See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275719353

Science and the public: The public understanding of science and its
measurements

Article in Portugese Journal of Social Sciences · March 2015

DOI: 10.1386/pjss.14.1.71_1

CITATIONS READS

13 1,753

1 author:

Marta Entradas
The London School of Economics and Political Science
49 PUBLICATIONS 451 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Marta Entradas on 16 June 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 PJSS 14 (1) pp. 71–85 Intellect Limited 2015

Portuguese Journal of Social Science

Volume 14 Number 1
© 2015 Intellect Ltd Article. English language. doi: 10.1386/pjss.14.1.71_1

Marta Entradas
Dinâmia’cet, ISCTE-IUL, Lisbon University Institute

Science and the public:

The public understanding
of science and its
measurements1

Abstract Keywords
This is the first of a two-part historical review on the relationship between science public understanding
and its publics in the second half of the twentieth century. The two-part literature of science
review covers major trends in the evolution of this relationship from ‘public under- PUS
standing of science’ (PUS) in which science was separated from laypeople, through science
the transition to ‘public participation’ when PUS became a matter for science policy. PUS measurements
This first part of the literature describes the arguments that called for an increase deficit model
in the public’s understanding of science, its measurement, and the academic debate contextual model of
in favour of and against PUS measures. In particular, we refer to the evolution of PUS
survey design, and how criticisms of measures of PUS gave rise to the ‘contextual’
perspective in the PUS being favoured over a ‘deficit’ one.

Introduction
The way the public understands science, or public understanding of science 1. The second part of this
(PUS), has been a concern in recent decades not only for the scientific commu- literature review will
be published in volume
nity and scholars in the social studies of science, but also among political, 14.02 of this journal.

71
Marta Entradas

2. Public in this context economic and social groups that have recognized the rationale for involv-
refers to every person
in society.
ing the public more intimately in science.2 PUS has also become a matter of
importance among segments of the public who have increasingly demanded
involvement in scientific and technological issues. The issue of PUS has moti-
vated long-running discussions that continue today, and has led to various
attempts to systematically place science within society.
The aim of this literature review is to provide a historical overview of how
those attempts have been discussed among scholars and addressed by scien-
tific institutions since PUS emerged as an area of study and practice in the
second half of the twentieth century. Our approach in this literature review
is to consider the transformation in the science–public relationship from the
idea of ‘PUS’ in which science and scientists are separated from the public,
into the concept of ‘public participation’ in which lay knowledge is seen as
an important component of science policy-making. Along with this litera-
ture review, we will pay particular attention to how conceptualizations of the
public have evolved and challenged scientific and technological governance.
Although practice and research into the PUS is not confined to the United
Kingdom and United States, many activities and ideologies had their origin in
these countries. Therefore, reference will be made to them in this review.
This literature review is particularly relevant and timely when priority in
Europe is being given to scientific and technological innovation and ethical
concerns and societal needs are, more than ever, expected to be considered
in the development of policies on such innovations. The recently published
report by the European Commission entitled ‘Responsible Research and
Innovation’ (2013) confirms this trend: it states that researchers are often
unaware of the societal impacts or the ethical dimension that their research
activities might have in the future, and that it is essential to integrate society
in the research process.

What science and why should the public understand it?

What science?
In his biography of Einstein, Mr. H. Gordon Garbedian relates that an
American newspaper man asked the great physicist for a definition of
his theory of relativity in one sentence. Einstein replied that it would
take him three days to give a short definition of relativity. He might well
have added that unless his questioner had an intimate acquaintance with
mathematics and physics, the definition would be incomprehensible’.
(Einstein 2006: 3)

How much science does the public need in order to understand Einstein’s
theory of relativity? Should the public understand it at all? In what way can
having some understanding of science benefit a layperson? What should
public involvement in science be like?
These questions have instigated long-standing debates on the way
the public engages with science that are still alive today. One of the initial
responses to questions such as these was the conceptualization of scientific
literacy. The term was coined in the United States in the late 1950s, broadly
to refer to the public’s understanding of scientific issues. Since then there
have been many attempts to consolidate the concept, resulting in an exten-
sive literature in the topic (e.g. Pella et al. 1966; Showalter 1974; or for a full
historical account of the scientific literacy movement, see e.g. Shamos 1995;

72
 Science and the public

Roberts 1983; Laugksch 2000). Many definitions related to the nature of the
concept and the purpose of scientific literacy have been proposed; however,
here we will only allude to some of the interpretations that relate to measures
of scientific literacy, which is the focus of this first part of the literature review.
Interest in scientific literacy is likely to have been sparked by the American
scientific community’s concerns about public support for space exploration
during the space race. It is perhaps not surprising that the first national survey
on public attitudes towards science ever conducted was in 1957 right before
the launch of Sputnik 1, as we will refer to later (Withey 1959). In 1975 Shen’s
interpretation of the concept resulted in the division of scientific literacy into
three categories, giving particular attention to the cultural dimension of scien-
tific literacy: practical, meaning the scientific knowledge that can be used to
solve practical problems in areas of basic human needs such as health; civic,
meaning the type of knowledge that enables the public to become involved in
decision making about science and technology issues that affect them, which
Shen believed to be necessary to live in technological based democratic soci-
eties; and cultural scientific literacy, meaning an appreciation of science as a
‘major human achievement’ (1975: 49).
In the early 1980s, the role of science in society continued to be of concern
in the United States, and the concept of scientific literacy was revived in the
wake of a crisis in the American education system and economic competitive-
ness (e.g. Miller 1992). In 1983, a special issue of Daedalus, the prestigious
Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Science (AAAS), published the
views of many authors on scientific literacy (e.g. Arons 1983; Miller 1983).
The concept developed by Jon Miller was particularly influential because he
presented a multi-dimensional definition of scientific literacy as well as ways
of measuring it (more on this later). Drawing on the basic meaning of literacy,
the ability to read and write, Jon Miller’s original article suggested that scien-
tific literacy should comprise three related dimensions:

