Lay beliefs about scientist-employer relations may affect public attitudes toward science. A representative sample of US residents characterized scientists’ relations with one of four employers: federal government agency, large business corporation, advocacy group (nonprofit seeking to influence policy), or university. Overall, they held moderate views of how much scientists and employers shared motivations, interests, and values, and of whether employers tried to change—and succeeded in changing—how scientist employees did their scientific work. Judgments differed little across employers. Best predictors of these views were belief in scientific positivism, subjective knowledge of science, and age. These findings suggest scientific authority in the United States is not immediately threatened by public beliefs that employers skew their scientific employees’ work, although that might differ for specific topics or demographic sub-groups.
DieckmannNFJohnsonBB (2019) Why do scientists disagree? Explaining and improving measures of the perceived causes of scientific disputes. PLoS ONE14(2): e0211269.
4.
DrummondRFischhoffB (2017) Development and validation of the scientific reasoning scale. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making30: 26–38.
5.
DunlapREMcCrightAMYaroshJ (2016) The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization in the U.S. public widens. Environment58(5): 4–22.
6.
European Commission (2000) The Europeans and Biotechnology. Brussels: European Commission.
7.
GreenbergD (2003) Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
8.
HartmanRDieckmannNFStantsyBSprengerADeMarreeK (2017) Modeling attitudes toward science: Development and validation of a credibility of science scale (CoSS). Basic and Applied Social Psychology39: 358–371.
9.
HipkinsRStockwellWBolstadRBakerR (2002) Commonsense, Trust and Science: How Patterns of Beliefs and Attitudes to Science Pose Challenges for Effective Communication. Wellington: Ministry of Research Science and Technology.
10.
JasanoffSWynneB (1998) Science and decision-making. In: RaynerSMaloneE (eds) Human Choice and Climate Change: Vol. 1. The Societal Framework. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press, pp. 1–88.
11.
JohnsonBB (2003) Further notes on public response to uncertainty in risks and science. Risk Analysis23: 781–789.
12.
JohnsonBB (2019a) Americans’ views of cues to the relative credibility of disputing groups of scientists. Social Science Research Network. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3392532
13.
JohnsonBB (2019b) Experiments in lay cues to the relative validity of positions taken by disputing groups of scientists. Risk Analysis39: 1657–1674.
14.
JohnsonBB (2020) Probing the role of institutional stereotypes in Americans’ evaluations of hazard-managing institutions. Journal of Risk Research23: 313–329.
15.
JohnsonBBDieckmannNF (2018) Lay Americans’ views of why scientists disagree with each other. Public Understanding of Science27: 824–835.
16.
JohnsonBBDieckmannNF (2020) Americans’ views of scientists’ motivations for scientific work. Public Understanding of Science29: 2–20.
17.
JohnsonBBDieckmannNFMayorgaM (2019) Cues to relative credibility: Their relative influence on lay Americans’ judgments of disputing groups of scientists (March 10, 2020). Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3552167
18.
LambrightWH (2008) Government and science: A troubled, critical relationship and what can be done about it. Public Administration Review68(1): 5–18.
19.
LysaghtTKerridgeI (2012) Rhetoric, power and legitimacy: A critical analysis of the public policy disputes surrounding stem cell research in Australia (2005–6). Public Understanding of Science21: 195–210.
20.
McCrightAMDentzmanKChartersMDietzT (2013) The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters8: 044029.
21.
MaximLMansierP (2014) How is scientific credibility affected by communicating uncertainty? The case of endocrine disrupter effects on male fertility. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment20: 201–223.
22.
MayerFSFrantzM (2004) The connectedness to nature scale: A measure of individuals’ feeling in community with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology24: 503–515.
23.
MertonRK (1942) Science and technology in a democratic order. Journal of Legal and Political Sociology1: 115–126.
24.
MertonRK (1957) Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review22: 635–659.
25.
MertonRK (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
MichaelsD (2008) Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
MichaelsDMonfortonC (2005) Manufacturing uncertainty: Contested science and the protection of the public’s health and environment. American Journal of Public Health95(Suppl. 1): S39–S48.
28.
MooneyC (2007) The Republican War on Science. New York: Basic Books.
29.
National Science Board (2014) Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 (NSB 14–01). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
30.
ProctorRN (1995) Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don’t Know about Cancer. New York: Basic Books.
31.
ProctorRNSchiebingerL (2008) Agnotology: The Making & Unmaking of Ignorance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
32.
RabinovichAMortonTA (2012) Unquestioned answers or unanswered questions: Beliefs about science guide responses to uncertainty in climate change in risk communication. Risk Analysis32: 992–1002.
33.
ResnickD (2007) The Price of Truth: How Money Affects the Norms of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
SassowerR (2015) Compromising the Ideals of Science. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
SchultzPW (2001) Assessing the structure of environmental concern: Concern for self, other people, and the biosphere. Journal of Environmental Psychology21: 1–13.
36.
SchultzPWShriverCTabanicoJJKhazianAM (2004) Implicit connections with nature. Journal of Environmental Psychology24: 31–42.
37.
SmallBMallonM (2007) Science, society, ethics, and trust: Scientists’ reflections on commercialization and democratization of science. International Studies of Management and Organization37: 103–124.
38.
SmallBHParminterTGFisherMW (2005) Understanding public responses to genetic engineering through exploring intentions to purchase a hypothetical functional food derived from genetically modified dairy cattle. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research48: 391–400.
39.
SteelBListPLachDShindlerB (2004) The role of scientists in the environmental policy process: A case study from the American West. Environmental Science and Policy7: 1–13.
40.
StilgoeJ (2007) The (co-)production of public uncertainty: UK scientific advice on mobile phone health risks. Public Understanding of Science16: 45–61.
ZehrS (2000) Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Understanding of Science9: 85–103.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
