4. Scientific Research

4.1 Knowledge of Science
4.2 The Scientific World-View
4.3 Interest and Knowledge of Genetic Engineering
4.4 Goals for Scientific Research
4.5 Summary: Scientific Research

4.1 Knowledge of Science

The ISSS measured knowledge of science by a straightforward self-evaluation. (The discussion here and subsequently goes topic by topic, not in the sequence questions were actually asked in the questionnaire. The module is given in full in an appendix.)

7e. Do you have a basic understanding of science and technology generally

Yes, definitely	12
Yes, probably	47
Mixed feelings; yes and no	23
No, probably not	15
No, definitely not	2
	100% (mean= 63)

Similar questions have been used in many previous surveys. They appear to provide a rough but serviceable measure of knowledge, well correlated with objective measures. But respondents clearly err on the optimistic side in evaluating their level of knowledge.

Some 12% of the Australian population say they definitely have a basic understanding and 47% that they probably do -- so a clear majority claim a "basic understanding". Some 23% have mixed feelings on the question; 15% admit they probably don't have a basic understanding and 2% admit they definitely do not. This gives an average of 63 points on our usual points out of 100 basis, part way between "yes, probably" and "mixed feelings".

Knowledge of science is much more widespread among the well educated (beta= .28), among the young rather than the old (beta=-.16), and among men rather than women (beta=.13).

4.2 The Scientific World-View

Earlier in the questionnaire, we measured respondents' general acceptance of a scientific world-view, specifically their acceptance of the theory of evolution and modern astronomy (these questions are not part of the genetic engineering project but are from another ISSS module, and are used here by permission):

1. Would you say these are true or false...

a. The universe began with a
huge explosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  True!!  True  ??  False  False!!

b. Elsewhere in the universe, there 
are probably thousands of planets 
much like our own. . . . . . . . . . . . .  True!!  True  ??  False  False!!

c. There is probably life on other 
planets elsewhere in the universe. . . . .  True!!  True  ??  False  False!!

d. Modern animals and plants evolved 
over millions of years, through 
survival of the fittest. . . . . . . . . .  True!!  True  ??  False  False!!

e. Mankind evolved by natural selection 

from lower animals, as Darwin's theory 
of evolution says. . . . . . . . . . . . .  True!!  True  ??  False  False!!

f. The earliest humans appeared 
millions of years ago in Africa. . . . . .  True!!  True  ??  False  False!!

g. Mankind's ancestors were apes . . . . .  True!!  True  ??  False  False!!

Belief in Darwin's theory of evolution and acceptance of modern astronomy are far from universal in Australia. On our usual points out of 100 scoring, the Australians average only 62 -- about half-way between 'true' and 'uncertain'.

Factor analysis shows a strong single factor underlying the several questions on evolution, and another -- possibly somewhat separate, possibly not -- underlying the astronomy questions. For simplicity, we here take them as a single factor and measure them by a single multiple item scale:

[Definition] Scientific world-view = mean( All 7 evolution and astronomy items )

The scientific world-view is enormously less common among devout Christians (beta= -.48). Men hold it somewhat more often than women (beta= .10), and the young rather more than the old (beta= -.10). Surprisingly, the well educated are no more scientifically inclined than the poorly educated.

4.3 Interest and Knowledge of Genetic Engineering

4.3.1 Level of Knowledge and Interest

To measure interest and knowledge of genetic engineering we asked, towards the end of the module:

b. Before reading about it in this questionnaire, had you heard much
about genetic engineering?

Yes, definitely 19

Yes, probably 49

Mixed feelings; yes and no 9

No, probably not 19

No, definitely not 4

--- 100% (mean= 65)

c. Would you say you have a basic understanding of genetic engineering?

Yes, definitely 14

Yes, probably 49

Mixed feelings; yes and no 16

No, probably not 16

No, definitely not 4

--- 100% (mean= 63)

d. Are you interested in genetic engineering?

