Public Confidence in Leadership of the Science Community
Public Perceptions of Scientists
Public Perceptions of Science Occupations

It is generally conceded that scientists and engineers have somewhat of an image problem (Congressional Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering and Technology Development 2000). Although their intelligence and work are highly respected (see "Public Confidence in Leadership of the Science Community"), that admiration does not seem to extend to other aspects of their lives. The charming and charismatic scientist is not an image that populates popular culture.[34] For example, the entertainment industry often portrays certain professions such as medicine, law, and journalism as exciting and glamorous, whereas scientists and engineers are almost always portrayed as unattractive, reclusive, socially inept white men or foreigners working in dull, unglamorous careers. (See sidebar "Few Scientists in Prime Time.")

Why does public image matter? What difference does it make if the public image of scientists and engineers is less than positive? Public image is important for at least two reasons:

• Scientists represent the first line of communication about science to the general public. That is, they are responsible for conveying information, often through the news media, about scientific issues. They can also help the public understand the importance of science and appreciate its benefits. Image has a lot to do with how effective that communication is in capturing the attention of the public. The more appealing the image, the more likely that people will listen to what is being said.
  
  
• Children are strongly influenced by the images they see around them at home, at school, and in popular culture. Researchers in this field point out that television has a tremendous influence on children's attitudes and behaviors, and what they see on television can affect the choices they make in life, including the careers they choose.[35] If they harbor negative stereotypes of scientists and engineers as nerdy and weird-looking, then they could reject science and engineering as potential careers.[36]

Public Confidence in Leadership of the Science Community 

Public confidence in the leadership of various professional communities has been tracked for more than a quarter of a century (Davis and Smith annual series). Participants in the General Social Survey were asked whether they had a "great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all" in the leadership of various professional communities. In 2000, 41 percent reported that they had a great deal of confidence in the leadership of the science community. Only the medical community received a greater vote of confidence. Science has ranked second since 1978, when it displaced the education community for the first time. The military, Supreme Court, banks and financial institutions, major companies, organized religion, and education occupied the next six spots in 2000. The public had the least confidence in the press and television; in 2000, only 10 percent of respondents reported having a "great deal of confidence" in their leadership. (See figure 7-14 and appendix table 7-31.)

Although the vote of confidence for the science community has fluctuated somewhat since 1973, it has remained about 40 percent. In contrast, the vote of confidence for the medical profession, once as high as 60 percent in 1974, has been gradually declining during most of the past 25 years.

Public Perceptions of Scientists 

In the years since Margaret Mead first recorded her observations, several social scientists have administered the "Draw-a-Scientist" Test (DAST) to children. In this test, students are asked to draw pictures of scientists. Those pictures are then examined to see if they contain certain features normally associated with the stereotypical image of a scientist, including:

• a lab coat (usually white),
  
  
• eyeglasses,
  
  
• facial growth of hair (including beards, mustaches, or abnormally long sideburns),
  
  
• scientific instruments and laboratory equipment,
  
  
• books and filing cabinets,
  
  
• technology or the "products" of science, and
  
  
• captions, e.g., formulae, taxonomic classification, the "eureka!" syndrome.

Other features also are noted, such as the size of a scientific instrument in relation to the scientist; evidence of danger; the presence of light bulbs; the sex, race, or ethnicity of the scientist; and figures that resemble Einstein or "mad scientists" like Frankenstein (Chambers 1983). By counting the number of these indicators in the drawings, the researchers have been able to document the existence and prevalence of the stereotypical image of a scientist, one that contains at least several of the features cited above.

According to the DAST research, the stereotypical image of a scientist is alive and well in the minds of children. Moreover, children seem to form this image early in life, by the time they reach the second grade. It is even more ingrained and pronounced among older children. That is, the older the children, the more identified features their drawings contain. One study found little difference between the images held by college students and those of younger students, despite the fact that the former had probably had contact with actual scientists during their years at college (Barman 1997a; Fort and Varney 1989; Barman 1997b; Rahm and Charbonneau 1997).

In 2001, the NSF survey included questions intended to measure public perceptions of scientists. Respondents were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with certain statements. For example, almost everyone (96 percent) agreed that "scientists are helping to solve challenging problems," and 86 percent agreed that "scientific researchers are dedicated people who work for the good of humanity." (See appendix tables 7-32 and 7-33.) Less than 20 percent thought that "a scientist usually works alone" and "scientists do not get as much fun out of life as other people do." (See appendix tables 7-34 and 7-35.) Among these four statements, there was little, if any difference in perception between the sexes. However, the more formal education one had, the more positive the perception. This was true for two of the four items. For example, more than a third (37 percent) of those who had not graduated from high school thought that scientists did not get as much fun out of life as other people. This statistic dropped to 18 percent for high school graduates and to 11 percent for college graduates.

