Public opinion about issues characterized by technological complexity and scientific uncertainty

Abstract

The ability of Americans to make reasonable, logically consistent assessments about complex policy issues is a longstanding concern among elites and scholars, especially in view of the two most recent elections. Of particular concern, in view of American's low level of scientific literacy, is the public's ability to make such assessments about issues characterized by technological complexity and areas where experts cannot, with confidence, assess the degree of risk of certain phenomena or policy options. Public opinion about genetics research, the use of alar, and the safety of nuclear power plants are three recent examples. The article reports on an experimental study designed to explore whether the public can make such assessments and to identify the factors that enhance the process. The threat of global warming and the safe disposal of solid waste were used as proxies for an array of issues that are technologically complex and characterized by expert uncertainty. I argue that the study—in which over 400 people chosen to reflect a cross-section of the population filled out questionnaires before and after learning more about both issues, and which compares those responses to the views of 400 scientists—shows that the public can make a logically consistent assessment about such issues after a minimal educational intervention and a short period of time. The public's judgment about both issues, as measured by the questionnaire used after the intervention, is strikingly similar to the scientists' views. Further, the few areas of divergence seem rooted more in value differences than in expertise. The article discusses some conditions that enhance or inhibit the public's ability to make such assessments, and comments on the experiment's relevance to practical political decision-making.