**1. Introduction**

In recent years, there has been an increasing advance in various disciplines such as genetics, biotechnology or information technology. There is almost unanimous agreement that the generation and application of scientific and technological knowledge is playing a key role in the improvement of quality of life in society, productive modernization, and the insertion of some countries on the global stage. However, these rapid changes are also having serious effects, leading to discussions about their current or future use and their social, ethical implications. To date, these changes have also modified our environment.

Universal scientific knowledge and its recent development have been enabling a technoeconomic universality. But questions have also been raised about the deepening of social inequalities and the asymmetrical appropriations of knowledge. At the same time, our societies have experienced major political development that has opened up all areas of public policy to social scrutiny and citizen participation. Despite this, science and technology are still perceived as something distant by some citizens. Still, intense activity in the area of scientific communication and popularization in the last decade may be changing that perception. That is why it is necessary to open public policies on science and technology to the sensitivities and opinions of the people who are affected and interested, to facilitate the practical viability of innovation and depth in the democratization of the systems. The studies of public perception of science and technology are taking a leading role in these aspects.

As we saw earlier (Pérez Sedeño and Miranda Suárez, 2008), studies on the public perception of science and technology originate in the Anglo-Saxon world, with the movements *Scientific Literacy* and *Public Understanding of Science*. The first is a North American movement that seeks to measure the degree of scientific literacy in society, designing surveys where basic scientific questions are asked about well-established facts. That is, questions about content are posed, without taking into account the complexity of the scientific activity. But science isn't only knowledge in the sense of 'information' about facts and pieces of information; of extreme importance are procedures, processes and the nature of the knowledge according to the subjects and techniques applied, as well as the social values in which they are expressed.

Crossings on Public Perception of Biomedicine: Spain and the European Indicators 185

example, to value the potential popular support for measures that increase public spending on R+D or that establish certain priorities for programs on investigation, innovation, etc.

Works done on the public perception of science have taken form thanks to combined and parallel work relating to North American and European surveys done by Jon D. Miller's investigative groups in the United States and by John Durant in Great Britain. Their emphasis on specifying dimensions of concrete analysis in comparable questionnaires helped these investigations to extend throughout Europe and other countries, so that in the 1990s they were already beginning to have a significant level of empirical foundation.

In the last decades, several researchers have been carrying out periodic surveys on interest, perception and public opinion about science and technology in general, or just some particular aspects of them. Within the United States, The National Science Board of the National Science Foundation (NSF) prepares the Science and Engineering Indicators report on a biannual basis. With this, not only have they continued to carry out surveys on public attitudes towards science and technology since the 1970s, but they also consider promotional strategies and recommendations to incorporate into national policies. In the European experience, the role of the European Commission is important in implementing action frameworks through programs like the Forecasting and Assessment of Science and Technology (FAST program). This program sought to predict and analyze the consequences of the incorporation of new technologies in the Framework Programs of R+D. Hence, the emergence of specific analytical lines, such as robotics or biotechnology, in Eurobarometers allowed to measure questions of understanding of science at European level in recent times. The specific choice of public understanding of science as the study of opinion and attitudes from the Eurobarometer from 1992 to 2010 is essentially due to three reasons. Firstly, decisions influenced by science increasingly make up a more direct part of our everyday acts, albeit unconsciously. Moreover, for an advanced society to effectively develop and participate in decisions that affect it, it is essential that a minimum scientific culture extends horizontally across it. Finally, in the current society of knowledge, scientific training of

In the Ibero-American area, although they have been conducting studies of understanding for more than twenty years, it is only recently that they began to conduct standardized surveys on a regular basis. In this sense, the Organization of Ibero-American States (OEI, Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos) and the Network of Indicators on Science and Technology (RICYT, Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología) have promoted these types of comparative studies, progressively achieving institutional support such as the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT) or Centro REDES (Argentina), among others. These three institutions now have a priority objective, namely, to attain an Ibero-American standard of indicators of social understanding and scientific culture, which

In Spain, the FECYT has carried out national surveys on public understanding of science and technology biannually since 2002, and as in the Eurobarometers, the topics of biotechnology, biomedicine and health are covered separately. These surveys usually measure three different levels of the public relationship with science: degree of interest and information on issues of science and technology, level of scientific knowledge, and attitudes

citizens is increasingly a requirement of democracy.

is in the development stage.

The second movement mentioned, fundamentally of British origin, seeks to assess the capacity of society to understand science, its applications and its relationships to society, and as such the questions asked aren't of scientific content, but rather of a social, political or economic type. So, the more traditional semantic component of the notion of scientific culture, which is reduced to the level of scientific knowledge, is put into question. This other orientation appears more appropriate, as the notion of scientific culture already includes communicative skills and abilities, which also entail outlining a type of culture relative to the organizational forms of scientific production and, above all, its interactions, which also form part of the processes of the *public perception of science*.

