For a host of issues, like vaccine safety,
climate change, and GMO foods, public opinion
is a poor match for our scientific standing.
That dissonance has led a lot of people to
ask how we could do better at getting scientific
information out to the public.
But the Pew Research Center decided to ask
a related question that's just as important:
where's the public getting its scientific
information now?
The answer, disappointingly, is that most
people in the US aren't getting any scientific
information at all.
For the small number of people who do see
significant scientific information, most of
it comes from news outlets.
Oddly, however, the public is not impressed
with its primary source, as fewer than 30
percent of those polled think that news outlets
actually get the science right.
The Pew data comes from a survey of more than
4,000 US adults, a big enough sample that
the margin of error is only 1.6 percentage
points.
Within that sample, 30 percent indicated that
they actively seek out science news.
But nearly half of those folks don't find
it, as only 43 percent of them indicate that
they see science news a few times a week or
more.
That's just 17 percent of the overall survey
population, a group the Pew refers to as "active
science consumers."
Within the survey population at large, 36
percent indicate that they see science news
a few times a week.
Being optimistic, that suggests that there
are enough science news sources out there
to ensure that people will stumble across
it even if they're not looking for it.
On the pessimistic side, that means two-thirds
of the US isn't seeing much information about
science.
Within the US, there are a variety of sources
people turn to.
A bit over half saw science information in
traditional news sources; a bit under half
watched documentaries or other video-based
material.
A quarter went to a dedicated science magazine,
either in print or online, and 10 percent
visited museums or other exhibit-focused centers.
The disappointing aspect here is that there's
no relationship between how popular a source
is and how people rate it for quality.
So, while the single largest source was general
news, only a quarter of those surveyed feel
that the news gets its science right most
of the time.
In fact, none of the sources was considered
especially accurate.
Even museums and dedicated science magazines
were rated as getting the science right most
of the time.
These numbers, however, go up considerably
among the active science news consumers, more
than 70 percent of whom think museums, documentaries,
and science magazines get it right most of
the time.
A third of the survey population also hears
about science news from friends and family,
though only 16 percent of those surveyed think
their loved ones constitute a good source
of accurate information.
Similar things are true of social media.
A quarter of the public follows at least one
science focused account, but half of the public
thinks social media is a lousy place to get
accurate information.
Despite the low number of regular consumers
of science news, the public also says it's
interested in getting more.
More than 70 percent of the survey population
said it was interested or very interested
in seeing science news; that's only slightly
below politics and well ahead of both sports
and entertainment news.
When asked why they don't consume more science
news, however, the public had lots of excuses,
none of which stood out.
These excuses ranged from not having enough
time down to disagreeing with the news they
hear.
"Boring" and "too hard to understand" both
made appearances, suggesting that part of
the problem lies with the media.
The media also gets a fair bit of the blame
for the public's sense that science coverage
is inaccurate.
Those surveyed think the media is too quick
to report on early results, oversimplify most
coverage, and emphasize disagreement among
scientists.
But the public also shoulders some of the
blame, as most people think that we're generally
bad at judging which scientific information
is solid and try too hard to find ways that
results are relevant to ourselves.
Scientists get dinged for trying the same
thing and generally hyping their research.
But the Pew also asked people to list some
news they had seen that was inaccurate, and
the results were pretty mixed.
One respondent was convinced that it was irresponsible
to suggest aliens could be behind the strange
behavior of an erratic star, even though scientists
themselves had considered that possibility.
And, in some cases, people were upset about
accurate coverage.
In other cases, they were upset about genuinely
bad coverage, such as a documentary that treated
mermaids as real or an article that promoted
creationism.
In other words, complaints about the mixed
accuracy of science news are based on a mixed
understanding of the underlying science.
As a result, people come away from accurate
reporting convinced that it was problematic.
Overall, the picture that emerges is one of
a US public that wants to be enthused about
science but doesn't have the time and energy
to devote to reading science news and is frequently
disappointed with the results when they do.
And, while the purveyors of science news receive
a lot of the blame for this, the public recognizes
that hype-driven scientists and the public's
own lack of knowledge make the situation worse.
