E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
A survey of 21,000 people around the world, presented today by the journal Nature and Scientific American, suggests that Americans overwhelmingly trust what scientists have to say about the origins of the universe. The results also suggest that survey respondents from Japan and China are significantly less trusting of scientists, and far more doubtful about the idea that evolution explains the forms and variety of life.
So does that mean America is more in step with science than Japan and China are? Mmm, not really. The reason for that has largely to do with scientific vs. unscientific sampling.
This particular survey is based on responses to an online questionnaire by the readers of Scientific American and its translated editions in 18 countries. That's a tip-off that the sampling is not truly representative of the countries' populations, but merely of folks who are predisposed enough toward science to buy the magazine and answer the questions. (Scientific American and Nature are both owned by Macmillan Publishers.)
It may sound impressive to say that 21,000 people participated in the survey, but the participation varied dramatically from country to country. As noted in this Nature News article, thousands upon thousands from the United States and Europe, while just 269 people from China did so.
These same factors — self-selection and unevenly distributed sampling — are why we don't put too much stock in the surveys offered on our own website. Sure, it's entertaining to find out what more than 11,000 people think about the new judges on "American Idol," but when it comes to scientific sampling, the results are about as shaky as Sanjaya's singing.
The question about evolution shows how far off self-selected surveys can get: The Nature/Scientific American survey indicates that only 12.9 percent of the 4,779 American respondents had any doubt about the power of evolutionary theory, including natural selection, to explain the forms and variety of life. In contrast, 34.9 percent of the 1,195 respondents in Japan and 48.7 percent of the 269 respondents in China indicated that they had doubts.
More rigorous surveys tell a dramatically different story: Last year, for example, the Gallup Poll conducted telephone interviews with 1,018 American adults nationwide and found that 39 percent believed in the theory of evolution, 25 percent did not, and 36 percent voiced no opinion either way.
An analysis of surveys from 34 countries, published in 2006 by the journal Science (Nature's competition), shows even more starkly where America stands: The U.S. numbers revealed that 40 percent of respondents thought evolutionary theory was probably or definitely false, compared with 36 percent who thought it was probably or definitely true. Japan's acceptance of evolution, in contrast, was put at 78 percent. The only country that fared worse than the United States in the Science paper's 34-country comparison was Turkey. (China was not on the list.)
Perhaps the most that could be concluded from the Scientific American survey is that the folks buying the magazine (or a foreign-language edition) have a mind-set that's different from the population at large. That's of interest to the editors and advertisers, but maybe not so much to policymakers or policy analysts. As for the differences between countries, cultural and political factors may play a role in how particular questions were answered. (For example, Chinese readers might be more inclined to say that scientists should stay out of politics, whether they truly think so or not.)
The reports published online today by Nature as well as Scientific American go into more depth about attitudes toward science-related issues including stem cell research and climate change as well as evolution education. To my mind, last year's survey conducted by the Pew Research for the People and the Press added much more to the debate over America's science gap than this latest one will. But what do I know? The Scientific American survey, like last year's Pew report, shows conclusively that journalists are far less trusted than scientists.
More on public attitudes toward science:
- NSF: Why 'scientific consensus' fails to persuade
- One-third of Americans back ban on synthetic biology
- Scientists say stem cell uncertainty is delaying research
- Previously in Nature: Science scorned
You can trust me to let you have your say in the comment box below — as long as you keep it classy. Check out my other postings on Cosmic Log, and connect with me via Twitter (@b0yle) or Facebook.
Leave a Comment:
Surely the editors of Nature and Scientific American must be embarassed, at least privately, by publicizing at all such a specious, self-selected survey ... even if it was their own.
I hope so, but I'm not sure. I quit subscribing to SA years ago because the hard hitting wonderful articles they used to print turned into more of a political flame fest. I didn't buy their magazine for politics. I bought it for science. I had lots of other places to go for politics. So I did. I was thinking a looking at them again to see if they drifted back to their roots of excellent in depth articles. If they are pulling stuff like this, maybe I should wait a bit longer still.
