Reacción a "Reactions to the new edition of the Social Perception Survey on Science and Technology"

This is a well-founded study developed by a group of experts in the field. The survey is excellent in terms of sample size, methodological rigour and contributions. Working with large samples (more than 6,000 people) in Spain, with a well-constructed design and a low statistical error (+- 1.29%) is unusual except for a few institutions (CIS and INE) or large opinion polling companies. However, we know that any survey, insofar as it works with samples (representative subpopulations), has this margin of error which, although small, is inevitable and is never zero. Therefore, data and estimates must be read with this in mind. On the other hand, there is also a possible bias generated not so much by a bad methodological design as by the moment we are living in, where scientific issues sometimes generate positions that are too polarised, maximalist or intense. In the aftermath of the pandemic, many positions on scientific issues (climate change, for example) have become somewhat extremist or emotional and politicised. This effect is present in all current public opinion surveys. 

There are many data or results worth commenting on from the Survey of Social Perceptions of Science and Technology 2022. From my point of view, and in a very personal way, I am struck by the fact that science does not arouse much interest (11th place) and the huge number of people who say that they do not spend more time on science and technology issues due to lack of time (54%) or lack of knowledge (33%) or interest (32%). The barriers to approaching the scientific universe are varied, but we usually end up delegating its study to experts and it makes it easier for us to say that we have other things to do or that, as laymen, we lack sufficient skills. Science ends up being paradoxical because it is recognised as vital (2/3 perceive its benefits) but is not attended to personally; it is usually something that is considered essential but delegable. 

I am also very surprised that the Spanish population's level of scientific literacy and knowledge is somewhere in between, not to mention average. In other words, there are still many subjects in which Spaniards do not know how to respond adequately to basic science questions. The causes of climate change and the usefulness of antibiotics seem to be the subjects on which the Spanish population is most ignorant or has the poorest aim. And these are two topical issues that leave almost one in four Spaniards without knowledge or without the capacity to respond adequately. Training in science and technology to improve this type of test is a pending issue.   

Finally, there is a rather striking fact. When the sample was asked about the means of scientific information, social networks fell for the first time in the historical series as a source of such information. In other words, for the first time in many years, social networks do not increase their presence when the population searches for scientific data on them. It is not clear to me whether this is due to some sort of cap or ceiling on the growth of the networks or an attempt to avoid sources of dubious scientific information. Social networks are on the decline, leaving their place to "videos" (YouTube or similar) whose veracity and accuracy is not always the best or correct. Visual channels (new digital televisions) now seem to be the main source of scientific information for the Spanish population, an unfiltered and unregulated channel where very heterodox and sometimes conspiratorial views abound.  

This work shows, as reflected in the most cutting-edge and solvent international studies, that science continues to be one of the basic pillars of social life today. It is a genuine collective institution, valued and trusted, central to the development of our contemporary societies. At the same time, however, it serves to detect that, mainly in the wake of covid-19, a number of feelings of mistrust and unease about scientific practice have arisen and emerged. This shadow of suspicion, which has always existed, is greater than ever today, not so much because of shortcomings in the scientific profession, but certainly because of overstated expectations, poor scientific communication, and a galaxy of exorbitant hoaxes and fakes that are circulating in digital networks and audiovisual repositories on the Internet. In fact, although doctors come out well in the rating part (70% highly rated), scientists in a general sense do not (47% highly rated), almost 20 percentage points below. 

It has no major limitations because it is a well-designed, well-conducted and well-finished study. In fact, by following a historical series of several years of biannual surveys, it makes it possible to compare the evolution and dynamics over time, which is perhaps the most relevant aspect. What is worth noting is that we may still be in the aftermath of the Covid-19 hangover. The effect of the pandemic has been an excessive shock, which generates a kind of daze and post-traumatic stress that leaves traces in these studies. Surely there is some effect of the timing on certain outcomes where there are still many people with covid-19 in recent memory (permanent mental covid). To what extent this may condition or bias some answers we will not know until we see how the data evolves over the next few years. But it is true that we are living in a post-pandemic moment beset by war, climate change and economic crisis, and all this has an influence.