Sociologists from the Institute for Statistical Studies and Economics of Knowledge at the Higher School of Economics (ISEES), with the participation of the Levada Center, study the attitude of Russians towards science and new technologies since 1995.
Scientists have developed their system of indicators in order to compare the data obtained in Russia with the results of research conducted both in the countries of the European Union (they are published in the Eurobarometer publications) and around the world (published in the collections of the National Science Foundation of the United States). These indicators form two blocks: the task of the first group of indicators is to reveal the attitude of respondents to the results of scientific research, the second is to assess people's attitude to scientific activity and to scientists. The next survey was conducted in 2006, a representative sample of 2107 Russians.
Olga Shuvalova, the leading researcher of the Center for Statistics and Monitoring of Education of the ISEHE, told about the findings of the survey at the regular seminar of the ISEH of SU-. Our review is devoted to the main theses, voiced in her speech on the topic "The population's opinion on science and innovations: the main indicators".
Research topics Environmental issues and medicine are the two topics of greatest interest. They are interested in the population more than the search for new technologies, space exploration and nuclear energy problems. I must say that in other countries there is the same trend.
To the question "Do we need scientific knowledge in everyday life? "More than half of Russians (57%) answered positively. According to this result, Russia is on the 10th place: the most positive responses were in the USA (85%), the least - in Bulgaria (22%).
What is scientific knowledge? Criterion of awareness of the population about science researchers took the answer to the question: "Is astrology a science? ". It turned out that 48% of the polled Russians consider it a science (against 18% who deny it). According to this indicator, Russia was on the 29th place. The extreme values ??are as follows: in Finland, 77% of respondents are convinced that astrology is not a science, and, conversely, in 62% of respondents in Romania consider it a science. (In this connection, Polite. Ru "addressed a number of Russian astrophysicists: Vladimir Reshetnikov, Dmitry Viba and Sergei Popov, with a request to comment on the results. Regardless of each other, they noted that people's attitude towards astrology is not the most successful and relevant criterion of people's knowledge of science -. At the end of the article).
What is the level of scientific literacy of Russians? 85% of the population believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not vice versa. Representation of the structure of the earth's crust (the motion of the continents) is possessed by 72% of the respondents, about the hot center of the Earth - 69%. With the fact that the human ancestors originated from animals, 52% of Russians agree. With the fact that electrons are less than an atom - 49%. 44% of Russians are aware of the origin of the universe (big bang theory). 34% believe that the radiation created by man. Only one-third of those surveyed represent how the laser works. And 53% believe that antibiotics kill both bacteria and viruses. If we compare the degree of correctness of answers to seven test questions, then Russia will be in 32nd place. Alas, school knowledge quickly escapes from the head of Russians. In the first place in terms of knowledge of the population - Sweden and Finland, at the last - Bulgaria, Turkey and China. Among the countries of the former socialist camp in the top ten were the Czech Republic and Slovenia.
Thus, the declared interest and positive attitude towards science in Russia does not correspond to the real level of scientific knowledge of Russians. According to Olga Shuvalova, "this shows that the interest in science in our country is more of an" ideology "left over from Soviet times".
The prestige of the profession The survey also showed that the prestige of the profession of a scientist is not high: on the prestige scale, Russians have chosen only the ninth place for the profession of a scientist, while Americans are the first, and the citizens of the European Union - the second. Only 36% of Russians would like to see their child as a scientist (compare with 80% of Americans). At the same time, the programmer's career was approved by 55% of Russians, and teachers - only 21% of respondents.
It is interesting that the attitude towards scientists leaving abroad has changed over the past ten years, has become less categorical and more tolerant. In 2006, the number of those who approved the departure and those who condemned it was approximately the same (29 and 32%).
It should also pay attention to the fact that since 1997 the confidence of Russians in the high level of Russian science has been growing steadily. Thus, 34% rated it as exceeding the world average, and 21% recognized it to be lower than in other countries. Interestingly, 48% of respondents believe that the qualifications of Russian scientists are higher than foreign ones, and only 9% believe that it is clearly lower. Nevertheless, more than half of the respondents noted that Russia is lagging behind the developed countries in introducing new technologies into industry and everyday life, as well as in providing computers and developing the Internet.
