The 20th century was a golden age for science and innovation, and advances in science still seem to be accelerating at a marvelous rate. In biology alone, skin cells are being reprogrammed to cell lines that can become any tissue in the body, an entire organism has been created with a synthetic genome and computer modeling is shining a light on biological inquiries in ways that couldn’t have been comprehended even a few years ago. On the surface, science appears to be healthy and vibrant.

Despite the optimistic picture portrayed by the rapidly proliferating discoveries in modern science, there is an underlying problem that has scientists terrified. It has become clear in the past few decades that the public trust, enthusiasm and understanding of science has been declining. We are no longer a nation where children aspire to be scientists. During the “Space Race,” astronauts were idolized public figures. Today, most adults are not even able to name a living scientist. This lack of enthusiasm about science is represented in several ways. As people become less enthusiastic about science, funding for science falls, science becomes a political tool and we create a society where ignorance of science is acceptable (or even encouraged). The 21st century promises to remove the United States from the leading edge of science, if public perceptions about science aren’t changed.

The general consensus is that we are living in a world where science and technology are indispensible, thus necessitating research and discovery in order to improve our quality of life. We are not happy with the status quo as we push for the next new cancer drug that will extend a patient’s life by a few months, the safer road infrastructure or more accessible technology that improves our children’s learning. With this need for constant innovation, the fact that federal R&D funding as a percentage of GDP didn’t increase (and in fact fell from 1.3 percent to 1.0 percent) from 1976 to 2008 is shocking. Recognizing the importance of science and technology and yet refusing to give it a place of fiscal importance in our national budget shows that the public doesn’t value scientific research as highly as one might think. The general public does not appear to understand why public funding of science that is not immediately “translational” (applicable to daily life) is important. When Sarah Palin mocked fruit fly research in 2008 (fruit flies are used for crucial genetic studies because of their relatively simple genomes and quick life cycles), it echoed the public perception that scientists have been fighting against for years. Basic research may not immediately lead to tangible results, but understanding basic science eventually leads to advances in applicable science. The public misunderstanding of seemingly unimportant research projects has certainly contributed to the stagnant funding levels for science. 

As shown in Palin’s dismissal of fruit fly research, science has also been used as a political tool. On one hand, politicians have used science to rally potential voters. Many scientists supported Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008 which culminated in the promise to “restore science to its rightful place” in his inaugural address. On the other hand, science has been attacked for political points as candidates rail against fruit flies, evolution and stem cells. The problem is not that we are having discussions about scientific theories and ethics (discussions that are important for a rapidly changing society), but the fact that the general public sees these issues as political collateral instead of important issues for our daily lives. When confronted with the term “stem cells,” most people’s thoughts revolve around political fighting instead of the amazing biological potential of stem cells. Politics has claimed science, and as a result the general public thinks that they don’t need to understand science. Politics will decide which pieces of science are beneficial for society.

The most troubling trend in the public perception of science has been the active encouragement of scientific disrespect or ignorance. Some of this has been done for political reasons, but there are many other factors involved. The anti-vaccine movement has been propagated by high profile celebrities such as Jenny McCarthy who have rejected scientific research in favor of the “University of Google” and highly anecdotal studies or flawed pseudoscience. In similar ways, many special interest groups (such as tobacco companies) prosper by dragging solid scientific research through the mud. These scientific smear campaigns have negative effects on the public perception of science, and the chorus of anti-science voices has grown deafening on many topics. However, scientific disrespect or ignorance is not limited to people with an agenda. Scientists are almost always portrayed as nerdy, white, male and completely out of touch with society as a whole. This is an unfortunate public perception of a scientific community that is both increasing in diversity and fighting to be relevant to society.

Decreasing R&D funding, playing politics with science and intentionally smearing or misrepresenting science are all signs that the public is not interested in science. The proposed hypotheses for this disinterest are varied and controversial. Some blame failing school systems, while others blame scientists’ inability to explain science to the general public. Some blame the interference of religion in science, while others claim that science is openly hostile to religion. In reality, there is probably a bit of truth in all of these hypotheses. Determining how to increase public interest in science will be crucial to our progress in the 21st century. Once we have agreed as a society that interest and respect for science is waning, we can begin to address the underlying reasons for this disinterest and disrespect. Only then will we be able to assure another “golden age” in science.

Joel Schrock is a third-year graduate student in Pharmacology at Weill Cornell Medical College. He can be reached at jms2012@med.cornell.edu.. What’s Up, Doc? appears alternate Fridays this semester.