Effects of age on the perception of science and technology: a comparative study of two Brazilian surveysAbstract
Indicators of the public perception of science and technology (S&T) are essential for strategic decision-making, providing input for closer exchange between science and diverse audiences. Our article aims to investigate the effects of age on interest, opinions, and attitudes regarding science and technology, comparing the results of two surveys with representative samples of the young and adult Brazilian population. The results show that the two audiences have positive views and high interest in S&T, but that they rarely visit spaces dedicated to cultural scientific activities. Young Brazilians expressed greater interest than adults in S&T. Even with less explicit interest in S&T and less contact with cultural scientific activities, adults were more likely to support more funding for S&T in Brazil. Whether for young people or adults, regional aspects should be considered in the perception and public communication of science and technology in Brazil to establish more assertive activities.
Key words
science communication; young people; youth; adults; public perception of S&T
INTRODUCTION
According to Pierre Bourdieu (2003), it only makes sense to define young people and adults if the two groups are placed in opposition to each other, since they bear a direct relationship: one exists because the other exists. Bourdieu further argues that youth and adulthood are social constructs, varying according to time, place, and the group to which one belongs. They are thus not universal or natural categories and cannot be defined merely by age bracket or biological age. Corroborating Bourdieu (2003), Cassab (2011) argues that to define young people (social subjects) and youth (a life phase) is an arduous and complex task, since their meanings and representations are shaped by social, economic, and cultural contexts over time. In the same historical period, different experiences coexist for young people, shaped by differential access to resources (Cassab 2011). That is, youth is diverse and plural (youths).
Another example of the complexity and difficulty in obtaining a definition of youth based on biological age or development currently involves globalization, which affects the construction of identities, causing the extension of the transition to adulthood and entry into the labor market in industrialized countries, besides a delay in assuming traditional adult roles (Paulino et al. 2021).
For a definition of age, widely used by various institutions and national and international agencies, the United Nations Organization for Education, Science, and Culture (UNESCO) defines youth according to biological and psychological parameters, following orientation by the United Nations, defined in the 1985 General Assembly as the age bracket from 15 to 24 years with flexibility at the two extremes considering contextual specificities (UNESCO 2004).
To discuss the concepts “young person” (social subject), “youth” (viewed as a time-limited process), and “youths” (“youth” in its diversity during the same period), we thus use “youths” in the plural, also broadly shaped by socioeconomic contexts. Meanwhile, the definition of adulthood involves the same reflections and difficulties and is even more complex, since it covers a long period of life with different stages and transitions (Levinson 1986). Thus, the meanings of youth or adulthood are not limited to biological age alone, but involve a series of transformations, social, cultural, and economic expectations, and context.
In Brazil, a continental-sized country with significant regional differences, youth or adulthood in the different regions also depend on access to available resources. According to the UNDP (2022), Brazil’s Human Development Index (HDI)1 in 2021-2022 was 0.754 (high human development), classifying the country as 87th in the global ranking. However, according to the Municipal Human Development Index (Atlas do Desenvolvimento Humano no Brasil 2025)1 for the same period, the states of Brazil with the lowest HDIM are in the North and Northeast regions, while those with the highest HDIM are in the Southeast and South. The states of Maranhão and Alagoas have the lowest HDIM (0.676 and 0.684, respectively), while São Paulo and Distrito Federal have the highest (0.806 and 0.814, respectively).
Based on these debates, does youth versus adulthood in Brazil influence perceptions and attitudes toward science, scientists, and scientific institutions? Do Brazil’s different regional contexts impact the perceptions of young people and adults on science? What are the opinions, interests, and habits of young people and adults in relation to the field of science? Do the similarities (and differences) translate as challenges for policymakers, educators, and communicators?
