This article examines the relationship between the general public’s understanding of science and the attitude towards public funding of scientific research. It applies a multivariate and discriminant analysis (Wilks’ Lambda), in addition to a more commonly used bivariate analysis (Cramer’s V), to data compiled from the Third National Survey on the Social Perception of Science and Technology in Spain (FECYT, 2006). The general conclusion is that the multivariate analysis produces information complementary to the bivariate analysis, and that the variables commonly applied in public perception studies have limited predictive value with respect to the attitude towards public funding of scientific research.
AllumN.SturgisP.TabouraziD.Brunton-SmithI. (2008) “Science Knowledge and Attitudes across Cultures: A Meta-analysis,” Public Understanding of Science17: 35–54.
2.
BauerM. (2002) “Controversial Medical and Agri-food Biotechnology,” Public Understanding of Science11: 93–111.
3.
BraceN.KempR.SnelgarR. (2009) SPSS for Psychologists, 4th edn.Mahwah, NJ: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
GodinB. (2002) “Outline for a History of Science Measurement,” Science, Technology, & Human Values27: 3–27.
5.
HairJ.F.AndersonR.E.TathamR.L.BlackW.C. (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th edn.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6.
HarrellF.E.Jr. (2001) Regression Modeling Strategies: With Applications to Linear Models, Logistic Regression, and Survival Analysis. New York: Springer.
7.
IrwinA.MichaelM. (2003) Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
8.
IrwinA.WynneB. (1996) Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
KallerudE.RambergI. (2002) “The Order of Discourse in Surveys of Public Understanding of Science,” Public Understanding of Science11(3): 213–24.
10.
López CerezoJ.A.CámaraM. (2007) “Scientific Culture and Social Appropriation of Science,” Social Epistemology21: 69–81.
11.
LujánJ.L.TodtO. (2000) “Perceptions, Attitudes and Ethical Valuations: The Ambivalence of the Public Image of Biotechnology in Spain,” Public Understanding of Science9: 383–92.
12.
MichaelM. (1992) “Lay Discourses of Science: Science-in-General, Science-in-Particular and Self,” Science, Technology, & Human Values17: 313–33.
13.
MichaelM. (2002) “Comprehension, Apprehension, Prehension: Heterogeneity and the Public Understanding of Science,” Science, Technology, & Human Values27(3): 357–8.
14.
MillarR.WynneB. (1988) “Public Understanding of Science: From Contents to Processes,” International Journal of Science Education10(4): 388–98.
15.
MillerJ.D. (2004) “Public Understanding of, and Attitudes toward, Scientific Research: What We Know and What We Need to Know,” Public Understanding of Science13(3): 273–94.
16.
PardoR.CalvoF. (2002) “Attitudes toward Science among the European Public: A Methodological Analysis,” Public Understanding of Science11: 155–95.
17.
PardoR.CalvoF. (2004) “The Cognitive Dimensions of Public Perceptions of Science: Methodological Issues,” Public Understanding of Science13: 203–27.
18.
SturgisP.J.AllumN.C. (2004) “Science in Society: Re-evaluating the Deficit Model of Public Attitudes,” Public Understanding of Science13(1): 55–74.
19.
TodtO.LujánJ.L. (2008) “A New Social Contract for Technology? On the Policy Dynamics of Uncertainty,” Journal of Risk Research11: 509–23.
20.
TodtO.MuñozE.PlazaM. (2007) “Food Safety Governance and Social Learning,” Food Control18: 834–41.
21.
TodtO.MuñozE.GonzálezM.PonceG.EstévezB. (2009) “Consumer Attitudes and the Governance of Food Safety,” Public Understanding of Science18(1): 103–14.