Yes, definitely 10

Yes, probably 41

Mixed feelings;

yes and no 27

No, probably not 19

No, definitely not 4

--- 100% (mean= 59)

About 19% said "Yes, they had definitely" heard of genetic engineering, 48% said "Probably", 9% had "Mixed feelings, yes and no"; 19% "No, they heard about it", and 4% "Definitely not". So the majority of the population claimed that they had heard about it, but a substantial number were not sure, or thought that they had not heard of it. This comes to 65 points out of 100.

On the question about understanding genetic engineering a majority claim some "basic understanding". Some 14% said "Definitely yes", 49% "Yes", 16% were not sure, 18% thought not, and 4% said no, they definitely did not.. The mean level of knowledge, on our usual points out of 100 basis, is 63.

This is not, of course, anything like a definitive measure but similar questions in other surveys that include knowledge tests suggest that it provides a reasonable approximate measure of knowledge (U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, 1987: Chapter 6).

Of course, people surely take an optimistic view of their knowledge and a university lecturer in biology would rarely be impressed with the knowledge of even the best informed of the general public. But, equally, few in the general public would impress a university lecturer in economics with their knowledge of economics, nor impress a university lecturer in political science with their knowledge of politics. But such modest levels of knowledge as the public has quite suffice for them to evaluate the economic performance of the government of the day and, at the ballot box, to retain or dismiss the government from office. So it would be quite mistaken to discount the public's views on the grounds that they lack a deep understanding of the issue: that is the normal way things operate in a democracy, for better or for worse.

Levels of interest in genetic engineering were also moderately high. Some 10% said they definitely are interested, 40% are interested, 27% have mixed feelings, 19% not interested, and only 4% definitely not interested. The average is 59 points out of 100.

The questions on hearing about genetic engineering and understanding it are highly correlated and make a satisfactory summary measure of knowledge:

[Definition] Knowledge of genetic engineering = mean( Heard about G-E, Understand G-E )

4.3.2. Who is Most Knowledgeable about Genetic Engineering?

Those knowledgeable about science in general are very much more knowledgeable about genetic engineering (beta= .55). Those with a scientific world-view are somewhat more knowledgeable (beta= .15). The old are a bit more knowledgeable than the young (beta= .08), once their generally modest level of knowledge about science in general is taken into account.

4.4 Goals for Scientific Research

Before any discussion of genetic engineering, the ISSS survey asked about general goals for scientific research on food and medicine. The aim was to discover what goals are uppermost in the public's mind and only then to discuss genetic engineering as a means of achieving some of those goals. The questions:

3.  Australian scientists do a lot of research on food and medicine. 
Here are some things they could try to do, some goals for the future. 
How do you feel about developing...

                                    Delighted                    Terrible

a. New medicines to cure 

serious diseases like cancer?. . . . . 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9        
 (Mean 96 points out of 100)

b. Tastier, fresher food?. . . . . . . 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9        
 (Mean 80 points out of 100)

c. Cheaper food? . . . . . . . . . . . 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9        
 (Mean 82 points out of 100)

d. Healthier, more nutritious foods. . 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9        
 (Mean 90 points out of 100)

e. Higher yielding crops, which would 
increase farmers' earnings . . . . . . 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9        
 (Mean 85 points out of 100)

f. Crops that would create a new 
export market for Australian farmers . 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9        
 (Mean 90 points out of 100)

g. Reducing the use of chemicals 
and pesticides in farming. . . . . . . 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9        
 (Mean 92 points out of 100)

h. Protecting the environment. . . . . 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9        
 (Mean 92 points out of 100)

We offered respondents a choice of 9 answers (numbered 1 to 9) with one end labeled "Delighted" and the other end labeled "Terrible". This is a standard question format with very satisfactory measurement properties.