Four other statements included in the survey generated larger numbers of negative perceptions than the four items discussed above. However, fewer than half of those surveyed agreed that scientists:

• were apt to be odd and peculiar people (25 percent agreed),
  
  
• had few other interests but their work (29 percent), and
  
  
• were not likely to be very religious people (30 percent). (See appendix tables 7-36, 7-37, and 7-38.)

In contrast to the first group of questions, each of these statements produced a notable gender gap in perception, with more men than women having negative perceptions. For example:

• 28 percent of men agreed with the statement that scientists were odd and peculiar people compared with 22 percent of women,
  
  
• 33 percent of men but only 25 percent of women thought that scientists had few interests other than their work, and
  
  
• 34 percent of men versus 26 percent of women thought scientists were not likely to be very religious people.

Public Perceptions of Science Occupations 

Despite the persistence of a stereotype that is difficult to dislodge, most people believe that scientists lead rewarding professional and personal lives. In fact, when asked how they would feel if their son or daughter wanted to become a scientist, 80 percent of respondents to the 2001 NSF survey said they would be happy with that decision (18 percent said they would not care and 2 percent reported they would be unhappy).[37] "Daughter" and "son" received equal percentages of positive responses, and men and women both "voted" the same way for both sons and daughters. (See appendix table 7-39.)

A Harris Poll Pilot Study conducted for the American Association of Engineering Societies in July 1998 produced what seems like an even higher level of enthusiasm for science as a career choice. This survey asked participants the following question:

"Scientist" received the highest level of endorsement, a perfect 10 for a median response, followed by engineer at 9, and technician at 8 (American Association of Engineering Societies 1998). One of the many scientific professional societies, the American Chemical Society, recently commissioned a survey of the public's attitudes toward its members and the work they do. Although the chemical industry did not receive high marks, its members did. (See sidebar "Public Perceptions of Chemistry, the Chemical Industry, and Chemists.")

Despite these positive perceptions of science occupations, 53 percent of respondents to the 2001 NSF survey agreed that "scientific work is dangerous." Equal percentages of men and women chose this response, but the level of agreement declined as the level of formal education rose. That is, 70 percent of those who had not completed high school agreed with the statement compared with 56 percent of high school graduates and 30 percent of college graduates. (See appendix table 7-40.)

Prestige of Science Occupations

Perceptions of science occupations can also be assessed by examining the prestige that the public associates with each. Respondents to the most recent Harris survey ranked "scientist" second among 17 occupations in terms of prestige; however, the engineering profession ranked eighth (Taylor 2000).[38] More than 50 percent of respondents chose "very great prestige" for three occupations: doctor (61 percent), scientist (56 percent), and teacher (53 percent). Although these percentages changed little between 1998 and 2000, the prestige of teachers has risen dramatically, from 28 percent in 1982 to 53 percent in 1998. During the same period, there was a relatively small gain in prestige for doctors and a relatively small loss for scientists.

This survey shows that engineers are accorded not only less prestige than doctors, scientists, and teachers, but also less prestige than ministers, military officers, policemen, and members of Congress.[39] According to a recent study, "engineers have enjoyed a consistent but mediocre prestige for the past 20 years" (American Association of Engineering Studies 1998). However, engineers command more respect than architects, lawyers, athletes, and entertainers. The bottom tier includes journalists, union leaders, businessmen, bankers, and accountants.

Are Public Perceptions Based on Knowledge?

Although people perceive science and other occupations in terms of prestige or other value measures, on what do they base their perceptions? That is, how much do people actually know about science occupations and science professionals?

In response to the American Association of Engineering Societies survey in July 1998, sizable minorities of those surveyed did not consider themselves well informed about science and scientists (47 percent) or technology and technicians (41 percent). In addition, sizable percentages of survey respondents thought that the media did only a fair or poor job covering science (56 percent), technology (53 percent), and medical discoveries (44 percent).

The same survey produced telling statistics about the engineering profession. For example:

• 61 percent of respondents did not consider themselves well informed about engineering and engineers,[40] and
  
  
• 70 percent of respondents thought that the media did only a fair or poor job covering engineering.[41]

In addition, the public frequently underestimates the role engineers play in S&T advancement. For example, engineers have a much larger role in conducting space research, developing new forms of energy, and creating new materials than the public gives them credit for. (See figure 7-16 .) In addition, they are "perceived as pragmatic contributors to society—more so than are technicians—but are less attuned to societal issues than are scientists." (See figure 7-17 .)

National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics
Science and Engineering Indicators–2002
Arlington, VA (NSB 02-01) [April 2002]