(1) ‘a vocabulary of basic scientific constructs sufficient to read compet-

ing views in a newspaper or magazine; (2) an understanding of the proc-
ess or nature of scientific inquiry, and (3) some level of understanding of
the impact of science and technology on individuals and on society’.

The level of understanding needed for scientific literacy, as defined by Miller

(1983b, 1995, 1998, 2004) and generally agreed by others (Miller and Pardo
2000; Durant et al. 1989; Durant 1993), must be sufficient to read and compre-
hend the Tuesday science section of The New York Times. Miller’s concep-
tualization of scientific literacy, based on a deep conceptual and empirical
review, resulted in an important consolidation of the concept, and Miller’s
contributions for measurements of public scientific literacy are still used today
in surveys on public opinion about science and technology conducted by the
National Science Foundation (NSF).

Why should the public understand science?

There are many arguments in favour of scientific literacy. Here, we will refer
to the most common reasons advocated to promote it. One early argument
concerns the benefits to individuals: we live in a scientifically and techno-
logically sophisticated society and even those who are not scientists should be
able to understand specific scientific issues and to formulate opinions about

73
Marta Entradas

scientific themes. Similarly, the acquisition of a scientific attitude is essen-

tial for making personal decisions such as those about diet, vaccination or
the prevention of influenza. As Haldane (1939) stated in his book Science and
Everyday Life when describing the importance of bringing scientific facts into
the realm of everyday life:

the ordinary man must know something about various branches of

science, for the same reason that the astronomer, even if his eyes are
fixed on higher things, must know about boots. The reason is that these
matters affect his daily life.
(Haldane 1939: 7)

The most referenced argument in the literature is, however, the demo-
cratic one. Science is part of our culture and everyone has the right to scien-
tific knowledge in the same way that everyone has the right to culture (e.g.
Thomas and Durant 1987; Durant 1993; Shortland and Gregory 1991; Miller
1998). Thomas and Durant (1987) stressed that the functioning of a science-
based society depends on the integration of science in the wider culture. As
Durant (1993) later suggested, scientific literacy must be understood as the
development of cultural habits that allow the understanding of basic scientific
knowledge and its interaction with other areas of culture. Related to this argu-
ment is the public’s right to influence policy-making (Shen 1975; Miller 1983b;
1992; 1995; 1998; 2004; Durant et al. 1989; 1993). This is, however, a much
questioned argument. From this perspective, citizens need to have basic levels
of scientific literacy so that their policy preferences reflect an informed judge-
ment of the policies under debate. This aspect became more relevant when
the scientific system faced a problem of credibility from increased ­visibility
of scientific controversies in the 1980s and 1990s (e.g. BSE, GM foods, stem
cells or biotechnologies), close relationships with socio-economic and ­political
contexts, and risks associated with industrial – technological development,
what Beck defined as risk society (Beck 1992). More recently, distressing
global problems such as climate change, global health and population ageing
that call for social innovation have brought this argument to light, as well
as the need to incorporate public values, concerns and aspirations in future
development of science and technology when designing policies. However,
whether or not the public should contribute to policy-making and what form
participation should take has been the origin of a long debate among academ-
ics that we will address in the second part of this literature review.
Probably one of the most common arguments in favour of promot-
ing scientific literacy relates to economic perspectives and suggests that
greater understanding of science will lead to higher levels of public support
for science (Shortland 1988). This argument gained force when the concept
of PUS emerged in the United Kingdom in the mid-1980s (Royal Society
1985). Since then it has generated great academic interest in the relationship
between levels of scientific knowledge and public attitudes towards science
that continues today, to which we refer further in this review. As the biochem-
ist and great writer of popular science books Isaac Asimov once stated,
‘without an informed public, scientists will not only be no longer supported
financially, they will be actively persecuted’. The difference between public
understanding and non-understanding, Asimov claimed, is ‘the difference
between respect and admiration on the one side, and hate and fear on the
other’ (Asimov 1984).

74
 Science and the public

The PUS ‘movement’

