Brazilians Regard Religious Leaders as More Reliable Than Academic Scientists

RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL – How does scientific research impact your life and that of other Brazilians?

Based on this question, a national research survey sought to assess the perception of science and technology and their contribution (or not) to society and people’s daily lives.

The study was an initiative of the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Communications and was prepared by the Centre for Strategic Studies and Management (CGEE), a social organization providing services to the ministry.

The survey showed a more considerable skepticism of Brazilians in relation to science when compared to previous years.

Of those interviewed, 31 percent said they viewed nothing but advantages in this type of knowledge, compared to 54 percent in 2015.

This year’s survey showed a reversal in the growing trend of a positive assessment in recent editions.

Overall, other categories where perception also considers harm, have increased in this year’s survey.

The percentage of people interviewed who have also come to see harm in science, although to a lesser degree than the benefits, has risen from nineteen percent in 2015 to 42 percent in 2019.

Those who view both benefits and harm grew from 12 to 19 percent over the same period.

In the authors’ assessment, however, the rate of individuals showing a more positive outlook (with a greater perception of benefits) remains high, above seventy percent.

This would suggest that scientific production retains a positive reference among Brazilians, according to those responsible for the study. “You may notice a variation, but 73 percent generally retain their interest and consider that it brings more benefits than harm. We believe that this is a positive result regardless of the context.”

“Whether we have resources or not, the importance of Science and Technology remains at very high levels,” says Márcio Miranda, president of CGEE, the organization behind the study.

What is a Scientist?

However, there were also variations concerning the perception of scientists. Perceiving them as “intelligent individuals who do useful things for humanity” fell from 55 percent in the 2015 edition to 41 percent in 2019.

The designation “ordinary people with special training” increased from thirteen to 23 percent over the same period.

Moreover, the perception of scientists as “serving economic interests and producing knowledge in not always desirable fields” rose from seven to eleven percent in both editions of the survey.

Scientists do not rank among the most reliable sources of information. Only twelve percent of respondents listed academics as such, while fifteen percent listed religious leaders, 26 percent listed physicians, and 26 percent listed journalists.

However, according to the authors, the data confirm the prestige of scientists, as these do not feature among the unreliable sources, where politicians (72 percent), journalists (six percent) and religious, artists and military (four percent in each category) are included.

The authors designed what they termed a “confidence index”, combining different insights into the respondents’ positive and negative responses of various institutions.

In this ranking, scientists from universities and public research centers ranked second (0.84), behind doctors (0.85). This performance is due to the fact that scientists are not perceived as unreliable sources.

Topics and museums

The survey also asked respondents on topics of interest.

Science & technology ranks fourth (62 percent), below health and medicine (79 percent), environment (76 percent), and religion (69 percent).

The survey interviewed 2,200 people in all regions of the country, with specific information by gender, age, education, income, and place of residence.

According to the authors, the research maintained the categories and questions of previous editions and consistent with other international studies on the same topic.

This article was drafted with automated assistance and reviewed before publication. How we use AI · Report an error