science and the public around GMO safety is bolstered by another survey from 2013 that found 54 percent of American consumers know very little or nothing about GM foods and 25 percent had never even heard the term.
Into that knowledge vacuum flows millions of dollars in awareness campaigns from both pro and anti-GMO groups. As the AAAS report concedes, at least a few hundred of the scientists surveyed do not feel that eating GM food is safe - it would only take a few of these scientists being willing to communicate this opinion and their credentials to the media to create a debate. From there it becomes a question of who can communicate their opinion the loudest, and with the help of the most money.
The same goes for the issue of climate change, which is visible (in an admittedly microscopic microcosm of public opinion) in the comments section of my recent story for Forbes on the reaction to 2014 being declared the hottest year on record. There we find lots of loud refutations of the hottest year title, many of which can be traced back to one of two sources: 1. The same Daily Mail article that largely misinterprets some of the statistics around the certainty with which NOAA and NASA made the call that 2014 was likely the hottest ever; and 2. The minority of climate scientists arguing that satellite data deserved more weight in the analysis of historic global temperature averages.
"It is not about whether the public is dumb or not. It is a function of the American educational system that is doing a terrible job as the survey shows," said Leshner, referring to the report finding that just 16 percent of AAAS scientists and 29 percent of the general public rank U.S. K-12 STEM education as above average or the best in the world. "So that is a problem. It is real... It is not arrogance. This time, it isn't. Scientists have been in the past, arrogant. But this time, I don't think it is about arrogance. I think the scientific community is hoping to be able to engage more fully with the public, in a dialogue, as opposed to the traditional monologue."
Leshner says that in the case of an issue like evolution, the conflict is less between majority and minority scientific opinions but with a nearly unanimous scientific consensus and people's core values or religious beliefs.
"Unfortunately, we have known for decades that ideology and intuition and core beliefs trump science frequently. And one of the jobs of science is to help educate the public about what science is in fact showing."
Despite disagreement between the public and scientists on a handful of topics, the report also found that 79 percent think science has made life easier for most people and 70 percent say government investments in engineering, technology and scientific research usually pay off in the long term.