Scientific literacy is often considered synonymous with PUS. This concept
gained in importance in the 1980s in the United Kingdom as a result of
concerns with the ways in which the public understands science. In 1985, the
Royal Society of London published a report entitled ‘The PUS’ (Royal Society
1985). This report was produced by an ad hoc working group chaired by
Walter Bodmer, then Director of Research for the Imperial Cancer Research
Fund and Fellow of the Royal Society, to ‘investigate ways in which the PUS
might be enhanced’ because it was ‘inadequate’ (1985: 15). The report, which
was based on the belief that the more people know about science the more
they will love and support it, claimed that everyone should have some under-
standing of science and placed PUS firmly on the UK agenda. The report was
clearly a call to action and probably the turning point for a new dimension
in the science – society relationship. No longer would science and scien-
tists be kept isolated and separated from laypeople as scientists were asked
to overcome the old style of communication, which was not to get involved
in science popularization and not to talk about their work before publication
(Gregory and Miller 1996). In effect, one of the purposes of the Bodmer report
was to mobilize scientists, with its most direct and urgent message being for
the scientific community itself to improve their communication skills and to
consider communication with the public a responsibility (Royal Society 1985).
The report also highlighted the need for conducting surveys of public atti-
tudes towards science and technology. In particular, it recommended that
the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) sponsor research ‘ways
of measuring the PUS and of assessing the effects of improved understand-
ing’ because ‘they are a valuable guide to the improvement of understand-
ing’ (Royal Society 1985: 12, 15). As a result, a wide variety of programmes
devoted to enhancing PUS were established in the United Kingdom, includ-
ing Committee for the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS) in 1986,
which was responsible for implementing PUS practical activities (e.g. small
grants for PUS activities, media training workshops for scientists, annual prize
for the most enthusiastic scientists or institutions in communicating science).
This gave birth to the ‘public understanding of science movement’ (Gregory
and Miller 1998).
In addition to the Bodmer report, other similar reports reinforcing
Bodmer’s idea of promoting science and scientists’ duty to communicate to a
wider public were published in the years following, with the aim of increas-
ing the public understanding of science or ‘scientific literacy’ (see, e.g., Royal
Society 1990; Wolfendale Committee Final Report 1995). Funding for academic
research into science communication and public attitudes towards science and
technology also flourished, resulting in the evolution of PUS not only as a
field of activity but also as an area of social research.

PUS measurements
With a view to improving the relationship between science and its publics,
survey research started to be carried out to assess what the public already
knew and what could be improved in future. Despite significant changes
in the measurements, national surveys have become an important baseline
measure of the way the public understands science. Martin Bauer et al. (2007)
grouped these studies into ‘three paradigms’ broadly emerging in a chrono-
logical way: (1) studies on ‘scientific literacy’, which started in the United States

75
Marta Entradas

in the 1950s and 1960s, based on the idea of a public ‘deficit’ in scientific
knowledge; (2) studies on ‘public understanding of science’, from the 1980s
onwards, which were based on the idea of a public with an ‘attitude deficit’
towards science; and (3) studies on ‘science and/in society’, from the 1990s to the
present, based on the idea of ‘deficit’ experts and scientific institutions that
have a limited understanding of the public. This long process of development
in measures of scientific literacy has resulted in the departure from an initial
phase where exclusively quantitative research was used, towards an emphasis
on qualitative methods to enable the analysis of interactions between social
actors including scientists, scientific institutions and the public, in specific
contexts. These different paradigms have produced both important outcomes
and criticisms. The analysis that follows, while not exhaustive, will take both
the outcomes and criticisms into account.

From scientific literacy to science and/in society

Surveys generally measure three dimensions of the public relationship with
scientific issues: interest, knowledge and attitudes towards science. Knowledge
has been measured in one or two dimensions: factual knowledge, which is
measured with a ‘knowledge quiz’ (true or false) in which respondents are
asked to state, for example, whether it is true or false that the Earth goes
around the sun; and methodological knowledge (understanding of scientific
methods), where respondents are asked about probability reasoning and logic
of scientific methods.
The empirical study of public opinion about science dates back to 1957
when the first national survey was conducted in the United States. The survey,
sponsored by the National Foundation of Science Writers (NFSR) and the
Rockefeller Foundation, was essentially aimed at understanding people’s reac-
tions to the presentation of science in the mass media and attitudes towards
science and scientists (Withey 1959). The survey included items on interest in
science, attitudes towards science and technology, media consumption means
for science and technology, and a few items on knowledge. Curiously, perhaps,
the survey included a definition of science, as the public was ‘by no means
clear, nor was anyone else’ about this ‘thing about which we have an opinion’
(Withey 1959). The definition was presented to respondents as follows:

It [science] includes everything scientists discover about nature – it

could be the discoveries about the stars, or atoms, about the human
body or the mind – any basic discovery about how things work and
why. But science also includes the way in which this information is used
for practical purposes – it might be a new way of curing a disease, or the
invention of a new auto engine, or making a new fertilizer.
(Withey 1959)

To gauge the public’s understanding of the nature of scientific study, respond-

ents were asked:

Some things are studied scientifically, some things are studied in other
ways. From your point of view, what does it mean to study something
scientifically?

Despite the public’s high expectations for future achievements in science and
an attitude in favour of science, the survey showed that only about 12 per cent