What do Russians think about state policy in the field of science and innovation? 81% of respondents agree that the state should support fundamental research, against 6% who disagree. ("Basic research" was understood to mean those that do not bring people immediate benefit, but increase the general knowledge of mankind about nature and the world).
New technologies When will Russia reach the technological level of developed countries? The answer to this question was revealed by 26% of optimists who believe that it has already reached this level, or will reach within 10 years. 10% of pessimists think that our country will not catch up with developed countries. Meanwhile, 69% of Russians agree that economic development requires the introduction of new technologies.
Interesting answers to the question about the consequences of the development of science. In Russia, 63% of the population agrees that science is more useful than harm. The most optimistic answers in this regard were given in China (96% of the population assess the consequences of the development of science positively). And most pessimists turned out ... in Japan and the Netherlands, despite the fact that in these countries a high level of scientific literacy of the population. The situation is paradoxical to some extent: the more people know about science, the more skeptical of its consequences.
What new technologies Russians perceive as the most vital? In the first place, they installed technologies for water purification and water quality restoration in natural reservoirs, ahead of studies on effective cancer treatment. In general, the population agrees that all the proposed new technologies improve the quality of life with the exception of genetically modified products (only 9% of Russians are positive about GM products).
Which of the new technologies do Russians consider permissible to use under some degree of control? 87% of respondents would allow genetic testing of hereditary diseases, and 82% would approve genetic methods of treatment. 59% would allow the microchips to be implanted in the brain to improve memory. 30% of respondents would allow cloning to obtain tissue for transplantation, 31% - cloning of endangered species of animals, and cloning of the child from one of the parents in a childless couple would be allowed only 14%. The negative attitude is caused by genetically modified crops, 65% would not plant them on site, while 13% would experiment if they were convinced that it is harmless - they would be planted along with the usual ones.
The distribution of Russians according to "types of innovative behavior" - their willingness to buy new products - showed that only 6% of respondents are classified as "enthusiasts", 27% - "innovators", 47% - "conservatives" and 20% "Anti-innovators". In comparison with the European countries on the innovative type of behavior, Russia was in the last 30th place.
Famous Russian astronomer, d. Fiz. -mat. , Professor of the Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics of St. Petersburg State University, Leading Researcher of the Astronomical Research Institute. Soboleva (NIAI) of St. Petersburg State University, Vladimir Reshetnikov:.
When I hear how astrology is mentioned as a science or as a source of some kind of information, I feel an acute sense of unreality of what is happening - so astrology contradicts everything that we know about the world around us. I always want to ask supporters of astrology, do they believe in alchemy? In response to the natural indignation that alchemy is supposedly not a science and it has long been known, one can ask - what do they really differ from each other? Both "sciences" are known since ancient times, both of them had adherents among very well-known scientists (AND. Newton, for example, was involved in alchemical research for a considerable part of his life). So how do they differ from each other and why is astrology a science, and alchemy not? These questions are, of course, partly rhetorical - if a third of the country's population does not know that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and two-thirds (maybe more) do not know why the seasons happen, then they have science astrology.
The reasons why half of the inhabitants of Russia consider astrology to be science, many are subjective and objective. I will mention only three quite obvious and evidently following from the diagram "Understanding the status of scientific" - the level of science education, the costs of science and its promotion, the influence of the media.
In the diagram, Russia was mainly surrounded by countries that were part of the USSR, or countries from the former "socialist camp". Once in these countries, the teaching of natural disciplines (mathematics, physics, astronomy, and so on. ) Was at a very high level. With the collapse of the system and the disintegration of the USSR, the old approach to education and its priorities were destroyed. Beginning in the 1990s, the level of teaching of exact sciences began to decline, and astronomy generally disappeared from the number of compulsory school subjects. In the system of higher education at least some courses of astronomy are taught only at several faculties of a few universities. (The "Courses of Modern Natural Science", taught at many faculties, often do not give any astronomical information at all. ) All this is very different from the state of affairs in those countries where the majority of respondents do not consider astrology a science. For example, in US universities there are often not just physical faculties, but faculties of "physics and astronomy". The fundamentals of astronomical knowledge are taught very widely - including economists and lawyers. Naturally, people who know what planets and stars are like, how they arise and evolve, how the celestial objects are studied, relate to astrology, at best, with a cheerful bewilderment.
