Study examines link between science literacy and public opinion

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — Many scientists claim public opposition to biotechnology is primarily a product of ignorance. But a report published by researchers at the University of Trento in Italy may contradict that belief. After conducting two large-scale surveys of public opinion on biotechnology in Italy, researchers found that access to scientific information does not necessarily promote positive attitudes about biotechnology, particularly for controversial science, such as genetically modified foods and embryonic stem cell research.

According to study leader Massimiano Bucchi, debate about the impact of science news exposure on public attitudes about biotechnology historically has occurred without reliable data, particularly in Europe.

“Scientists and policy makers always assume that negative attitudes to certain research fields are only due to lack of information on the part of the public,” says Bucchi. “We wanted to test this assumption on an empirical basis and tried to show that it is not so simple.”

Bucchi cites public attitudes toward human embryo research as a prime example of where old ideas about science literacy promoting positive public opinion break down. According to the article in the Italian publication Journal of the History of Medicine, where the survey results were published, those with the highest level of exposure to science news, 64 percent deemed research on embryos ethically unacceptable; just 59 percent of the group with less exposure to science news opposed human embryo research.

Participants with high exposure also wanted stricter state regulations on biotechnology and reportedly had less faith in scientists’ ability to self regulate. Similarly, results suggest that there is a strong demand for public involvement in scientific decision-making—almost one-third of survey participants claimed they would like to participate in public discussions about scientific issues.

“It is surprising to see that in certain cases, the more people know about biotechnologies, the more skeptical they become,” says Bucchi. “But it is surprising only insofar as you buy the argument that more science communication equals better understanding, which equals more favorable attitudes.”

Does Bucchi’s argument hold water in the United States? Most likely, says Joann Rodgers, public affairs deputy director and director of media relations at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. “This paper brings into strong relief the experience that I and many of my colleagues in science communications have had: You cannot just throw information out there and expect it to ‘win’ you anything,” says Rodgers. “Trust is not built on a sea of facts, but on the solid ground of experience.”