76
 Science and the public

could be said to reasonably understand what was meant by the scientific

approach (i.e. could talk about experimentation, scientific method or other
rigorous study methods); and about half of the respondents reported that
scientific study involved careful analysis but could not define it more clearly.
The survey also revealed a public ‘in relative ignorance about science’ and that
‘popular attitudes [were] naive and unrealistic’ (Withey 1959).
Fifteen years passed before the NSF started to conduct its national surveys.
The NSF surveys, which are still carried out today, are conducted regularly
(biannually) and have become known as Science Indicators. The first phase of
the NSF surveys (1972, 1974 and 1976) was mainly focused on public attitudes
rather than knowledge (Miller 1992). In comparison with the 1959 survey, the
NSB surveys showed that, although the public retained high levels of appreci-
ation for and expectations about science and technology, surprisingly perhaps,
there was also an almost unchanged percentage of Americans (14 per cent)
who understood what was meant by the scientific approach (Miller 1992).
More recent data, however, revealed that over the last three decades, the
proportion of individuals who were able to provide an acceptable explanation
of the meaning of studying something scientifically increased from 12 per cent
in 1979 to 21 per cent in 1999 (NSB 2002; Miller 2004).
The second phase of the Science Indicators data series began with the 1979
survey. As a result of criticisms of sociologists concerning the way the PUS
was being measured, this new series began to pay more attention to public
attitudes and knowledge, and measures for expected participation for specific
issues and controversies such as nuclear power. It began to include a satis-
factory number of knowledge items – not only general knowledge items
but also knowledge of specific areas of research such as open-ended items,
several multipart questions and a closed-ended true/false quiz (Miller 1992).
New measures of political participation in science were introduced, and
socio-demographics measures were significantly expanded, allowing a first
analysis of the public’s ‘scientific literacy’ (Miller 1992).

The attentive public for science and technology policy

The 1979 study also marked the beginning of the use of the concept ‘attentive-
ness to science’ as a tool for understanding the differential roles of the public
in the formulation of science and technology policy (Miller 1983a). Jon Miller
(1983a), using the pyramidal structure by Gabriel Almond (1950) of public
participation in the formulation of foreign policy, introduced a classification of
the public for science and technology policy, as follows:

• The ‘attentive public’ – is composed of individuals who declare themselves

very interested in and very well informed about science and technology
policy issues;
• The ‘interested public’ – are those individuals who declare themselves very
interested in science and technology policy issues but who do not classify
themselves as being very well informed about those;
• The ‘residual public’ – are those individuals who report that they are
neither informed nor very interested in science and technology policy
issues.

In that year (1979), only 20 per cent of the population surveyed declared them-
selves to be attentive to science and technology policy, a further 20 per cent
were interested and around 60 per cent were neither informed nor interested

77
Marta Entradas

(Miller 1992). The 1979 and 1981 Science Indicators studies also revealed that
different levels of attentiveness corresponded to different attitudes to science.
The ‘attentive’ public, more interested and informed about science, was also
more likely to support science and to take an active role in discussing contro-
versies than the ‘interested’ or the ‘residual’ publics.
Measurements of scientific knowledge and attitudes were improved in the
1985, 1988 and 1990 Science Indicators. These surveys paid special attention
to overlap measures in order to allow comparisons of the data over time and
cross-national studies of the PUS and technology, and to knowledge meas-
ures. A collaboration between Jon Miller in the United States and John Durant
and colleagues in Britain in 1988 resulted in the development of what is called
the Oxford scale – a series of factual quiz questions that tapped ‘textbook’
knowledge about science, which allowed comparisons between attitudes of
British and American publics.
The 1988 NSF survey was replicated in the United Kingdom in the same
year, the first survey of PUS of the British population that had ever taken place,
and it was funded by the ESRC. Overall, these two parallel national surveys
showed that in both countries, notwithstanding the fact that the levels of public
interest in science and technology were high and the public recognized the
value of science in modern society, the levels of knowledge were far lower. For
instance, only 34 per cent of Britons and 46 per cent of Americans knew that
the Earth goes round the Sun once a year, and around 24 per cent knew that
the universe is expanding (Durant, Evans and Thomas 1989). The survey also
showed that, when asked about the processes of scientific enquiry – ­meaning
to study something scientifically – less than 14 per cent of Britons referred
either to theory construction and hypothesis testing or experimental method.
These results were generally similar to the NSF survey. Surveys were expanded
to Europe in the late 1980s, when the European Commission started to meas-
ure the levels of scientific literacy of the European community and publish
dedicated reports, Eurobarometers, which are still carried out today.

Relationships between interest and levels of information

The 1988 survey allowed for the first time analyses of relationships between
interest and levels of informedness. Analysis of the data revealed no relation-
ship between respondents’ self-reported interest and levels of informedness.
In effect, what appeared to be a direct relation for sports, politics and films
did not prove to be true for science. For instance, in the United Kingdom
the majority of those reporting that they were ‘very interested’ (38 per cent)
also reported that they were not ‘very informed’ (29 per cent). In contrast,
and consistent with the NSF surveys, a strong association between interest
and understanding was found. Respondents with lower levels of understand-
ing tended to express less interest in science, which was justifiable by demo-
graphic variables – those with lower educational qualifications, those from the
working class, females and older respondents were more likely to score lower
on levels of understanding (Durant, Evans and Thomas 1989).

Relationships between levels of knowledge and public attitude

towards science
Perhaps the most problematic question resulting from the 1988 survey
concerns the relationship between public knowledge and public attitude
towards science and technology. Durant, Evans and Thomas (1989) were the

