The public don't want to be involved in science polic

We need to value the importance of a fundamental understanding of science in policy. And the public agree.

Recently, environment minister Owen Paterson told Britain to stop worrying and learn to love GM. "The use of GM could be as transformative as the original agricultural revolution was. The UK should be at the forefront of that now, as it was then," he said.

But winning hearts and minds on this issue may not be straightforward. If we take media reactions as a barometer of public attitudes, it often appears that Britons are somewhere between indifferent and hostile towards scientific advances in controversial areas such as genetically modified crops and stem cell technology. The evidence, as ever, tells a more complex story.

The Wellcome Trust recently published the results of its Monitor survey of public attitudes towards and engagement with biomedical science, conducted independently by Ipsos MORI during 2012 and representative of adults and young people (14-18 years) in the UK.

The survey found that most people are interested in medical research, with 75% of adults and 58% of young people saying they are very or fairly interested. Despite this high level of expressed interest, public understanding of common scientific terms varies considerably. For example, although a clear majority of adults say they are familiar with the terms "DNA" and "genetically modified", eight in ten people say that they have little or no understanding of the term "human genome" (only half say that they have ever heard the term). Similarly, seven out of ten people reported little or no understanding of the term "stem cells" in the 2009 survey.

Should this apparently low level of "scientific literacy" be a cause for concern for organisations like the Wellcome Trust?

It has traditionally been common for scientists and policy-makers to believe that increasing the public's understanding of science will reduce scepticism and resistance to new and emerging areas of science and technology. Although this simple "knowledge deficit model" has now been largely discredited in the academic sphere, we should perhaps be wary of concluding that ignorance or misunderstanding of key areas of modern science doesn't matter.

As part of the Monitor survey, participants were given a science general knowledge quiz. Adults who scored lower on the science quiz were more likely to think that recommended vaccinations carry a high or fairly high risk of serious side-effects; they were also less likely to think that the government has an important role in providing information and recommendations about vaccinations.

Similarly, those with higher quiz scores were more likely to feel positively about science in general, more optimistic that medical research advances will improve quality of life in the next 20 years and less concerned that there may be insufficient investment in certain areas of medical research.

The Monitor also asked people who they thought should be involved in decisions about the future directions for medical research. Approximately half said scientists working in universities should always be involved in decision-making about medical research, a third thought government scientists and a quarter, private industry scientists. Support for the involvement of these different groups of scientists mirrors public trust in them.

Interestingly, only a fifth of respondents thought government departments and ministers should always be involved in decisions about medical research; a greater number – a quarter – though that they should never be. Thus the general public appears to endorse what is commonly referred to as the "Haldane principle"; that the government should not be directly involved in deciding which areas of science do and do not receive public funding.

Recent trends emphasise the important role of public involvement in science policy-making. It is therefore pertinent to ask what the public themselves think about this model of governance. Interestingly, only around a quarter of people say that members of the general public should always be involved in decisions about medical research, a half say that they sometimes should, and as many as a quarter say the public should never be involved.

A large majority (69%) of this latter group justify their position by saying that the public lack knowledge and understanding of medical research. Likewise, a clear majority (57%) say that they do not personally want to be involved in public consultations about medical research because they do not know enough about the topic.

Most strikingly, adults overwhelmingly (91%) agree that those involved in decisions about the future of medical research "should have a good understanding of the science involved". This raises some interesting questions about the appropriate role of the general public in decision making about science.

Given that many important decisions that affect the direction of research in the UK are made by politicians, we might question how many of them have a good grasp of science. Currently only one of 650 MPs has been a research scientist, just two others have science PhDs, and only about one in 10 MPs has a degree in a science-related subject. While qualifications don't necessarily reflect scientific knowledge, they do correlate closely. Nevertheless, parliamentarians frequently debate medical research issues, from regulations around human embryology and fertilisation to public funding for homeopathy treatments.

Whether we are talking about individuals making personal decisions about their own health or parliamentarians determining the policies that will decide our future food security, we need to recognise and value the importance of a fundamental understanding of science. Over recent years, the movement to build the public's understanding of science has transformed to become one of engagement and dialogue, authentic interactions and conversations which can affect research agendas. But this is only possible if it is underpinned with a good base of science understanding, delivered through our education system.