Another obvious feature of the diagram - on its left edge is dominated by countries with large (per unit of population) spending on science and, in particular, on astronomy. As reported several years ago, in the same US, the costs of research in the field of astronomy (including large space observatories) came in second place after biology, ahead of the cost of physics.
In the same countries, much attention is paid to popularization of astronomical achievements - a lot of popular science literature is produced, astronomical observatories regularly release press releases with astronomy news, televised popular science films and interviews with famous scientists. (This contrasts sharply with our media, in which astronomy news is often commented on by astrologers).
The third, already mentioned above, is the systematic propagation of astrology by Russian media with a mass of information. First of all, this of course concerns print production and television. As you know, advertising is the engine of commerce. What television and print does, other than direct advertising of astrology, is not called. Astrological forecasts in central newspapers and on national television channels are something that it is simply impossible to imagine in really developed countries (those on the left edge of the diagram)! Instead of real popular science films (like the TV series "Cosmos" by Karl Sagan), television for some reason shows phantasmagoric creations about polyglot water (water that changes its properties depending on what is written on the glass), about the girl-x-ray, about How shamans saved from drought, knocked on drums, about the astrologers' predictions that have come true (for some reason that they have come true, everyone will know after the events that have happened), and so forth..
With such a dominance of actively advertised media pseudoscience, there is nothing strange in such a high appreciation of astrology. People simply do not understand and do not know that this is not science. Back in the 90s, posing as a persecuted and not recognized retrograde area of ??knowledge, astrology tried (and it partly succeeded) to intercept science from its brand. References to the latest scientific developments, academic degrees - all this still has a certain authority in our country (this is confirmed by the diagram "Opinion on scientific knowledge", as well as the number of dissertations defended by Duma deputies).
Using the self-name "science" and "confirming" this with pseudoscientific terminology, mysterious pictures on computers, constant flickering on the TV screens of impressive looking "experts", astrology partially pulled on itself the authority earned by centuries of development. Voices explaining the true "value" of astrology are simply not audible - they seem boring and boring, not surrounded by an aura of forbidden knowledge and they seem, as it seems, to many media leaders, are not able to attract the reader and the viewer.
* * * Famous Russian astronomer, doctor phiz. -mat. , Leading researcher of the Zvenigorod Observatory of the Institute of Astronomy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, member of the Coordination Council for Youth in the Scientific and Educational Sphere, Dmitry Vibe:.
So, the survey shows that more than half of Russians (57%) consider scientific knowledge useful in everyday life. This, it seems, should inspire optimism, but the impression is spoiled by the fact that at the same time almost half (48%) of our compatriots consider astrology a science. The fact that astrology is not a science, only 18% of Russians know. These numbers lead to suspicion that some of the respondents who agreed with the usefulness of scientific knowledge had in mind something different from the generally accepted notions of scientific character. Strictly speaking, even the question arises: what exactly are the ideas about scientificity now to be considered generally accepted.
However, for more concrete conclusions the question is formulated, perhaps, too abstractly, and the answers to it need refinement. First, some part of these 48% probably mixed up astrology with astronomy, because in the view of many Russians these two concepts, if not synonymous, are definitely related. Sinners are also the journalists who, no-no, yes, they will be called, for example, SAI (State Astronomical Institute) - State Astrological Institute.
Secondly, some of the respondents probably do not consider mass horoscopes as a science in the media, that is, they have some idea of ??scientific nature, but they believe in the existence of "real" astrology, in the practice of which scientific methods are used. In other words, some of the respondents who answered positively to the question of the scientific nature of astrology did this not because they lacked the notion of being scientific, but because there were no intelligible notions of astrology.