78
 Science and the public

first to present a formulation of this relationship. They argued that ‘there are
important relationships between public understanding and public attitudes,
with a tendency for better informed respondents to have a more positive
general attitude towards science and scientists’. Such results reinforced the
assumption behind the Royal Society Report (1985) that increased PUS would
further public support for science, and prompted a fierce academic debate that
continues today. For instance, Calvo and Pardo (2002) argued that empirical
support for the conclusions presented by Durant and Evans was very limited
as none of their studies offered an analysis of the stated relationship.
Discussions around this contested relationship gained even more attention
when surveys showed that, after a decade of PUS initiatives, few changes had
occurred in the level of scientific understanding both in Europe and America
(Miller 2001). For instance, in the United Kingdom, a survey carried out in
1996 as a follow-up to the 1988 survey showed that, when asked ‘What does it
mean to study something scientifically?’ only 17 per cent of the British popu-
lation said experimentation or theory testing – the number remained statisti-
cally equal to the 1988 survey (18 per cent). Moreover, not only was the level
of PUS not increasing, but also the public was more sceptical about science
(Miller 2001). In the existing list of works that have looked at this relationship,
most relate to general attitudes towards science and technology and point
to a weak correlation between knowledge and positive attitudes (see, e.g.,
Bauer et al. 2000; Evans and Durant 1995; Grimston 1994; Miller et al. 2000;
Sturgis and Allum 2001; 2004). However, for attitudes towards specific fields
of science or specific technologies the relationship has proved to vary signifi-
cantly. Studies have shown that the correlation is weaker and may sometimes
be negative for attitudes towards specific technologies or controversial issues
such as energy technologies (e.g. Midden 1989), human embryology (Evans
and Durant 1995), biotechnology (e.g. Bucchi and Neresini 2002; Gaskell et al.
1999), nanotechnology (e.g. Brossard et al. 2008) or nuclear power (Hennen
and Peters 2000). Although we cannot ignore the important contributions
from these studies on knowledge and attitudes, support for science is a rather
more complex issue than was previously thought. For certain technologi-
cal innovations other factors may play a more influential role than knowl-
edge, including religious beliefs (e.g. Gaskell et al. 2005; Nisbet et al. 2002;
Brossard et al. 2008), science media coverage (Bauer 2005), or emotional reac-
tions such as fears and perceptions of risk and benefits (e.g. Lee et al. 2005;
Entradas et al. 2013).

Criticisms of PUS measurements: From ‘deficit’

to ‘contextual’ approaches to PUS
Commentators have criticized the basic idea of attempting to measure the
PUS by arguing that surveys may not effectively address the true complex-
ity of the issue. For example, how able are survey questions to capture the
public’s true knowledge of and attitudes towards science and technology?
An incisive argument is that this kind of analysis is based on a ‘deficit-
model’ (Ziman 1991). The measurement of factual knowledge is the key prob-
lem of this paradigm as the essence of science is methods and not facts. As
Ziman (1991) argued:

a simple ‘deficit’ model, which tries to interpret the situation solely in

terms of public ignorance or scientific illiteracy, does not provide an

79
Marta Entradas

adequate analytical framework for many of the results of our research.

We have seen many everyday questions that cannot be addressed
properly, let alone answered, simple in terms of a shortfall in potential
understanding.
(Ziman 1991: 101)

According to Ziman, the deficiency model is an asymmetric model in which

science is ‘sufficient’ and the public ‘deficient’, that is, science is seen as a well-
defined body of knowledge and the public’s level of knowledge is measured
in comparison with that. This pictures the public as ignorant and assumes
that scientists’ knowledge is better than citizens’ knowledge. In addition, this
formulation does not take into consideration other knowledge domains that
influence attitudes, and isolates science from the contexts that give it public
significance. Ziman called this the ‘third’ dimension of knowledge, i.e. the
context of scientific knowledge. This means that there are other knowledges
that can only be understood in their social context. Although the expression
‘context of scientific knowledge’ may be understood (and has been used) in a
variety of ways to refer to the various social contexts of science (e.g. produc-
tion of scientific knowledge, application of scientific knowledge, geographical
contexts), the initial intended meaning for the term was to refer to local scien-
tific knowledge and how people should make use of it.
Ziman argued in favour of a ‘contextual’ approach to fully capture the
‘third dimension’. This new approach essentially asks ‘What do people want
to know in particular circumstances?’ rather than ‘What do people know
about science?’ Advocates of this approach argue that the deficit model fails to
consider the third of these elements, which means also neglecting the differ-
ent forms of engagement that people might have with science in a variety
of contexts, including cultural, social, political, economic and ethical, that are
many times at the root of conflicts between science and society.
Durant et al. have provided a reflective answer to the criticism of the
so-called ‘deficit’ model of the PUS as a means of measuring public knowl-
edge, arguing that while some types of knowledge may need different treat-
ment, surveys provide a good grasp of how individuals are doing in a particular
area of scientific attainment:

[W]e accept that there are particular issues in our field that require
different treatment. Nevertheless, we find hard to see that these quali-
fications provide good grounds for abandoning the deficit model alto-
gether. Thus, while we have conceded that a great deal of science is
problematic, it must be acknowledged in return that a great deal is not.
Vast areas of scientific knowledge are relatively unproblematic, in the
sense that all competent experts agree with them. This means that there
is a reasonably stable body of knowledge against which levels of under-
standing of science may be measured.
(Durant, Evans and Thomas 1992: 163)

Brian Wynne and Alan Irwin, two incisive critics of the deficit model, defended
that societal needs cannot be addressed without developing dialogue with the
purpose of bringing ‘local knowledge’, public values, concerns and ­aspirations
into the development of science and technology policy (Irwin and Wynne 1996).
They argued that laypeople can be informed and knowledgeable about the
conditions of everyday life, and therefore ‘local knowledge’ or ‘lay expertise’

80
 Science and the public

should be part of public debates to allow a better understanding of social realities.