To provide a clear and compact summary of answers, we score these answers conventionally at equal intervals from 0 (terrible) to 100 (delighted) and report the average score. This scoring is purely cosmetic and any other equal interval scoring (e.g. 1 through 9) would leave standardized coefficients unchanged:

Delighted = 1   -- Scored 100 points
2               -- Scored 87.5 points
3               -- Scored 75 points
4               -- Scored 62.5 points
5               -- Scored 50 points
6               -- Scored 37.5 points
7               -- Scored 25 points
8               -- Scored 12.5 points
Terrible=9      -- Scored 0 points

4.4.1 Medical Goals

For the average Australian, the greatest benefits from scientific research come from health and agriculture. On "new medicines to cure serious diseases like cancer", 85% of the populace chose the most favorable option, saying that they are delighted for Australian scientists to pursue research that might lead to new medicines for serious diseases. Another 7% chose the second most favorable answer, 3% chose the third, 2% the fourth, and another 2% chose the neutral point, the remaining 1% chose more negative answers. In sum, the huge majority are very enthusiastic and nearly all the rest are supportive.

The average desirability rating for "new medicines to cure serious diseases like cancer" -- using the points out of 100 scoring -- is a very high 96.

4.4.2 Agricultural and Food Goals

"Reducing the use of chemicals and pesticides in farming" is also a highly desirable goal, in the eyes of Australians, who give it a desirability rating of 92 out of 100 on average.
"Protecting the environment" is also seen as an urgent task for scientists: the public gives this goals a desirability rating of 92 out of 100, on average.
The goal "Crops that would create a new export market for Australian farmers" is a highly desirable one for Australian scientists, according to our respondents who accord it a desirability rating of 90.
"Healthier, more nutritious foods": Australians feel that this, too, is a laudable goal for scientists. They give it a desirability rating of 90, on average.

In sum, these 4 goals were rated, on average, a very favorable 90 or more points out of 100.

The public is also strongly in favour of several other goals, rating them over 80 points on the average:

"Higher yielding crops, which would increase farmers' earnings" -- this goal attracted a desirability rating of 85 points out of 100, on average.
"Cheaper food" -- the public rates this goal at 82 points out of 100.
"Tastier, fresher food" -- the citizenry gives a desirability rating of 80 to having scientists pursue the goal of tastier, fresher food.

These last few questions show widespread sympathy for farmers' economic situation, a pattern found throughout the developed world and in the emerging economies of Eastern Europe.

4.4.3 The Structure of Opinion on Goals

Support for agricultural and food goals tends to go together, with those who favour one tending to favour all. Support for environmental protection and for reducing the use of chemical pesticides tend to go with each other and are somewhat separate from other agricultural and food goals. Finally, medical goals are somewhat different than either of these. These patterns are clearly shown in a factor analysis.

Reflecting this structure, we distinguish three separate aspects of goals, measuring them by two multiple item scales and a single item:

[Definition] Agricultural goals = mean( Export market, Healthier food, Higher yielding crops, Cheaper food, Tastier food)

[Definition] Medical goals = Single item on new medicines

[Definition] Environmental goals = mean( Reduce chemical pesticides, Protect environment)

4.4.4 Who Holds Which Goals?

Social differences about scientific goals are few. Generally men and women, the well educated and the poorly educated, devout Christians and unbelievers, Catholic and Protestant, share much the same goals. Political differences are few as well, although Coalition supporters are a little more sympathetic to agricultural goals (beta= .10), as are older respondents (beta= .15). Environmentalists are, of course, more sympathetic to environmental goals.

4.5 Summary: Scientific Research

A majority of Australians claim some basic understanding of science. Most also accept what we have called the 'scientific world-view' -- Darwin's theory of evolution and modern astronomy (the 'big bang' and the like). But many others, especially devout Christians, reject the scientific world-view. A clear majority said they had heard of genetic engineering and a majority claimed a 'basic understanding' of it. About half were interested in it.

Australians are very strongly in favour of scientific research in medicine. They are also very strongly in favour of some agricultural goals (crops that would create an export market, healthier food) and of environmental protection. They are strongly -- but not very strongly -- in favour of scientific research that would increase farmers' incomes, provide cheaper food, or provide tastier food.

To top of page
To next chapter
Table of Contents