I went to see Godsend the other day in the movie theatre. I had no clue the topic was human cloning. I just saw the billboard and thought it might be interesting (robert de niro was in it).

Besides the fact that it was an extremely bad movie I noticed something else in it. It was also dealing in a 'as a matter of fact' manner the image the general public has of scientists.

I will describe it in general terms, because I can't remember the details.

There is a medical doctor.
emotional reaction of actors :that is good. He is helping mankind..

There is this medical doctor. He does research.
emotional reaction of actors :that is suspicious.

He is a researcher
emotional reaction of actors :he must be up to something bad.

He is a brilliant researcher
emotional reaction of actors :That is creepy..


In short. A medical doctor was seen as good, a researcher as a frankenstein.

Is this how society sees scientists?

On the contrary doctor's job may be just to follow the scientist/research work. All effects are/can be known/understood by the scientist & I feel that unless a doctor knows equal to a research scientist(of that durg)--that research scientist or equal to that should have been involved in all prescripions to really justify the treatment. All prescriptions shuld be backed with full knowledge, effects & patho-physiology of durg, each patient & disease. Is/can it commonly taken care off under current environment of over-population, over-pollutions, over-indulgence, over-commercializations, over-complications, over-fancied/popular system...etc. with less available time. I think scientists are only or mostly justified?

Is this how society sees scientists?Not really. At least, not in the United States. Every year the National Science Foundation does a giant study of the state of science and technology in the U.S., which includes public perceptions of scientists. Here's an excerpt:Public Perceptions of Science Occupations

Despite the persistence of a stereotype that is difficult to dislodge, most people believe that scientists lead rewarding professional and personal lives. In fact, when asked how they would feel if their son or daughter wanted to become a scientist, 80 percent of respondents to the 2001 NSF survey said they would be happy with that decision (18 percent said they would not care and 2 percent reported they would be unhappy).[37] "Daughter" and "son" received equal percentages of positive responses, and men and women both "voted" the same way for both sons and daughters. (See appendix table 7-39.)

A Harris Poll Pilot Study conducted for the American Association of Engineering Societies in July 1998 produced what seems like an even higher level of enthusiasm for science as a career choice. This survey asked participants the following question:
Using a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being extremely displeased and 10 being extremely pleased, if your son or daughter or other family member said they wanted to be a scientist, technician, or an engineer, how pleased would you be?

"Scientist" received the highest level of endorsement, a perfect 10 for a median response, followed by engineer at 9, and technician at 8 (American Association of Engineering Societies 1998). One of the many scientific professional societies, the American Chemical Society, recently commissioned a survey of the public's attitudes toward its members and the work they do. Although the chemical industry did not receive high marks, its members did. (See sidebar "Public Perceptions of Chemistry, the Chemical Industry, and Chemists.")

Despite these positive perceptions of science occupations, 53 percent of respondents to the 2001 NSF survey agreed that "scientific work is dangerous." Equal percentages of men and women chose this response, but the level of agreement declined as the level of formal education rose. That is, 70 percent of those who had not completed high school agreed with the statement compared with 56 percent of high school graduates and 30 percent of college graduates. (See appendix table 7-40.)You can find the entire thing here: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/toc.htm

Skewed results; as in what other could they possibly have to say?

Politics rules the scientific mind, it distorts and/or hides the truth until the timing is right (if ever).

Whatever portion politics isn't in control of, religion lords over all that remains.

As a result, space toilets have chuck full of what's plugging up the intellectual cesspool of life.

Sorry Nasor, as obviously you're too darn smart for your own good, much like I was as of four years ago.

Brad sez:

Politics rules the scientific mind, it distorts and/or hides the truth

From the link Nasor provided:

That is, 70 percent of those who had not completed high school agreed with the statement ("scientific work is dangerous." ) compared with 56 percent of high school graduates and 30 percent of college graduates.

This would make for an interesting poll here a Sciforums, don't ya think, Brad?

Skewed results; as in what other could they possibly have to say?Well, they could have said something along the lines of "I don't want my child becoming one of those evil, god-playing scientists."Politics rules the scientific mind, it distorts and/or hides the truth until the timing is right (if ever).

Whatever portion politics isn't in control of, religion lords over all that remains.

As a result, space toilets have chuck full of what's plugging up the intellectual cesspool of life.

Sorry Nasor, as obviously you're too darn smart for your own good, much like I was as of four years ago.Waaaa? I'm obviously not smart enough to figure out what the heck you're talking about here.

Someone asked about public perception of scientists, and since just the other day I had read a study on it I thought that people might be interested.

I don't think anyone should care how "society" sees scientists. If you look at what job occupations get the most ammount of buisness, it's always the people in the entertainent biz. Our society is quite screwed up and I doubt it's going to get any better.

I do belive, however, scientists should be looked at with more respect and should be thought higher of then some some twenty year old wearing a skimpy outfit.

Ask a kid what they want to be when they grow up. You'll most likely hear something along the lines of "Brittany Spears" [or some other actress, singer, ect.] then a scientists. They've started studies that show that 40% [It may be a tad bit high or a tad bit lower, it's not exscat but it's pretty close] of girls lose interest in math and science before fifth grade. Isn't that sad?

I was interested Nasor :)

Kumar - I had no idea what you were trying to say in your first post, it confused me :confused:

anyway....I think people believe scientists and research is ok, if it has a target which people can understand and sympathise with. For example, research into cancer is always seen as worthy. When the research is either less focussed (ie isn't for a specific cause) or when the cause is seen by the public to be not worthy, or is unable to be understood by the general public, then people get suspicious.

Unfortunately, because most real science is beyond the comprehension (at any in depth level) of the man in the street, he will always be suspicious, because it is human nature to be suspicious of that which we don't understand. (Just be glad we've come a long way since the days when people were burned at the stake because others couldn't understand them). So the scientists of our society will always have to put up with this suspicion, because they will always be pioneers, investigating the unknown. Also, people are probably subconsciously scared of what a scientist can say, as they may have or develop the 'power' and knowledge to turn everything we know about our world upon it's head, and people don't like that. They like the security of believing that they know how it all works. (Also related to why religious types are suspicious of scientists even more so - one day they might prove them wrong!)

most people in my high school think science is for losers. and they're cool. so they dont like science. :m: