The Genetics Society, London, United Kingdom.
School of Medicine, Medical Sciences and Nutrition, University of Aberdeen, Institute of Medical Sciences, Aberdeen, United Kingdom.
PLoS Biol. 2023 Jan 24;21(1):e3001915. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001915. eCollection 2023 Jan.
People differ greatly in their attitudes towards well-evidenced science. What characterises this variation? Here, we consider this issue in the context of genetics and allied sciences. While most prior research has focused on the relationship between attitude to science and what people know about it, recent evidence suggests that individuals with strongly negative attitudes towards specific genetic technologies (genetic modification (GM) technology and vaccines) commonly do not objectively understand the science, but, importantly, believe that they do. Here, using data from a probability survey of United Kingdom adults, we extend this prior work in 2 regards. First, we ask whether people with more extreme attitudes, be they positive or negative, are more likely to believe that they understand the science. Second, as negativity to genetics is commonly framed around issues particular to specific technologies, we ask whether attitudinal trends are contingent on specification of technology. We find (1) that individuals with strongly positive or negative attitudes towards genetics more strongly believe that they well understand the science; but (2) only for those most positive to the science is this self-confidence warranted; and (3) these effects are not contingent on specification of any particular technologies. These results suggest a potentially general model to explain why people differ in their degree of acceptance or rejection of science, this being that the more someone believes they understand the science, the more confident they will be in their acceptance or rejection of it. While there are more technology nonspecific opponents who also oppose GM technology than expected by chance, most GM opponents fit a different demographic. For the most part, opposition to GM appears not to reflect a smokescreen concealing a broader underlying negativity.
人们对有充分证据支持的科学的态度存在很大差异。这种差异的特点是什么？在这里，我们在遗传学和相关科学的背景下考虑这个问题。虽然之前的大多数研究都集中在对科学的态度与人们对科学的了解之间的关系上，但最近的证据表明，对某些特定的遗传技术（基因修饰（GM）技术和疫苗）持强烈负面态度的个体通常并不客观地理解科学，但重要的是，他们认为自己理解。在这里，我们使用来自英国成年人概率调查的数据，从两个方面扩展了之前的工作。首先，我们问是否态度更为极端的人（无论是积极的还是消极的）更有可能认为自己理解科学。其次，由于对遗传学的负面看法通常围绕着特定技术的特定问题，我们问态度趋势是否取决于技术的具体规定。我们发现（1）对遗传学持强烈积极或消极态度的个体更强烈地认为自己很好地理解科学；但（2）只有对科学最积极的个体才是有道理的；（3）这些影响不取决于任何特定技术的具体规定。这些结果表明了一种潜在的通用模型，可以解释为什么人们在接受或拒绝科学方面存在差异，即一个人越相信自己理解科学，他们对接受或拒绝科学就越有信心。虽然有更多的非技术特定反对者也反对 GM 技术，这比偶然情况预期的要多，但大多数 GM 反对者属于不同的人群。在大多数情况下，反对 GM 似乎并不反映掩盖更广泛潜在负面情绪的烟幕。