Methodologically, this dimension relies on qualitative case studies for empirical
support (e.g. Wynne 1991; 1996; Jasanoff 2003), and on public discussions to
explore the interactions between science and citizens, so that knowledge and
understanding reflect a combination of scientific and local knowledge.
There are a number of case studies that have shown the development of
local knowledge among the public (Irwin and Wynne 1996). A classic example
of what Brian Wynne called ‘lay expertise’ is the case study of the effect of a
radioactive cloud on sheep farmers of the Lake District Cumbria, in north-
ern England (Wynne 1996). Interviews with sheep farmers and others who
received intensive expert advice allowed an analysis of the farmers’ under-
standing of science and reception of scientific expertise. Wynne’s account of
this case showed that experts expressed optimism based on a scientific model
that later proved to be fundamentally wrong, which led farmers to economic
distress. By ignoring the farmers’ local knowledge and farming practices,
experts carried out failed field tests. The farmers perceived the experts to be
engaged in a ‘conspiracy with government against hill farmers’ due to lack
of openness, which led to a situation of deep distrust that could have been
avoided if scientific and local knowledge had been brought together.
Case studies have, however, also received criticisms, which have asked to
what extent they can produce genuine knowledge of public understanding.
Stuart Mill (1967) argued that in contrast to experiments or well-established
methods of survey research, case studies cannot be controlled and are thus
not properly a method.
Attempts to measure this third element of knowledge quantitatively have
been carried out by some scholars (Bauer et al. 2000; Yearley 2000; Sturgis and
Allum 2004), and contested by others who argue that surveys cannot serve to
measure contextualizing forms of knowledge as they take individuals out of
their social context (Wynne 1991; 1996). An example of quantitative meas-
ures of contextual forms of knowledge is presented by Bauer et al. (2000). The
authors have proposed alternative means of measuring knowledge of scientific
institutions, which were tested in different country contexts, namely, Britain
and Bulgaria. Twelve items covered issues such as teamwork, peer review,
funding and prestige, for which respondents stated whether it is true or false
(or don’t know) that ‘scientific research is mostly team work’; ‘scientists do not
criticize each other’s work’; and ‘the reward of science is recognition rather
than money’, among others. The authors argued that whether respondents
answered the questionnaire in Bulgaria or in the United Kingdom makes a
difference, as context varies, but that the ‘new’ instrument clearly discrimi-
nates between the different contexts:

Our scales clearly covary with the country, age, sex, and level of educa-
tion of respondents; their education in natural or social sciences; and
their undergraduate or postgraduate status. The new instrument clearly
has the power to discriminate these different contexts […] The young
are more knowledgeable than the old, and whether you are a member
of the elite or of the general public, being in Britain or in Bulgaria alerts
you to different facets of the institution of science.
(2000: 42)

Although these measures have proved to be reliable, the knowledge items that
the authors proposed require careful calibration within the specific country

81
Marta Entradas

context where the data are collected. This is in contrast to the knowledge quiz
of scientific facts and methods in which correct answers can be assumed to be
universal. Sturgis and Allum (2004) have gone further in this discussion. They
showed that both the cognitive deficit and the contextual model might be inves-
tigated using a survey-based approach, and that the relationship between scien-
tific knowledge and attitudes is not positively linear because ‘other knowledges’
(Wynne’s third element) will influence public attitudes in an opposite way to
the first two elements and, thus, will always be ‘moderating factors’ (Sturgis
and Allum 2004). The authors concluded that both the deficit and contextual
models provide insight on ‘how, why, and under what conditions’ knowledge
determines public attitudes to science, and that both models should be used
instead of being criticized. Similarly, Einsiedel (2000) maintained that both an
ideographic/qualitative approach and quantitative/surveys-based research ‘may
be complementary rather than mutually exclusive’ to understand ‘the public’
and public attitudes (Einsiedel 2000: 210). Despite arguments both in favour
and against, this matter is far from being settled, and currently both approaches
are used to study the relationship between science and the public.
But we should also pay more attention to the ‘public for science’ and the
ways the public relates to science. This is the topic of the second part of this
literature review.

Conclusion
Studies on the PUS initially focused on the public, and the gap between
science and society, and were mainly constructed by problematizing the
public. The years that followed this first phase of analysis of the PUS saw the
deficit model falling out of fashion and a substantial reorientation within theo-
retical debates and practice towards contextual approaches. By the end of the
twentieth century, the academic debates had undergone a shift introducing a
new way of thinking about the relationship between science and its publics,
in which citizens are important contributors to science. Methodologically, this
represented a move from quantitative survey research, which identified the
public as being deficient in scientific knowledge, to case studies and qualita-
tive research that analyse the interactions between scientific institutions and
scientists and the public. This will be the focus of the second part of this litera-
ture review, which will specifically address the transformation from PUS into
public participation in policy-making.

References
Arons, A. B. (1983), ‘Achieving wider scientific literacy’, Daedalus, 112: 2,
pp. 91–122.
Asimov, I. (1984), ‘Popularizing science’, Nature, 306, pp. 11.
Bauer, M. (2005), ‘Public perceptions and mass media in the biotechno-
logy controversy’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17: 1,
pp. 5–22.
Bauer, M., Allum, N. and Miller, S. (2007), ‘What we can learn from 25 years
of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda’, Public
Understanding of Science, 16: 1, pp. 79–95.
Bauer, M., Petkova, K. and Boyadjjewa, P. (2000), ‘Public knowledge of and
attitudes to science – alternative measures’, Science, Technology & Human
Values, 25: 1, pp. 30–51.
Beck, U. (1992), Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, New Delhi: Sage.