Starting from the 1990s, and owing to some controversies arising around certain technologies, a new movement was added: that of science in society. At times, science appears distant and unconnected from society; its objectives aren't understood. Lack of a common language and the rapid progress experienced in certain areas of investigation has increased public concerns, and has contributed to people viewing, with preoccupation or ambivalence, the role that science and technology play in daily life. But science doesn't work in isolation. It is developed in concrete situations, historical and social, and scientists are subjects that produce situated knowledges. One of the main contributions that favored the growth in objectivity via the democratization of knowledge and scientific practices has been the role of feminist epistemologies, represented by the feminist point of view of Sandra Harding, the contextual empiricism of Helen Longino and the situated knowledges of Donna Haraway. They deny both neutral science practiced by an universal subject, as well as epistemological relativism. And they champion the democratization of science, consistent in the incorporation of a plurality of perspectives, by way of the annulment of personal idiosyncrasies, a process called cognitive democracy. In this, consensus is the result of a critical dialog where all the relevant perspectives are represented and where obtaining knowledge, scientific-technological advances, isn't an objective in its own right. As such, in recent years an interest in public participation and governance has developed, not just in political discourse and academic analysis, but also in scientific and technological development. Controversies like that of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or important crises like that brought on by Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), the so called Mad Cow Disease, have reduced public confidence in how scientific and technological developments are handled.

The European Union (EU) has made this movement its own to the point of transforming its program *Science, Economy and Society* into *Science in Society,* within the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). The explicit objective is to "'bring science closer to citizens' (European Commission, 2002: 7), in order to 'provide a space for scrutiny and informed debate on important issues of public concern'"(European Commission, 2002: 17), but also to analyze not only the inherent benefits but also the dangers, limits and failures of science. In this sense, knowing what citizens think of science and technology, of its benefits and detriments, and of scientists, is vital.

One of the best instruments to do this are surveys of the public perception of science and technology. These surveys respond to a dual motivation, theoretical and practical. On the one hand, it's about improving understanding of the scientific/cultural situation as an important aspect of the general culture of a country, a region or a specific collective. On the other, it's also about making relevant information available for practical ends like, for

The second movement mentioned, fundamentally of British origin, seeks to assess the capacity of society to understand science, its applications and its relationships to society, and as such the questions asked aren't of scientific content, but rather of a social, political or economic type. So, the more traditional semantic component of the notion of scientific culture, which is reduced to the level of scientific knowledge, is put into question. This other orientation appears more appropriate, as the notion of scientific culture already includes communicative skills and abilities, which also entail outlining a type of culture relative to the organizational forms of scientific production and, above all, its interactions, which also

Starting from the 1990s, and owing to some controversies arising around certain technologies, a new movement was added: that of science in society. At times, science appears distant and unconnected from society; its objectives aren't understood. Lack of a common language and the rapid progress experienced in certain areas of investigation has increased public concerns, and has contributed to people viewing, with preoccupation or ambivalence, the role that science and technology play in daily life. But science doesn't work in isolation. It is developed in concrete situations, historical and social, and scientists are subjects that produce situated knowledges. One of the main contributions that favored the growth in objectivity via the democratization of knowledge and scientific practices has been the role of feminist epistemologies, represented by the feminist point of view of Sandra Harding, the contextual empiricism of Helen Longino and the situated knowledges of Donna Haraway. They deny both neutral science practiced by an universal subject, as well as epistemological relativism. And they champion the democratization of science, consistent in the incorporation of a plurality of perspectives, by way of the annulment of personal idiosyncrasies, a process called cognitive democracy. In this, consensus is the result of a critical dialog where all the relevant perspectives are represented and where obtaining knowledge, scientific-technological advances, isn't an objective in its own right. As such, in recent years an interest in public participation and governance has developed, not just in political discourse and academic analysis, but also in scientific and technological development. Controversies like that of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) or important crises like that brought on by Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), the so called Mad Cow Disease, have reduced public confidence in how scientific and

The European Union (EU) has made this movement its own to the point of transforming its program *Science, Economy and Society* into *Science in Society,* within the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7). The explicit objective is to "'bring science closer to citizens' (European Commission, 2002: 7), in order to 'provide a space for scrutiny and informed debate on important issues of public concern'"(European Commission, 2002: 17), but also to analyze not only the inherent benefits but also the dangers, limits and failures of science. In this sense, knowing what citizens think of science and technology, of its benefits and detriments,

One of the best instruments to do this are surveys of the public perception of science and technology. These surveys respond to a dual motivation, theoretical and practical. On the one hand, it's about improving understanding of the scientific/cultural situation as an important aspect of the general culture of a country, a region or a specific collective. On the other, it's also about making relevant information available for practical ends like, for

form part of the processes of the *public perception of science*.

technological developments are handled.

and of scientists, is vital.

example, to value the potential popular support for measures that increase public spending on R+D or that establish certain priorities for programs on investigation, innovation, etc.

