for change and to exert political pressure on 

 behalf of their convictions. (Therefore they are 

 the kind of group that some of our letter 

 respondents would like to reach with an 

 educational program.) 



The first major conclusion that the authors 

 draw is that the public perceives a distinction 

 between the activities of "science" and those of 

 "technology". (In this they differ from Etzioni 

 and Nunn.) Majorities disagreed with the 

 proposition that controls on technology will 

 make life worse; with some ambiguities, there 

 was agreement that we ought to increase our 

 controls over the way technologies are used. By 

 contrast, there was a very strong consensus that 

 scientific activities are intrinsically beneficial 

 and should not be controlled. There was 

 considerable confidence in scientific thinking 

 as a means for solving social problems, and 

 strong disagreement with the proposition that 

 thinking in a scientific manner precludes one's 

 appreciation of "most of life's beauties." 

 Favorable attitudes toward science correlated 

 most strongly with higher levels of education. 



Regarding the outcomes of technology, the 

 urge to go back to nature and the belief that 

 technology makes life too complicated were 

 held by only about one-third of the total 

 population. The notion that technology leads to 

 a debilitating materialism was subscribed toby 

 only a quarter of the sample, but two-thirds 

 agreed with the less extreme statement that we 

 have become too dependent on machines. An 

 overwhelming majority rejected the statement 

 that "People shouldn't worry about harmful 

 effects of technology because new inventions 

 will always come along to solve the problems." 

 Negative attitudes toward the outcomes of 

 technology were more common among the 

 young, the politically liberal, and the poor. 



With regard to the outcomes of science, there 

 was strong agreement that scientific dis- 

 coveries are good and only their use is 

 problematical. On the other hand, the samples 

 were nearly evenly divided as to whether or not 

 scientists, if left alone, can be counted on to 



discover things that will make our lives better. 



In general, the authors find important distinc- 

 tions in the public mind between the intrinsic 

 values of science and technology, the need to 

 control one or the other, and their separate 

 outcomes. If one compares these data with 

 Science Indicators, the results are generally the 

 same, except for the fact that Science Indicators 

 did not distinguish between science and 

 technology. That study found that the public 

 was mainly in favor of science and technology, 

 but many still wished them to be more closely 

 controlled. The La Porte and Metlay study was 

 able to refine these conclusions. On the other 

 hand, Science Indicators found that the public 

 has little interest in thepursuit of knowledge for 

 its own sake. According to La Porte and Metlay, 

 the public believes that scientific discoveries in 

 themselves are good. 



The respondents were also asked whether 

 additional uses of technology would improve, 

 aggravate, or have no effect on solving each of 

 ten social problems. Solid majorities saw 

 technology aiding in mass rapid transit, solving 

 the energy crisis, protecting the environment, 

 curbing population growth, and education. But 

 almost a quarter thought technology would 

 aggravate the problems of unemployment and 

 the cost of living, and there was a strong dissent 

 from the use of technology in connection with 

 the maintaining of personal records. In general, 

 the respondents perceived most (but not all) 

 past and presently implemented technologies as 

 beneficial, and technology as useful in the 

 solution of some (but not all) social problems. 

 These results should be compared with the 

 Science Indicators questions noted above as to 

 whether science and technology have caused 

 many of our problems, and whether they will 

 solve them. 



A query similar to Taviss' was made as to 

 which of eight actors participating in decision- 

 making about technology actually has the most 

 and which the least say. They were also asked 

 who ought to have the most say. In none of the 

 policy areas were the individual and/or the 



90 



CONFIDENCE IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



