from Frank Fischer: The most authoritative work I know on this in quantitative terms is Bauer and Gaskell's series of analyses of public understanding of and attitudes to science in Europe, using the regular Eurobarometer surveys (see Bauer's list of publications here: http://www.psych.lse.ac.uk/socialpsychology/faculty/martin_bauer/martin_bauer_publications.htm). They can be a bit clonky, not least because of the crudenes of the questions used in the surveys. But Bauer's more recent analyses have been interesting as they make more nuanced distinctions between diffreent attitudes to science, beyond simple categories of 'trust'. (By the way, Giddens early 1990s writings are useful here, for the distinction between mere 'confidence' and 'active trust'.) As Bauer says on page 231 of this article (http://sts.sagepub.com/content/14/2/221.full.pdf): "In European countries which are low on the GDP scale, the correlation between knowledge and myth of science is positive-the more literate you are, the more you subscribe to the ideology of science. As you move to the higher end of the GDP scale, this correlation becomes ever more negative: the more you know, the less likely you are to subscribe to a view that science is omnipotent, always part of the solution, will offer a complete world picture and should have no constraints. Our analysis of the same data also shows (not shown here), that the rejection of an ideology of science goes together with a utilitarian view of science: it depends on the consequences, case by case." fromIt's Science, but Not Necessarily Right https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/opinion/sunday/26ideas.html
The Truth Wears Off http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damnedlies-and-medi cal-science/8269 >From Grace Skogastad: Eurobarometer data from Elizabeth De Santo http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.dal.ca/science/article/pii/S0308597X11000674 from Susanne Moser The work of Tony Leiserowitz et al in the climate change context may also be instructive (see Yale Climate Change Project or George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication for their surveys - some included in the Six Americas reports, but look in the other ones as well. They not only looked specifically at the impact of "climategate" and IPCC errors but also at the trust in scientists on climate change (versus other sources) over time. The picture that emerges from those annually repeated studies is that scientists remain the most trusted source of information on climate change science along with a number of sciency institutions. Interestingly, when asked whether people actually can name or know any scientist - they come up with.... Einstein. In other words, we are an abstract quantity, a distant creature, trustworthy by some handed-down mythology, but not very real. This abstraction and distance allows for all kinds of projections on scientists, including negative projections when we don't quite live up to the ideal standard. The small group of people who actually know a real scientist view them for what they are: human beings with quirks like the rest.... Finally, I believe the NFS does an annual survey of public perceptions of science (Not just understanding of particular scientific options). You may want to look for that. from Michele-Lee Moore This is a bit tangential to your question, but may provide an interesting example. A group named the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists based in Australia recently withdrew from a planning process for the Murray-Darling river basin because THEY don't trust the science that the government has decided to use. The Wentworth Group has their own website, but it is relatively silent on their position thus far. But there is considerable news coverage and they did release a public statement: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/05/21/3223272.htm Peter M. Haas Professor Department of Political Science 216 Thompson Hall UMASS - Amherst