82
 Science and the public

Brossard, D., Scheufele, D., Kim, E. and Lewenstein, B. (2008), ‘Religiosity as

a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nano-
technology’, Public Understanding of Science, 18: 5, pp. 546–55.
Bucchi, M. and Neresini, F. (2002), ‘Biotech remains unloved by the more
informed’, Nature, 416, p. 261.
Calvo , F. and Pardo, R. (2002), ‘Attitudes toward science among the European
public: A methodological analysis’, Public Understanding of Science, 11,
pp. 155–195.
Durant, J. (1993), ‘What is scientific literacy?’, in Jon Durant and Jane Gregory
(ed.), Science and Culture in Europe, London: Science Museum, pp. 129–38.
—— (1999), ‘Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model
of the public understanding of science’, Science and Public Policy, 26: 5,
pp. 313–19.
Durant, J., Evans, G. A. and Thomas, G. P. (1989), ‘The public understanding
of science’, Nature, 340, pp. 11–14.
Einsiedel, E. (2000), ‘Understanding ‘publics’ in the public understanding of
science’, in M. Dierkes and C. von Grote (eds), Between Understanding
and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, Amsterdam: Harwood,
pp. 205–16.
Einstein, Albert (2006), The World As I See It, New York: Kensigton.
Entradas, M., Miller, S. and Peters, H. P. (2013), ‘Preaching to the converted?
An analysis of the UK public for space exploration’, Public Understanding of
Science, 22: 3, pp. 269–86.
European Commission (2013), ‘Options for Strengthening Responsible
Research and Innovation’. Brussels: European Commission.
Evans, D. and Durant, J. (1995), ‘The relationship between knowledge and
public attitudes toward science in Britain’, Public Understanding of Science,
4: 1, pp. 57–74.
Gaskell, G., Bauer, B., Durant, J. and Allum, N. (1999), ‘Worlds apart? The
reception of genetically modified food in Europe and the US’, Science,
16: 285, pp. 384–7.
Gaskell, G., Einsiedel, E., Hallman, E., Priest, W., Jackson, S., and Olsthoorn, J. et
al (2005), ‘Social values and the governance of science’, Science, 310, 1908–09.
Gregory J. and Miller, S. (1998), Science in Public – Communication, Culture, and
Credibility, London: Basic Books.
Grimston, M. C. (1994), ‘Public opinion surveys in the UK’, Nuclear Europe
Worldscan, 14, 7–8, p. 98.
Haldane (1939), Science and Everyday Life, London: Lawrence and Wishart Ltd.
Irwin, A. and Wynne, B. (1996), Misunderstanding Science?, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, p. 280.
Jasanoff, S. (2003), ‘Breaking the waves in science studies: Comment on H.M.
Collins and Robert Evans, the third wave of science studies’, Social Studies
of Science, 33: 3, pp. 389–400.
Lee, C., Scheufele, D. and Lewenstein, B. (2005), ‘Public attitudes toward
emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and
affect on public support for nanotechnology’, Science Communication, 27: 2,
pp. 240–67.
Laugksch R. C. (2000), ‘Scientific literacy: A conceptual overview’, Science
Education, 84: 1, pp. 71–94.
Midden, C. J. H. (1989), ‘Energy and the public: A multi-national comparative
study on public attitudes, beliefs and actions towards energy technolo-
gies’, Public Understanding of Science, 4: 1, pp. 57–74.

83
Marta Entradas

Mill, J. S. (1967), A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive, Being a Connect

View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation,
London: Longman, pp. 573–78.
Miller, J. D. (1983a), ‘Scientific literacy: A conceptual and empirical review’,
Daedalus, 112: 2, pp. 29–48.
—— (1983b), The American People and Science Policy, New York: Pergamon
Press.
—— (1992), ‘Toward a scientific understanding of the public understanding
of science and technology’, Public Understanding of Science, 1: 1, pp. 23–26.
—— (1995), ‘Scientific literacy in the United States’, in R. E. Yager (ed.), 283
Science/Technology/Society as a Reform in Science Education, New York: State
University Press of New York, pp. 249–260.
—— (1998), ‘The measurement of civic scientific literacy’, Public Understanding
of Science, 7: 3, pp. 203–223
Miller, J. D. and Pardo, R. (2000), ‘Civic scientific literacy and attitude to
science and technology: a comparative analysis of the European Union, The
United States, Japan, and Canada’, in M. D. a. C. v. Grote (ed.), Between
Understanding and Trust: The Public, Science and Technology, London and
New York: Routledge, pp. 81–129.
—— (2004), ‘Public understanding of, and attitudes toward, scientific research:
What we know and what we need to know’, Public Understanding of Science,
13: 3, pp. 273–94.
Miller, S. (2001), ‘Public understanding of science at the crossroads’, Public
Understanding of Science, 10: 1, pp. 115–20.
Nisbet M., Shanahan, J., Moy, P., Brossard, D. and Lewenstein, B. (2002),
‘Knowledge, reservation or promise? A media effects model for public
perceptions of science and technology’, Communication Research, 29: 5,
pp. 584–608.
National Science Board (2002), Science and Engineering Indicators 2002,
Arlington VA: National Science Foundation 2002.
Pella, M. O., O’Hearn, G. T. and Gale, C. G. (1966), ‘Referents to scientific
literacy’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 4: 3, pp. 199–208.
Peters, H. P., Albrecht, G., Hennen, L. and Stegelmann, H. U. (1990),
‘Chernobyl’ and the nuclear power issue in West German public opinion’,
Journal of Environmental Planning, 10, pp. 121–34.
Roberts, D. (1983), Scientific Literacy: Towards a Balance for Setting Goals for
School Science Programs, Ottawa, ON, Canada: Minister of Supply and
Services.
Royal Society (1985), The Public Understanding of Science, London: Royal
Society.
—— (1990), COPUS Looks Forward, London: Committee on the Public
Understanding of Science.
Shamos, M. H. (1995), The Myth of Scientific Literacy, New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.
Shen, B. (1975), ‘Literacy and the public understanding of science’, in S. Day
(ed.), Communication of Scientific Information, Baser: Karger, pp. 44–52.
Shortland, M. (1987), ‘No business like show business’, Nature, 328,
pp. 213–4.
Shortland, M. and Gregory, J. (1991), Communicating Science: A Handbook,
New York: Longman.
Showalter, V. M. (1974), ‘What is united science education? Part 5: Program
objectives and scientific literacy’, Prism II, 2: 3 & 4.

