Abstract
Public attitude surveys are the prime method used to assess public attitudes to science and technology, but can also be very problematic—as evidenced in the number of different polls that come up with different findings. Toward better understanding of what drives public attitudes, it has become more relevant to find out “Why” people think what they do about science and technology than to know “What” they think. Recent research into how values drive attitudes has been very important to our increased understanding. However, in a post-truth, post-trust, post-expert world—where notions of truth, trust, and expertise are now commonly contested—we need to also better understand the social and media environments we are now living in, and how they affect attitudes to new technologies.
Introduction
Are public attitudes to new technologies driven more by our hearts or our heads? We’d like to think they are driven by our heads and that we all make decisions based on the scientific research and the data.
If only!!
There is a telling scene in the recent docudrama Brexit, starting Benedict Cumberbatch, in which the two opposing sides outline their key strategies, with the anti-Brexit camp going for the public’s heads, while the pro-Brexit camp openly goes for their hearts. I don’t need to remind everyone who won that campaign.
But it is worth reminding people that the pro-Brexit campaign knew that people tend to make emotion-based decisions and then look for the facts that will support that. It is the same with many new technologies, be it gene technologies, synthetic biology, or artificial intelligence.
We have learned an awful lot about the way people react to new technologies over the past decade, as well as the impact of contested data and misinformation (aka Fake News).
What do we know about public attitudes to new technologies?
Of significant interest, different surveys can give very different results depending on how different questions are framed, what is happening in the world at that time, and which population set the questions are being asked of. The Eurobarometer 1 is a good indicator of the variety of responses to questions on new technologies that exist across different European countries at different times.
Looking at the variety of data that has been obtained from just one country—Australia—it is instructive what different surveys show. For starters, the Australian Government’s leading research institution Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) undertook a survey in 2014 that found 17% of the population were very interested in science and 40% were quite interested in it. A combined figure of about 40% was also quite uninterested in science 2 , as is shown in Figure 1.
How interested are people in science in Australia. 2 CSIRO, 2014.
However, another study, carried out by the Centre for the Public Awareness of Science at the Australian National University in 2017, asked the question differently and found that more people said they were very interested in scientific discoveries (60%) than said they were very interested in music (38%), films (30%), or sports news (19%). 3
A third study by the Australian Department of Industry, conducted in 2013, came up with a figure of about 80% believing that science was so important to our lives that we should all take an interest in it. 4 And, a fourth study conducted by Swinburne University in Melbourne 5 found that the statement science and technology are continuously improving our quality of life received a rating of 7.24 out of 10.
Looking more broadly, we can find studies in the United States that show support for science and technologies is anywhere between 59% 6 and 87%. 7 And, UK data have shown that the figures can vary between 55% 8 and 81%. 9
So, clearly, different polls will give different answers—based on such things as how the questions are asked, when, and even what questions are asked around them. But to be honest, any public attitude survey that states boldly that public attitudes to say nanotechnologies are 45.7% or 62.5% in favor or against is doing youa disservice. All such surveys should be considered indicative rather than definitive—the same way if you took a temperature and wind reading at a particular moment on one day, it is not representative of the variety in readings you would get for the whole day.
And such polling, while great for simple headlines, can too easily become a distraction—because such broad overviews also don’t really capture the differences that can exist in gender, age groups, education, demographics—and more importantly psychographics (the different ways that different people think). Toward that it has become more relevant to find “Why” people think what they do about science and technology than to find “What” they think.
Traditionally, if asked how people’s attitudes to new technologies are driven by, a good response would cover a few key points:
First, you should know that we can divide people into different segments, such as those who are interested and excited about new technologies, those who are more concerned about them, and those who do not really care.2,10
Then, you should know that people rarely judge new technologies on the technology itself and are more likely to judge them based on how well they align with their worldview or values. So, somebody who has a strong belief in “natural values” will more likely reject genetically manipulated (GM) foods, but accept the science behind climate change. And, somebody whose values are more “pro-development” will more likely accept the science behind GM foods, but most likely reject that of climate change. 11
Attitudes can be driven by values
Put simply, people’s attitudes to complex new technologies are often based on how well the technology aligns with their values, rather than what the technology does and does not do. Dan Kahan of Yale, who has undertaken significant work on how values affect attitudes, has said that the issue of climate change, for instance, is not about what you know, rather it is about who you are. 12
Value-based studies have shown the following:
Between four and six different segments of the population have been mapped for GM foods, 13 climate change,14,15 and science and technology,16,17 based on people’s attitudes and values.
Broad attitudes toward science and technology and nature can influence consumers’ attitudes toward particular applications of science or technology. 18
Pro-science and technology values are a strong predictor of support for even contentious science or technology such as GM food. 19
When information is complex, people tend to make emotion-based judgments, driven by values, rather than by the information presented to them. 20
Messages that do not align with people’s values tend to be rejected or dismissed by them. 21
So, based on all that, new technologies need to be framed in terms of how well they address people’s concerns about them—be it equity of access, or inadvertent impacts, or health and safety, or all of the above. That should not be too hard to achieve for technology developers, surely.
Because there is a new paradigm in town!