Having just read the October issue, I suggest you wait quite a bit longer.
Then learn the lesson. Ditch the stupid survey nonsence and restore discussion.
Talk about a non-story. It must be a really slow day when an article like this qualifies as news. Why even bring up a survey that was done in a completely unscientific manner. It is like taking reader comments to a story on MSNBC and saying it represents the feelings of the American people as a whole.
Yes, maybe I went on a bit too long about this one, but I saw it as a good opportunity to point to some other opinion studies that produced some meatier information. (And also get in a reference to "American Idol," which I always find hard to resist. ;-)
As a scientist in my early 60's, I never ceased to be amazed with the lack of scientific information within my own age group. I can understand a kid not knowing much about early space exploration, for instance, just because of their age. But someone my age, who grew up watching the same TV programs, which covered such things as space exploration, besides other world news not knowing much other than the world is round, give me a break. If you know who Howdy Doody is, you should have heard that we put a man on the moon.
I once gave lectures at a Science Center, which was linked with other science centers around the nation. The administrators of this particular building at the time, didn't link math with science. I couldn't believe it. I went down to the school administration building and got a copy of the math skills requirements for public grades K-12, and gave it to the Science Center, so when the other "lecturers" gave a presentation they could speak to the particular grade of the school class, with reasonable assumption that kids were supposed to learn stuff in school.
The earth and the moon is a two-body problem, you just don't think about it until you are in high school. The math required to derive geostationary orbits comes up right around high school in general physics.
Some of the earliest science taught to students is at a purely qualitative level, so it tends to focus on geology and field biology/ecology, in where quantitative analysis is weak if absent. Facts-based science is more interesting than numbers, apparently.
The "fear" of equations is so bad that in books for kids everything is expressed in ratios. Object A weighs ten elephants...not exactly SI, but makes it sound corny and un-serious after a while.
Well, I'm against all science now. Christine said that scientists are putting human brains in mice. It must be true, Christine said so.
The earth is flat, around 4000 years old and the sun revolves around it. Oh, and Evolution is a lie. A large percentage of Americans believe in at least three of these statements despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. I find this article poorly researched.
Ok, maybe two of these statements, but still . . .
The Gallup poll (the one with a statistically significant sample) shows why our founding fathers gave us a republic instead of a democracy. What they didn't forsee was our representatives pandering to polls instead of doing the right thing.
I have found that we are a nation of undereducated people.
I too am a 60 year old scientist/researcher. My problem with our societal stupidity stems from the realization that most people live by the "ignorance is bliss" mode of existence. Some with average to slightly above average intellect are sometimes better versed in the physical attributes of our working world/universe than many others with superior intelligence, who worry more about who is kicked off Dancing(?) or whether LiLo is in jail or not.
Our priorities as a society are completely bogus. Few learn for the sake of learning. It is usually a means to an end, better job, etc. I feel privileged and lucky to see science as a great universal puzzle that I get to play with every waking minute, if I choose. I pity those that can't see the value.
Mr Messbarger, The value unknown is beyond physical understanding - but, as I state in my copyright poster poem that I did for Grade Schools - "Mind&Matter A Paradox of Being!" "Man cannot create or be creative. His WANT is to invent or be inventive with what was a GIVEN - dimensional matter - for him to use. A transmutation of INTELLIGENCE from 'Ethereal Intellect' BEYOND THE LIMIT OF DIMENSION CONCEIT! I'm 86 years of age and still a student of thinking.
Charles,
As a nation, our entire value structure is skewed. Everyone should be a student of thinking. It is our greatest untapped resource.
Of all the things in which observation affects the results of what you are observing I would wager good money that surveys are VERY to MOSTLY affected (in a negative way).
Many of the theories of science in mordern world are originated in western countries instead of oriental countries. Can that be one of the possible reasons which make the difference in trusting in science and scientists by people from different geographic areas?