84
 Science and the public

Sturgis, P. and Allum, N. (2001), ‘Gender differences in scientific knowledge

and attitudes toward science: Reply to Hayes and Tariq’, Public
Understanding of Science, 10: 4, pp. 427–30.
—— (2004), ‘Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public
communication’, Public Understanding of Science, 13: 1, pp. 55–74.
Thomas, G. and Durant, J. (1987), ‘Why should we promote the public unders-
tanding of science’, Science Literacy Papers, 23: 1, pp. 1–14.
Withey, S. B. (1959), ‘Public opinion about science and scientists’, Public
Opinion Quarterly, 17: 1, pp. 382–88.
Wolfendale Committee Final Report (1995), ‘Report of the Committee
to Review the Contribution of Scientists and Engineers to Public
Understanding of Science’, Office of Science and Technology, London.
Wynne, B. (1991), ‘Knowledges in context’, Science, Technology & Human
Values, 16: 1, pp. 111–21.
—— (1996), ‘Misunderstood misunderstandings: social identities and public
uptake of science’, in Alan Irwin and Brian Wynne, eds., Misunderstanding
Science: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, vol. 1, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–46.
Yearley, S. (2000), ‘What does science mean in the “public understanding of
science”?’, in M. D. a. C. v. Grote (ed.), Between Understanding and Trust:
The Public, Science, and Technology, Amsterdam: Harwood Academic
Publishers, pp. 217–36.
Ziman, J. (1991), ‘Public understanding of science’, Science, Technology and
Human Values, 16: 1, pp. 99–105.
—— (1992), ‘Not knowing, needing to know, and wanting to know’, in
B. Lewenstein (ed.), When Science Meets the Public, Washington, DC:
American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp. 13–20.

sugGested citation
Entradas, M. (2015), ‘Science and the public: The public understanding of science
and its measurements’, Portuguese Journal of Social Science 14: 1, pp. 71–85,
doi: 10.1386/pjss.14.1.71_1

Contributor details
Marta Entradas is a postdoctoral researcher in science communication at
DINAMIA-CET, ISCTE-IUL, and a visiting scholar at London School of
Economics (LSE) and Cornell University. Her research interests lie in science
communication, public understanding of science (PUS), and public attitudes
towards science and technology. She has published in top journals in social
sciences including Public Understanding of Science. Her current research focuses
on institutional communication with the public.
Contact: DINÂMIA’CET, ISCTE-IUL (Lisbon University Institute), Avenida
das Forças Armadas, 1649-026, Lisboa, Portugal.
Email: [email protected]

Marta Entradas has asserted her right under the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work in the format that
was submitted to Intellect Ltd.

85
 intellect
www.intellectbooks.com

publishers
of original
thinking

Crossings: Journal of
Migration and Culture
ISSN 2040-4344 | Online ISSN 2040-4352
1 issues per volume | Volume 4, 2013

Aims and Scope Principal Editor

Crossings: Journal of Migration and Culture offers a space for debates on Parvati Nair
the important nexus of migration and culture from diverse global and local Queen Mary, University of London
perspectives by fostering cutting-edge research in this area, with a strong [email protected]
emphasis on interdisciplinary methodologies.
Associate Editor
Omar Garcia-Obregon
Call for Papers
Queen Mary, University of London
This refereed interdisciplinary journal’s key concerns are questions of
[email protected]
displacement, mobility, diaspora, cultural memory and the negotiation of cultural
identity and cultural representation in global and local contexts of migration
Associate Editor
from the mid twentieth century to the present-day.
Elisa Costa Villaverde
For submission guidelines please contact the Principal Editor, Parvati Nair: University of Las Palmas de Gran
[email protected] Canaria
[email protected]

Intellect is an independent academic publisher of books and journals, to view our catalogue or order our titles visit
www.intellectbooks.com or E-mail: [email protected]. Intellect, The Mill, Parnall Road, Fishponds, Bristol, UK, BS16 3JG.
 Copyright of Portuguese Journal of Social Science is the property of Intellect Ltd. and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.

View publication stats