Works done on the public perception of science have taken form thanks to combined and parallel work relating to North American and European surveys done by Jon D. Miller's investigative groups in the United States and by John Durant in Great Britain. Their emphasis on specifying dimensions of concrete analysis in comparable questionnaires helped these investigations to extend throughout Europe and other countries, so that in the 1990s they were already beginning to have a significant level of empirical foundation.

In the last decades, several researchers have been carrying out periodic surveys on interest, perception and public opinion about science and technology in general, or just some particular aspects of them. Within the United States, The National Science Board of the National Science Foundation (NSF) prepares the Science and Engineering Indicators report on a biannual basis. With this, not only have they continued to carry out surveys on public attitudes towards science and technology since the 1970s, but they also consider promotional strategies and recommendations to incorporate into national policies. In the European experience, the role of the European Commission is important in implementing action frameworks through programs like the Forecasting and Assessment of Science and Technology (FAST program). This program sought to predict and analyze the consequences of the incorporation of new technologies in the Framework Programs of R+D. Hence, the emergence of specific analytical lines, such as robotics or biotechnology, in Eurobarometers allowed to measure questions of understanding of science at European level in recent times. The specific choice of public understanding of science as the study of opinion and attitudes from the Eurobarometer from 1992 to 2010 is essentially due to three reasons. Firstly, decisions influenced by science increasingly make up a more direct part of our everyday acts, albeit unconsciously. Moreover, for an advanced society to effectively develop and participate in decisions that affect it, it is essential that a minimum scientific culture extends horizontally across it. Finally, in the current society of knowledge, scientific training of citizens is increasingly a requirement of democracy.

In the Ibero-American area, although they have been conducting studies of understanding for more than twenty years, it is only recently that they began to conduct standardized surveys on a regular basis. In this sense, the Organization of Ibero-American States (OEI, Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos) and the Network of Indicators on Science and Technology (RICYT, Red de Indicadores de Ciencia y Tecnología) have promoted these types of comparative studies, progressively achieving institutional support such as the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT) or Centro REDES (Argentina), among others. These three institutions now have a priority objective, namely, to attain an Ibero-American standard of indicators of social understanding and scientific culture, which is in the development stage.

In Spain, the FECYT has carried out national surveys on public understanding of science and technology biannually since 2002, and as in the Eurobarometers, the topics of biotechnology, biomedicine and health are covered separately. These surveys usually measure three different levels of the public relationship with science: degree of interest and information on issues of science and technology, level of scientific knowledge, and attitudes

Crossings on Public Perception of Biomedicine: Spain and the European Indicators 187

taker is obliged to take a position in each item; however in the Spanish survey they must

8

Graph 1. Informational subjects that interest you (máximum 3 responses) (FECYT , 2006)

believe that future investigative efforts should center mainly on medicine and health.

Among citizens, interest in Medicine and Health (26%) is constant, placing third as a subject of interest in FECYT 2010, behind Work and Employment (32%) and Sports (30%). Regarding the last two, interest may have been influenced by the economic situation, in the first case, and the playing of the World Cup right when the field work was being carried out, in the second. Fifty three point six (53.6) percent of the people are fairly or very interested in medicine and health, although only 29.6% consider themselves fairly or wellinformed on these subjects. By subjects of interest, citizens place medicine and health as the subject of most interest, with 3.58 on a scale of 1 to 5. When asked on the survey about which two areas of investigation should take preference in the future, 78.3% of citizens

30

26

20 19

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

choose three topics from a much wider variety than in the European survey.

7

5

2 2 3

Sports

Medicine and Health Cinema and Live Show s Food and Consumption

Art and Culture Crime reports Education Policy

Environment/Ecology

Science and Technology Economics and Enterprises

> Employment Travel/Tourism Terrorism

Celebrities Immigration

Others Don't know

Astrology/the Ocult

towards science and technology. Other entities such as the BBVA Foundation have also realized some surveys about specific areas of biotechnology and biomedicine (May, 2008).

A few years ago, a compilation was published that collected contributions from the most representative figures in the study of social perception of science and scientific culture, under the suggestive title of *Between Understanding and Trust. The Public, Science and Technology*. The volume covers a wide range of subjects, conceptual approaches, methodologies and proposals for disciplinary renovation where, despite their diversity, what stands out is a recurrent agreement that is underlined in the conclusion by the editors: analysis of science's credibility and the trust it arouses in citizens should be considered as the most significant points for the future agenda of investigation.