The article aims to compare public perception of science and technology between two groups, young people and adults, based on surveys with representative samples of the Brazilian population, seeking to highlight similarities and differences. Our analysis assumes the definition of youth (15 to 24 years) proposed by UNESCO (2004), and we assume the adult population as 25 years or older. The respective databases are from two surveys conducted in 2024, with representative samples of the Brazilian population.
Public understanding of science and technology and its indicators
Although the spirit of science may emphasize universalism, contributions to the global science community, and promotion of the common good, the practice, financing, governance, and application of science depend on the world’s economic structures with national borders, vested interests, and flagrant conflicts and inequalities, thus restricting the free flow of scientific and technological knowledge (Peters 2022). This context requires a public understanding of science that allows citizens to obtain a more realistic picture of science, where science communication is comprehensive, not limited to more popular issues and topics or activities and events that generate more attention (Wilkinson 2021). The context also requires pursuing mechanisms to confront misinformation in science (West & Bergstrom 2021) and denialist movements (Szwako 2024).
Citizens’ participation in the production, appropriation, legitimation, and communication of technical and scientific knowledge is a central and strategic aspect of contemporary democracies, with governments encouraging technical and scientific development, seeking the population’s support for research (Castelfranchi et al. 2016) and fomenting the discussion of complex issues, the broad understanding of which should be possible for all citizens (Lewenstein & Brossard 2010). The democratization of science and promotion of the discussion of complex issues with the population are related to access to technical and scientific knowledge, encompassing formal and informal education, access to quality information, and access to science spaces (which are currently insufficient and poorly distributed across the different regions of Brazil). For example, according to the Guidebook on Science Centers in Latin America and the Caribbean, of the 221 science spaces available in Brazil, 8% are in the North, 5% in the Central-West, 19% in the Northeast, 20% in the South, and 49% in the Southeast region (Massarani et al. 2023).
Castelfranchi (2010) contends that the communication of scientific culture serves the best interests of democracy and citizenry due to its instrumental usefulness for making rational and informed decisions in daily life. Meanwhile, it entails a value that is not instrumental, but aesthetic, intellectual, and moral. Communicating science is not only a choice for the professionals involved directly in the matter, but is essential for the functioning of technoscience itself, which requires society’s support and financing; the field’s professionals depend on trust in science and scientists, trust in the interlocutors, knowing where to search for science and the specialists that are prepared to speak in its name and in whom we can trust, according to their respective fields (Shappin, 2008). In Brazil, 64% of the population 16 years or older report that they trust (or trust greatly) in Brazilian scientists and 69% in Brazilian science (Massarani et al. 2022).
Researchers from Brazilian federal universities identify limitations that hinder the communication of their work. According to a survey in the second semester of 2018 with 580 researchers from these universities, Da Costa (2022) found that 85% agreed totally or partially that the scientific community cared more about sharing its research results among its own peers than about communicating them to society, while 74% felt that most researchers were not concerned with reporting the social results of their research, hindering the understanding by the outside community, and 78% rarely or never divulged their research spontaneously to specialized science journalists and 65% rarely or never encouraged their graduate students to divulge their research to the external media (radio, television, newspapers, magazines, or blogs). They reported that most science communication teams (66%) had little or no interest in divulging research results in their areas of knowledge through institutional channels, and that it would be important (“very important” + “important”) for universities to have a press relations handbook with orientation for researchers who are (or may become) information sources (80%), besides a formally approved policy on the communication of research results (88%) (Da Costa 2022).
Bauer (2008), discussing public understanding of science, points to a double meaning for the expression: activities that aim to draw science closer to the population and thus promote its public understanding and social research with empirical methods to capture the public’s understanding of science and the ways such understanding can vary according to time and context. The double meaning of public understanding of science proposed by the author converges with a crucial question: when one understands the public’s understanding of science, does the choice of activities and methodologies for the approach become more efficient and assertive?
