According to the Science and Technology Indicators, published by the National Science Board [1], most people get their science news and information from television. However, when information on a specific topic is desired, the Internet has become a useful source. These two main sources have points for and against them. Both are available to wide audiences and, in most cases, are inexpensive. However, on the bad side, television news often has a slant - a pursuit of one side of the story and not a fair treatment of the entire topic due to time constraints. Documentaries presented on television often focus on one person or a group pursuing a problem or topic. Again, due to time constraints or the audience served, not all viable viewpoints are considered in their entirety. The Internet is obviously open to everyone to present information on whatever topic they wish. In this case, it is very difficult to know if the information you see is well researched and accurate or just someone's opinion made to appear 'professional'. Therefore, multiple sides of an issue may be taken to be equal when they do not have equal merit. In fact, the Internet can serve to provide information that at least looks credible for every conceivable explanation of a topic. So, today's television-watching, web-savvy society is getting huge amounts of information, basically on demand, but the quality of information is much lower and often very incomplete.
As reported in the Science and Technology Indicators [1], people seem to be fairly interested in science and technology news. But, these topics rank under news about crime events, sports and local affairs. However, people are very interested in new medical discoveries. Perhaps they feel this type of news can be more directly related to their own lives or the health of their loved ones. In addition, natural disasters seem to spark attention. (Could it be related to the old news adage 'If it bleeds, it leads'?). In this case, it may relate in a way to curiousity about having a similar natural disaster strike locally. What are the odds and how will this affect me. People are losing interest in topics such as the environment and have not shown much interest in the biggest science story of 2001 - the mapping of the human genome. Interest of the general public in space exploration has also waned along with support for it.
Though many people declare an interest in science and clearly feel it is important to understand, most do not understand it to a high degree or even comprehend it enough to feel comfortable. There is a positive relationship between higher education and greater understanding of science. If one understands something, one feels more comfortable about it. On the other hand, when there is much confusion, misinformation or lack of information, people feel very nervous and often opposed to an issue. This is happening with regards to genetically modified food. Few average people understand genetics and scientific experimentation and agricultural processes in order to make up an informed desision regarding this topic. So, they err on the side of caution and refuse it - a normal human response.
The public also has a love/hate relationship with scientists themselves (somewhat similar to the feeling for government, in general). They expect scientists to work towards progress in their fields to help humankind. But, they fear the power of exploration into unknown areas and ethical grey areas. "Experimentation" on animals or humans does not have good connotations. However, scientists are seen as the brain-trust of the country, able to be counted on to solve the world's problems.
The government appropirates billions of dollars to agencies and departments that carry out scientific research, monitoring, and education efforts. In the U.S., the largest beneficiary of research money is the National Institute of Health (NIH). The government also funds the National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS) along with multiagency initiatives and various other departments such as Energy, Defense, Education, and Agriculture. In the 21st century budgets so far, the big winners were biomedical sciences, military research and additional funding for bioterrorism and security measures. [2] The current state of the union is reflected directly in the budget. From the main agencies, the money is funneled out to universities and laboratories around the country to do the actual work. There is a web of associations and institutes that receive money as it trickles down from the top.
----------------------------
1. Science and Engineering Indicators, National Science Board. Published yearly. Available at http://www.nsf.gov