How scientists view the public, the media and the political process

TLDR

Future research should investigate how scientists’ ideology and selective information sources shape their views of the public, media, and policy. The study analyzes two recent large-scale surveys of UK and US scientists to extend prior research on their views of the public, media, and policy. The authors review prior literature and analyze two large surveys of scientists in the UK and US. Scientists view the public as uninformed and prone to errors, criticize media coverage yet value interactions with journalists, see themselves as essential participants in policy debates—especially with policymakers—but rarely see direct public engagement as beneficial.

Abstract

We review past studies on how scientists view the public, the goals of communication, the performance and impacts of the media, and the role of the public in policy decision-making. We add to these past findings by analyzing two recent large-scale surveys of scientists in the UK and US. These analyses show that scientists believe the public is uninformed about science and therefore prone to errors in judgment and policy preferences. Scientists are critical of media coverage generally, yet they also tend to rate favorably their own experience dealing with journalists, believing that such interactions are important both for promoting science literacy and for career advancement. Scientists believe strongly that they should have a role in public debates and view policy-makers as the most important group with which to engage. Few scientists view their role as an enabler of direct public participation in decision-making through formats such as deliberative meetings, and do not believe there are personal benefits for investing in these activities. Implications for future research are discussed, in particular the need to examine how ideology and selective information sources shape scientists' views.