I would suspect that a good number of folks are looking for the moral high ground in the pit of ignorance and superstition, and thus don't feel they need any science nor math. But kids should be able to figure out the volume of a soap bubble if they are having a contest of who can make the largest soap bubble. Later on in life when they need to convert gallons to liters, for fueling their cars, ( etc. ), math concepts usefull in science, economics, social studies, etc., can be interchanged making for a more rewarding life for themselves and their communities. If you don't integrate math, you still end up with plenty of answers... they just don't match up with the problems.
Science is about making observations. It is also about other independent observers, using the same equipment in the same conditions coming to the same conclusions, to verify observations. If three observers conclude the same results... guess what? Three is math.
Science takes some time and effort to absorb and understand. It doesn't fit well nto a headline or sound byte, but that doesn't stop the media from publishing outlandish catchy headlines (:ie: Big bang Machine, God particle, etc...) which can be so misleading to the majority of people who only read headlines and the first paragraph of a story. Because of his it's not surprising that there is such a disconnect between the average person and science.
The old churches (Catholic, Islam, etc...) had some political differences with a few of the science concepts they didn't want released yet, but usually had no problem with religion coexisting with the main tenets. Math, Astronomy, Biology all could fit in with theology and that was fine. But that was simple science by today's standards and so today it's safer for them to take a hold approach and not accept new scientific ideas without a long and politicized process.
I don't know how to fix this since there is a market for sham and junk science that the tabloids will exploit. Even the mainstream media wants to grow their audience and tease people into watching or reading the news at 11:00 or the article on page xx just based on the title. Scientists for the most part are good at the science but not really good at the journalism dumbing-down in simpler terms for communicating to the masses, especially when the breakthroughs are not easy for average people to understand. We should be thankful for the few like Carl Sagan, Steven Hawkings, and the Educational TV scientists that attempt to present complex ideas in a way most people can understand. That's a really hard thing to do because they have to leave out so much that they feel is so important to get across just the concepts more than the knowledge, but them people who are interested can follow up for more depth.
There is a large amount of scientific ignorance the world around a small amount is just a lack of access to the information but it is largely due to the fog that is religion which blocks the light of truth from reaching the minds of so many.
We should remember that science is not a "search for truth" but rather a search for models that can be used to make predictions. In science, as long as the prediction created by the model is correct, it does not matter much whether what the model says happens actually happens. Think about all the different models used for molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, and chemical reactions. Science is also about different people performing similar experiments and obtaining different results, or obtaining similar results and arguing about the interpretation of what the results mean. Science is not really about "consensus". "Consensus" is not science, because consensus depends on believing what other people say when you have not done the experiment yourself. This is not science, but rather faith. No one should go into science who is not willing to have a vigorous argument about their particular theory or experimental results. Evolution is useful not because it is necessarily true, but because it provides a model that is useful in making predictions.
Evolutionary theory is based on the assumption that since we can observe evolution take place with fruit flies and other lower organisms, that the same process has taken place with higher organisms and the process is sufficient to explain all the different organisms that exist and have ever existed. Since evolution has never been observed on the scale commensurate with that of the theory that has been developed - i.e., no one has ever observed the evolution of a higher organism from a lower organism - current evolutionary theory may qualify as pattern recognition but not science. Just because you can make different species of fruit flies doesn't necessarily prove that mammals evolved directly from unicellular organisms.
Regarding the issue of math - you can do science without doing math. However, the more uncontrolled variables there are in any given experiment, the more math you need to compensate. Let us remember that in the Western tradition, science was typically a pursuit of the leisure class. They were the only ones who were rich enough that they didn't have to worry about simply surviving and could afford to purchase equipment needed to perform experiments. Let us also remember that there are certain assumptions upon which science is founded. One of the most important boils down to "if you do the same thing the same way, you should get the same result". Another one is that the universe is understandable. Something that scientists rarely say is that the price of understanding is simplification.