Chapter 7
Deeper engagement through science capital
The more science capital someone has, the more they have interacted with science or scientists in their day-to-day lives, either through studying, careers, leisure activities, or friends and family. This short final chapter brings together the analysis of science capital reported across the previous chapters. It covers how science capital is split across the population, and the associations between high or low science capital, and attitudes to science. Collectively, this data helps to demonstrate how a more rounded experience of science can deepen engagement.
Chapter 7
The more science capital someone has, the more they have interacted with science of scientists in their day-to-day lives, either through studying, careers, leisure activities, or friends and family. This short final chapter brings together the analysis of science capital reported across the previous chapters. It covers how science capital is split across the population, and the associations between high or low science capital, and attitudes to science. Collectively, this data helps to demonstrate how a more rounded experience of science can deepen engagement.
7.1 How much science capital does the UK public have?
The science capital index brings together data across multiple questions in the survey, to be able to segment people into three groups – high, medium and low science capital. There is more detail on how the index is constructed in the Technical Report.
A fifth (21%) of the public had high science capital. That is, they were highly connected to science or scientists in their daily lives. A total of 13% had low science capital, meaning they had interacted relatively little with science or scientists in their daily lives. A further 66% fell into a middle group, with medium science capital.
Compared to 2019, fewer people fell into the low science capital group (down from 18% to 13%). More fell into the medium science capital group (up from 60% to 66%). In other words, the volume of science capital has increased across the public. This reinforces findings in Chapter 1 showing that fewer people were wholly disconnected from science and scientists than in 2019. At the same time, the proportion with high science capital has not shifted. Therefore, more people may be engaging with science in a relatively shallow way.
A more rounded experience of science can deepen engagement.
7.2 Who has more or less science capital?
Science capital was not distributed evenly across all groups of the population:
Men tended to have more science capital than women.
Those aged 65 or over tended to have less science capital than others.
Across ethnicities, science capital was relatively evenly distributed.
Geographically, those in London tended to have more science capital, whereas those in Yorkshire and the Humber and in Scotland tended to have less.
There were differences by social status, with people in managerial or professional occupations typically having more science capital than those in clerical, manual or service jobs.
Across the data, those with high and low science capital had very different opinions. The former tended to have more positive attitudes to science, greater trust in scientists and a greater willingness to engage in science issues:
Higher science capital was linked to more emphatic support for science generally, and for the government funding of science.
Those with low science capital were generally more uncertain or ambivalent across these questions. For example, 84% of those with high science capital felt that the government should fund scientific research even if it brought no immediate benefits, versus 44% of those with low science capital.
Trust and science capital were positively correlated.
Individuals with high science capital tended to exhibit higher trust in scientists, researchers and engineers regardless of where they worked. They were also more likely to believe the information they heard about science was “generally true”. Again, those with low science capital were more uncertain or ambivalent, i.e. more likely to neither agree nor disagree.
Higher science capital was associated with greater engagement and willingness to engage.
For example, 91% of those with high science capital had sought out science-related information in the two weeks prior to the survey, compared with just 17% of those with low science capital. Those with high science capital were also more interested than average in becoming involved in decision-making on science issues.
Higher science capital aligned with more scepticism of government and its handling of science.
For instance, 49% of those with high science capital agreed that the risks of new science and technology could not be properly controlled by government, versus 35% of those with low science capital. And those with high science capital were more polarised than average when asked if government ministers regularly use science to inform their decisions – they were both more likely to agree and more likely to disagree.
Those with lower science capital were less likely to feel they had benefited personally from science.
Just 13% agreed that science had increased their personal prosperity, versus 84% of those with high science capital.
However, there were also areas of common ground around the importance of science communication and representation in science, and common concerns around the potential politicisation of science. In these areas, the amount of science capital someone had made no difference:
Both groups reported on balance that they heard or saw too little information about science.
Both wanted government ministers to be less involved in setting the rules and regulations for scientists. Those with high science capital specifically wanted scientists to be more involved in setting rules and regulations.
Both were just as likely to value representation in science, for example agreeing that scientists should be required to involve all groups of the population in their research. And both were similarly sceptical that everyone currently has equal opportunities to pursue a career in science regardless of their background.
7.3 The impact of science capital
Across the data, those with high and low science capital had very different opinions. The former tended to have more positive attitudes to science, greater trust in scientists and a greater willingness to engage in science issues:
Higher science capital was linked to more emphatic support for science generally, and for the government funding of science.
Those with low science capital were generally more uncertain or ambivalent across these questions. For example, 84% of those with high science capital felt that the government should fund scientific research even if it brought no immediate benefits, versus 44% of those with low science capital.
Trust and science capital were positively correlated.
Individuals with high science capital tended to exhibit higher trust in scientists, researchers and engineers regardless of where they worked. They were also more likely to believe the information they heard about science was “generally true”. Again, those with low science capital were more uncertain or ambivalent, i.e. more likely to neither agree nor disagree.
Higher science capital was associated with greater engagement and willingness to engage.
For example, 91% of those with high science capital had sought out science-related information in the two weeks prior to the survey, compared with just 17% of those with low science capital. Those with high science capital were also more interested than average in becoming involved in decision-making on science issues.
Higher science capital aligned with more scepticism of government and its handling of science.
For instance, 49% of those with high science capital agreed that the risks of new science and technology could not be properly controlled by government, versus 35% of those with low science capital. And those with high science capital were more polarised than average when asked if government ministers regularly use science to inform their decisions – they were both more likely to agree and more likely to disagree.
Those with lower science capital were less likely to feel they had benefited personally from science.
Just 13% agreed that science had increased their personal prosperity, versus 84% of those with high science capital.
However, there were also areas of common ground around the importance of science communication and representation in science, and common concerns around the potential politicisation of science. In these areas, the amount of science capital someone had made no difference:
Both groups reported on balance that they heard or saw too little information about science.
Both wanted government ministers to be less involved in setting the rules and regulations for scientists. Those with high science capital specifically wanted scientists to be more involved in setting rules and regulations.
Both were just as likely to value representation in science, for example agreeing that scientists should be required to involve all groups of the population in their research. And both were similarly sceptical that everyone currently has equal opportunities to pursue a career in science regardless of their background.