Third, even those who did not take astrology to the sciences do not necessarily have a good understanding of the scientific method. Some of them might have thought that they were asked about horoscopes in the media.
In other words, the choice of astrology as a criterion for assessing the notion of scientificity is probably not entirely successful due to the fact that it has at least two sides - frankly "pop" ("Sagittarius today is not recommended to swallow cutting and stabbing objects") and more pseudo-scientific With aspects, houses, etc..
At the same time, the survey nevertheless indicates the extent to which non-surface ideas of scientificity are prevalent (no more than 18%), and this number is very alarming - especially in comparison with the high proportion of respondents who recognized the usefulness of science. It means that there are a lot of people in the country who still (probably because of the inertia of past enthusiasm) trust science, but they can not really determine what it is like. This category, of course, is very susceptible to all kinds of pseudoscientific research, which, unfortunately, does not make you wait. Attempts to combat pseudoscience against the background of an almost complete lack of popularization of "normal" science only create pseudoscience additional advertising.
* * * Russian astronomer, famous popularizer of science, to. Fiz. -mat. , Research associate of the Department of Relativistic Astrophysics of the State Astronomical Institute named after P. Shternberg (GAISH), Moscow State University, member of the Coordination Council for Youth in the scientific and educational spheres, Sergei Popov:.
In my opinion, the level of professional science in the country can badly correlate with the scientific level of the population as a whole. The scientific level, ultimately, is determined by a very small percentage of people. A similar situation often happens in sports, when the nation is not too athletic, or this species does not enjoy mass popularity, but the national team performs at a very high level. In addition, a good organization of science is important. There are situations when the availability of a large number of "scientific employees" is not automatically converted into a high level of science.
It is all the more difficult to expect a clear correlation between the need for scientific knowledge in everyday life and the standard of living in the country. Perhaps a similar situation can arise in art. For example, a country can be poor and few-read, but give the world a pleiad of bright writers. And vice versa, a prosperous country with a positive attitude toward literature (with sensible criticism, with good faculties of literature and t. ) For a long time will only give mediocre authors.
Mass surveys about science rather reflect the level and type of school education, plus the level of mass popularization in the country. Moreover, the results of surveys (as well as test results) may not accurately reflect the level of understanding. , People can "like a spell" to learn that "scientific knowledge is necessary in everyday life", but it will be difficult to understand what "scientific knowledge" is, mixing them, for example, with the ability to program well or understand the basic principles that determine the functioning of the market valuable papers.
As for astrology proper. I do not think that with mass surveys we come across an opinion based on a deep understanding of the issue. I know quite a lot of quite educated people (including school teachers) who knowingly respect the science with deep respect, but at the same time their attitude to astrology is at least vague and they read horoscopes. If they tried to understand in any detail the true status of astrology, they would easily and quickly be able to make sure of its unscientific. But they do not do it. And I do not exclude that some of them can give a positive answer to the question of the scientific nature of astrology.
On the other hand, I know many people who are fascinated by some pseudoscientific theory, but they do not consider astrology to be science. , In my opinion, although to some extent the mass attitude to astrology is indicative, but on its basis it would be somewhat presumptuous to draw conclusions about the understanding of the status of scientific character in general.
Well, of course, if the population massively believes that the predictions of astrologers are not justified. Probably, in such a country they will not spend public money on astrological predictions in the interests of the military or on some other "strangenesses" of the kind. Politicians will be playing there who are known to consult with astrologers when making important decisions. And this correct opinion will be for the benefit of society.
Nevertheless, this, unfortunately, does not yet guarantee a mass correct view of "scientific nature" as such. And with another pseudoscientific theory (with some, for example, alternative history, some inadequate approach to the treatment of diseases, and so on. ) May crash. Let's say, I know that some very powerful scientists wore. «Zirconium bracelets».
To clarify the understanding of the status of science, in my opinion, it would be better to address issues related to alternative medicine. Or questions about the possibility of technical implementation of devices that require the violation of some well-established laws (for example, based on the "screening of gravity"). The status of attitude to astrology, rather, is to be clarified on questions in the spirit: "Have you ever taken an important decision based on an astrological forecast?".