• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

公众舆论与对科学家的信任:研究背景的作用以及干细胞研究人员的感知动机

Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers.

作者信息

Critchley Christine R

机构信息

Faculty of Sciences, Swinburne University, Melbourne, Australia.

出版信息

Public Underst Sci. 2008 Jul;17(3):309-27. doi: 10.1177/0963662506070162.

DOI:10.1177/0963662506070162
PMID:19069082
Abstract

This research examined why the public may be less supportive of stem cell research when conducted in a private compared to public research context. A representative sample (n = 403) of Australians who were exposed to information relating to privately funded scientists were significantly less likely to approve of stem cell research than those who were presented with a scenario of scientists working within a publicly funded University (n = 401) and a control condition (n = 404). Mediation analyses revealed that the decrease in approval was primarily associated with the tendency of privately funded scientists to be trusted less than their publicly funded counterparts. Public trust in University scientists was also found to be higher than that of private scientists because publicly funded scientists were perceived to be motivated more by benevolence, and more likely to produce benefits that will be accessible to the public. While private scientists were perceived to be more self interested than public scientists, perceived self interest did not explain the decrease in trust. There were also no significant differences across research contexts for the perceived competence of scientists or the likelihood that stem cell research would result in cures for diseases. The implications of these results are discussed in relation to the possible decrease in public trust that may occur alongside the increasing privatization of academic enquiry, and particularly controversial scientific research.

摘要

本研究探讨了为何与公共研究背景相比,公众在私人背景下进行的干细胞研究方面可能支持度较低。与那些了解在公立大学工作的科学家情况的样本(n = 401)以及处于对照条件的样本(n = 404)相比,接触到与私人资助科学家相关信息的澳大利亚代表性样本(n = 403)对干细胞研究的认可度显著更低。中介分析表明,认可度的降低主要与私人资助科学家相比公立资助科学家更不被信任的倾向有关。还发现公众对大学科学家的信任高于对私人科学家的信任,因为公立资助科学家被认为更多地受仁爱动机驱使,且更有可能产生公众能够受益的成果。虽然私人科学家被认为比公立科学家更自私自利,但感知到的自私自利并不能解释信任的降低。在不同研究背景下,科学家的感知能力或干细胞研究导致疾病治愈的可能性也没有显著差异。结合学术探究日益私有化,尤其是有争议的科学研究可能伴随的公众信任度下降,对这些结果的影响进行了讨论。

相似文献

1
Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers.公众舆论与对科学家的信任:研究背景的作用以及干细胞研究人员的感知动机
Public Underst Sci. 2008 Jul;17(3):309-27. doi: 10.1177/0963662506070162.
2
The impact of commercialisation on public perceptions of stem cell research: exploring differences across the use of induced pluripotent cells, human and animal embryos.商业化对公众对干细胞研究看法的影响:探索诱导多能细胞、人类和动物胚胎使用方面的差异。
Stem Cell Rev Rep. 2013 Oct;9(5):541-54. doi: 10.1007/s12015-013-9445-4.
3
Understanding the impact of commercialization on public support for scientific research: is it about the funding source or the organization conducting the research.了解商业化对公众支持科学研究的影响:是资金来源还是研究机构的问题。
Public Underst Sci. 2011 May;20(3):347-66. doi: 10.1177/0963662509346910.
4
Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics.在与积极主动的受众就科学话题进行交流时获得信任和尊重。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Sep 16;111 Suppl 4(Suppl 4):13593-7. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1317505111. Epub 2014 Sep 15.
5
Attitudes to genetically modified food over time: How trust in organizations and the media cycle predict support.不同时期对转基因食品的态度:组织信任和媒体传播周期如何预测支持度。
Public Underst Sci. 2015 Jul;24(5):601-18. doi: 10.1177/0963662514542372. Epub 2014 Jul 24.
6
Wellcome survey reveals public mistrust of scientists.惠康基金会的调查揭示公众对科学家的不信任。
Nat Med. 1999 Jan;5(1):10. doi: 10.1038/4686.
7
[Research und public confidence. The example of human stem cell research].[研究与公众信任。以人类干细胞研究为例]
Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2008 Sep;51(9):980-4. doi: 10.1007/s00103-008-0625-3.
8
"A good collaboration is based on unique contributions from each side": assessing the dynamics of collaboration in stem cell science.“良好的合作基于各方独特的贡献”:评估干细胞科学中的合作动态
Life Sci Soc Policy. 2017 Dec;13(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s40504-017-0053-y. Epub 2017 May 4.
9
An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming.对科学的攻击?媒体使用、对科学家的信任以及对全球变暖的认知。
Public Underst Sci. 2014 Oct;23(7):866-83. doi: 10.1177/0963662513480091. Epub 2013 Apr 3.
10
Trust and perception related to information about biofuels in Belgium.比利时民众对生物燃料相关信息的信任和认知。
Public Underst Sci. 2011 Sep;20(5):595-608. doi: 10.1177/0963662509358641.

