by G. Ray Funkhouser of The Pennsylvania 

 State University. 3 



Funkhouser observes that "In spite of the 

 importance of science and technology at every 

 level of society— from daily living to the 

 philosophical underpinnings of our culture- 

 data on what the public knows, understands 

 and feels about science and technology are 

 embarrassingly scarce." 4 Before enumerating 

 those data, he makes some interesting distinc- 

 tions between different relevant "publics". He is 

 concerned that spokesmen for science may tend 

 to address themselves to a "public" that they 

 conceive as being much like themselves. From a 

 broad collection of data he argues that the 

 public at large is much less affluent, not nearly 

 as well educated, and somewhat less politically 

 liberal than the academic-professional "con- 

 cerned citizens" with whom scientists are most 

 at home. It is also far more numerous. 



The audiences for the different information 

 media make up a particular type of "public," 

 that is easily subdivided according to the great 

 variety of these media. For example, different 

 magazines have widely different readerships. 

 Workers in the news media constitute a 

 separate public, and what they say in these 

 media, according to Funkhouser, is not 

 necessarily an accurate reflection of the in- 

 terests and attitudes of the public at large. 

 Legislative bodies and government agencies are 

 extremely important "publics." Though our 

 response letters frequently stated that the 

 actions of government with regard to science 

 spring from attitudes held by the general public, 

 Funkhouser disagrees with that position. He 

 sees many other influences on their actions, 

 such as pressure groups, political supporters, 

 self-interests, and the facts of the matter, which 

 may be more important in a particular case. 



See Final Report on Workshop on "Goals and Methods of 

 Assessing the Public's Understanding of Science", 

 November 29 and 30, 1972, Palo Alto, California, In ( ',. Ray 

 Funkhouser, The Pennsylvania State I Iniversity, Materials 

 Reseai i h Laboratory, I Iniversity Park, Pennsylvania 16802 

 [January 26, 1973). 

 ' Funkhouser, ibid., p. I. 



Another significant public that he identifies 

 is the "intellectual elite," a self-defined set of 

 people, numbering a few hundred, who 

 dominate the Nation's intellectual journals and 

 are recognized by each other. Few scientists are 

 among them. They are unrepresentative of the 

 public in political orientation and in some other 

 respects. They are likely to have influence with 

 the media and upon political decisionmakers 

 and political activists, according to 

 Funkhouser. He feels that materials primarily 

 aimed at this small group have been construed 

 as "public discussion", while some of their 

 opinions may have been interpreted as evidence 

 of a "public disaffection with science." 



Finally, the scientific community is a"public" 

 in its own right. Even here, a distinction must be 

 recognized between academic scientists and 

 engineers and those who work elsewhere. 



While these distinctions between different 

 "publics" are important and potentially useful, 

 actual surveys do not use them. Usually they 

 attempt to sample the broad American public, 

 and perhaps analyze that public along 

 demographic lines. 



The next subject that Funkhouser discusses is 

 the public's understanding of science. Review- 

 ing material that goes back as far as 1935, he 

 finds that no adequate measurement of general 

 public science knowledge has ever been 

 attempted, but that the few measures that have 

 been taken nationally suggest that the general 

 public does not know many facts about science. 



Concerning the public's attitude toward or 

 evaluation of science, Funkhouser reports an 

 extensive study taken by the Survey Research 

 Center (SRC) at the University of Michigan. The 

 questions were asked in 1957 and again in 1958, 

 i.e., shortly before and shortly after Sputnik. In 

 both cases the public appeared to have a rather 

 favorable view of science and also of scientists. 

 (It is notable that no distinction was made 

 between science and technology. Throughout 

 his article, Funkhouser makes little effort to 

 separate the two.) For example, in 1958, 83 



84 



CONFIDENCE IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



