attitude toward both science and scientists, as 

 was already noted. Since 1966, either Louis 

 Harris or NORC has periodically asked the 

 question, "Would you say that you have a great 

 deal, only some, or hardly any confidence in 

 those people running the scientific communi- 

 ty?" This question, the authors note, may tap 

 feelings about authority as well as about 

 scientists as such. 



In 1966 those expressing a "great deal" of 

 confidence were 56 percent of the total sample; 

 in 197 1, 1972, and 1973, they were 32, 37, and 37 

 percent. (In 1974 and 1975, the figures were 45 

 and 38 percent.) 7 These figures do suggest some 

 drop in public confidence in scientists from 

 1966 to 1971, which has essentially persisted up 

 to 1975. On the other hand, those expressing 

 "hardly any confidence" were never more than 

 10 percent of the total. This would suggest that 

 at least scientists have not drawn any great 

 amount of positive mistrust. 



However, Etzioni and Nunn go on to compare 

 the percentage who expressed a great deal of 

 confidence in scientists with the percentage for 

 other professions. They find that in 1966 and 

 1971 science ranked fifth, surpassed by the 

 military and education, as well as by medicine 

 and finance. In 1972 it was third, behind 

 medicine and finance. But in 1973 only medicine 

 ranked higher." (In 1974 the leaders of the 

 scientific community ranked third; in 1975 they 

 ranked second.)- 1 The implication is clear: 

 Though there may have been a decline in 

 prestige by science leaders in absolute terms, 

 this decline was shared by the other leaders to 

 an even greater extent. Hence, in comparison 

 with other professionals, scientific leaders 

 actually gained in this period, according to this 

 survey. 



In support of this conclusion, we may note the 



NORC General Social Survey. National Dala Program for 

 the Social Sciences, 1974 (Question 87) and 1975 (Question 

 77]. 



Here thej have made a slight error. Education also ranked 

 marginally higher in 1973. 

 " NORC. ibid. 



Science Indicators results, which were alluded 

 to above. In 1947, 1963, 1972, and 1974 the 

 profession of scientist consistently ranked 

 second in prestige. (Medicine again was first.) 

 This is not exactly the same as the result just 

 discussed, perhaps because the question asked 

 was rather different. But still it seems clear that 

 there has been no loss of prestige by scientists in 

 comparison with other professionals and 

 therefore, presumably, no relative decline in 

 public confidence. 



The datacollected by Etzioni and Nunn which 

 have been seen thus far seem to imply that the 

 public's sense of a threat from science (and 

 technology) has increased, especially from 1957 

 to 1964, while the prestige of scientists as a 

 professional group has gone down, especially 

 from 1966 to 1971. In this sense, those 

 respondents to the letter inquiry who were 

 concerned about a public loss of confidence in 

 science may have been correct. However, all 

 available results seem to indicate that scientists 

 have not lost prestige in comparison with other 

 professionals, and, between 1966 and 1975, may 

 even have gained. 



Etzioni and Nunn mention another signifi- 

 cant, though complicating, factor. Compared to 

 all other institutions in 1973, science received 

 the highest percentage of "don't knows" when 

 the question of confidence was asked. This was 

 also the case in 1974 and 1975. w (This is 

 consistent with Funkhouser's conclusion that 

 the public is not well informed about science.) 

 Thus, the critical reader might wonder whether 

 the high prestige that the public accords to 

 scientists is based on any depth of understan- 

 ding. It is conceivable that the public judges 

 occupational prestige in a very superficial way. 



Like Science Indicators, Etzioni and Nunn 

 now analyze "the public" in terms of 

 demographic categories. Secondary analysis of 

 the 1973 NORC data shows that people from 18 

 to 29 years old, those often believed to harbor 

 strong anti-science sentiment, have more con- 



NORC, ibid. 



86 CONFIDENCE IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