引用本文的文献

1
Exploring the Views of Young People, Including Those With a History of Self-Harm, on the Use of Their Routinely Generated Data for Mental Health Research: Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey Study.探索年轻人,包括有自残史的年轻人,对将其常规生成的数据用于心理健康研究的看法:基于网络的横断面调查研究。
JMIR Ment Health. 2025 Mar 12;12:e60649. doi: 10.2196/60649.
2
Understanding the Factors Driving Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Gene-Edited Foods in China.了解驱动中国消费者对基因编辑食品支付意愿的因素。
Foods. 2024 Jul 25;13(15):2348. doi: 10.3390/foods13152348.
3
#BeSeen: understanding young people's views of the motivation and impacts of sharing self-harm imagery online and use of their social media data for research-a UK participatory arts-led qualitative study.
#BeSeen:了解年轻人对在线分享自我伤害图像的动机和影响的看法,以及使用他们的社交媒体数据进行研究——一项英国参与式艺术主导的定性研究。
BMJ Open. 2024 Jul 23;14(7):e076981. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076981.
4
'Follow the science': Popular trust in scientific experts during the coronavirus pandemic.“遵循科学”:新冠疫情期间公众对科学专家的信任
Public Underst Sci. 2025 Jan;34(1):2-18. doi: 10.1177/09636625241253968. Epub 2024 Jun 12.
5
How social evaluations shape trust in 45 types of scientists.社会评价如何塑造对 45 种类型科学家的信任。
PLoS One. 2024 Apr 18;19(4):e0299621. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299621. eCollection 2024.
6
The Ethics of Stem Cell-Based Embryo-Like Structures : A Focus Group Study on the Perspectives of Dutch Professionals and Lay Citizens.基于干细胞的类胚胎结构的伦理问题:关于荷兰专业人士和普通民众观点的焦点小组研究
J Bioeth Inq. 2024 Sep;21(3):513-542. doi: 10.1007/s11673-023-10325-9. Epub 2024 Mar 13.
7
Public controversy and citizens' attitude formation about animal research: A case for scholarship and recommendations on conflicts at the science-society interface.公众争议与公民对动物研究的态度形成:科学-社会界面冲突研究与建议的案例。
PLoS One. 2024 Jan 3;19(1):e0295503. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295503. eCollection 2024.
8
Public preference on sharing health data to inform research, health policy and clinical practice in Australia: A stated preference experiment.澳大利亚民众对分享健康数据以支持研究、卫生政策和临床实践的偏好:一项意愿调查实验。
PLoS One. 2023 Nov 16;18(11):e0290528. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290528. eCollection 2023.
9
Identifying Trusted Sources of Lyme Disease Prevention Information Among Internet Users Connected to Academic Public Health Resources: Internet-Based Survey Study.在与学术公共卫生资源相关的互联网用户中识别莱姆病预防信息的可靠来源:基于互联网的调查研究。
JMIR Form Res. 2023 Jul 26;7:e43516. doi: 10.2196/43516.
10
Public perception of scientists: Experimental evidence on the role of sociodemographic, partisan, and professional characteristics.公众对科学家的看法:关于社会人口统计学、党派和职业特征的实验证据。
PLoS One. 2023 Jul 7;18(7):e0287572. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287572. eCollection 2023.