The new paradigm
We can summarize the new paradigm as the post-truth, post-trust, post-expert world that we now all live in—where notions of truth, trust, and expertise are commonly contested with varying beliefs in what is “truth,” who can be trusted, and who is a credible expert, based more on who we want to believe.
And, this is why it is important to understand how the Brexit vote played out. Not What was decided, but Why it was decided. As in the Brexit vote, the new paradigm says that how you feel about something is more important than what somebody else knows about it. You can be your own expert on issues related to science and technology because your gut feelings are enough evidence to you—be that feelings of concern, overwhelming endorsement, or dread.
Yes, you can go and cherry-pick data to support your feelings if you really wish to have them confirmed—and cherry picking of data has been found to be one of the most common statistical fallacies in public debates 22 —but just finding an online community with the same feelings can be more than enough to provide confirmation. And, whether it is anti-vaccination, anti-stem cell research, pro-human cloning, or pro-artificial intelligence—you will find a like-minded community out there.
Living only within our tribes
Not everybody is going to think the same way, of course, and the advice about the public being segmented into different ways of thinking still holds 13 —but it is now possible to live only within the influence of a like-minded segment (or “tribe”), with almost no interaction with other segments who hold alternative points of view. Different segments ‘tribes’ are shown in Table 1 and Figures 2 and 3. This tribal-mindedness undermines sometimes the “wisdom of crowds” 23 and is actively supported by online algorithms that favor certain ideas and articles over others.
Segments of the population by attitudes to science and technology based on key values. 2 CSIRO, 2014.
Global warming’s six Americas segments. 31 Yale Program on Climate Change Communication & George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, 2018.
Australian segments by attitudes to Climate Change. 2 CSIRO, 2014.
For buying books on Amazon, that type of algorithm is very helpful, as it recommends to you books similar to ones that you have browsed or purchased. But for contentious issues, it is not so helpful recommending sites and publications in online searchers that are similar to ones you have already browsed—increasingly giving you one perspective and excluding other alternative views. 24
This is a problem for technology developers as much as it is for those who are concerned about new technologies. It allows those who live in a science bubble to feel that everyone is going to love their new technology as much as they and their colleagues and friends love it (what’s not to love about nanotechnology, right?). And, it allows those with concerns about new technologies to feel that everyone is also concerned about it, and perhaps, therefore, some sort of action needs to be taken. (which is why everyone is scared about nanotechnology, right?)
Again, feelings trump knowledge
And, in an age when personal feelings are worth at least as much, if not more, than expert opinion, that can promote huge societal discords on science and technology issues. Evidence of the gaps that exist on science-based issues were highlighted in a 2015 study conducted by the Pew Fact Tank Research Center, which found that while 88% of scientists felt it was safe to eat GM foods, only 37% of the public agreed. A 51 point gap!! Or, while 98% of scientists polled believed that humans had evolved over time, only 65% of the public agreed 25 , as is shown in Figure 4.
Opinion differences between the public and scientists in the United States. 25 PEW Research Centre, 2015.
There is also a discord between the concept of majority voice versus passionate voice, with quiet expert voices often being given less accord than vocal and concerned voices—despite their relative numbers. It is almost as if there is a secret algorithm that gives a higher weighting to emotion over reason. Or, fears over facts. “How concerned people are” seems to be a bigger question for policy makers and financial backers than “how many are concerned.” Think of outcries about culling of wild horses or badgers,26,27 or thinning out native forests by planned burning, 28 or even the amending of urban planning laws 29 —not based on science or data, nor even on the majority of the public’s wishes—but rather on “public outcry.”
This is important to know too
For these are the very areas where debates around new technologies are often being played out. Climate change is too often emotion versus reason. Infant vaccination is too often fears versus facts.
So, how is this all going to play out for new technologies like synthetic biology? Well, it could go either way, depending on how the public debate is framed. Will it be all about public benefit or public risk?
And let’s be clear here, very few new technologies are not contested by someone who is going to lose out as a result of the disruption of their old business, meaning that there will always be someone willing to frame the new technology as bad for individuals, society, or the environment.
Accepting the new paradigm and working with it
The challenge for those who develop new technologies is to accept the new paradigm in town and also frame their arguments in terms of people’s feelings, and not be like the losing side of the Brexit campaign, insisting that if only people understood the facts they would be more supportive.
An important thing to know is that attitudes that were not formed by logic and facts, cannot easily be influenced by logic and facts. 2
For technology developers, this means understanding what existing values different people have, and being able to frame messages around the new technology that resonates with those values. It also means being able to help people feel that the benefits of a technology outweigh the risks, not just demonstrating it with data.
Of course, there are some technologies that might be very beneficial for us that are going to fail because of public concerns—but that is a part of the new paradigm too. In the era of citizen-generated content and Web 3.0, the public will demand more and more to be a partner in the development of new ideas and how they apply. Good public consultation will achieve much of this, but the public will also have the right to make decisions that ultimately disagree with the science and evidence.
Self-driving cars? Brain chips? Genome editing of babies? Robot caregivers? 30
In all likelihood, it will be the quality of the public debate that has a bigger impact on whether the technologies are adopted or not than the quality of the research and development.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the Pew Research Center, the Yale Program on Climate Change, and the George Washington University Centre for Climate Communication for permitting the use of figures presented in this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.