A literature review on the popularization of science from the perspective of science, technology, and society (STS), conducted by Koswatta et al. (2023), identified five categories of factors that influence the public perception of science: “type of science being communicated” (examples: nanotechnology, climate changes, genetically modified organisms), “audience beliefs” (religious and political, trust in science, perceived risks and benefits, and preexisting attitudes), “socio-demographics”, “sources of”, and “environment”.
Studies on the public perception of S&T basically propose the following indicators: interest, seeking to understand the importance society assigns to scientific research; knowledge, assessing the understanding of scientific concepts; and attitudes, subdivided into attitudes regarding public financing of scientific research and perception of risks and harms from science (CGEE 2023, Carvalho 2022, Polino, 2015). Other indicators are also considered in such studies, as those on trust in scientists and knowledge of local science (Massarani et al. 2024, CGEE 2023, Massarani et al. 2021a).
Qualitative and quantitative studies on public perception help design indicators and define projects and public policies on a given theme in various countries, one specific country, regions, states or cities, where the target audience is the general population. Depending on the objective, besides defining the geographic area, it is necessary to approach specific audiences with socioeconomic characteristics, values, life stages and cycles, and beliefs for alignment and assertiveness of their applications and of the public communication of science and technology.
Besides studies on the perception of S&T by the general population in various countries (Fagundes 2024, Carvalho 2022, Massarani et al. 2021a, Tolentino-Neto 2008, Pinafo 2016, Bauer 2008, Bauer et al. 2007, Guivant 2006) and in Brazil (CGEE 2023, Castelfranchi et al. 2016, Fapesp 2011, CNPq/Gallup 1987), surveys in various countries have approached the audience 15 to 24 years of age (Massarani et al 2021b, Mendes 2019). Two surveys of young Brazilians have been performed (Massarani et al. 2021a; Massarani et al. 2024). Qualitative studies have also addressed the theme, including “Perceptions of young people in Rio de Janeiro about science and technology.” (Mendes, 2019), “Communication, Science, Technology, and Knowledge: perception by secondary students in a rural area in Pernambuco state, Brazil” (Maciel & Souza 2018), and “How do teenagers learn about science and the profession of scientist?” (Reznik et al. 2017)
In short, indicators of public perception of S&T are important for making strategic decisions to democratize the production, appropriation, legitimation, and communication of technical and scientific knowledge, considering its impacts on society and on diverse audiences. Such indicators are thus a thermometer for assessing progress in the area with different audiences and their contexts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To achieve our objectives, we used the databases from two surveys: “What do young Brazilians think about S&T? – 2024 survey”, conducted by the National Institute of Public Communication of Science (INCT-CPCT) and “Public perception of science and technology in Brazil – 2023”, conducted by the Center for Management of Strategic Studies (CGEE). Table I lists the characteristics of the databases from the two surveys selected for this article. Data were collected through individual interviews in close periods and with similar methodologies.
The data collection instrument for “survey 1” underwent a pre-test that included cognitive interviews to identify possible effects in the answers generated by the questions, the sequence of options for the answers, and misunderstanding of the terms and concepts, among others. The questionnaire’s final version consisted of 53 questions, divided into the following sections: interest in the area; meaning assigned to S&T; information, consumption, and habits (consumption of content and visits to science and culture spaces); image and prestige regarding scientists and trust in scientists as information sources; attitudes and perceptions related to progress and risks associated with S&T; endorsement of and support for the area; and knowledge of and familiarity with scientific concepts.
The questionnaire in “survey 2” consisted of 43 questions on the following: interest in the area; misinformation and trust in scientists; information habits and engagement; views and attitudes toward S&T; knowledge, familiarity with science, and beliefs; evaluation of S&T and endorsement of/support for the area; perception of risks; and attitudes on specific themes.
Despite differences between the surveys in the premises, organization of sections, and final definition of the questionnaire, we identified identical or very similar questions between the two, which facilitated comparison and understanding of the differences and similarities between the two audiences. There were 20 such questions, related to interest in science and technology, environment, and medicine and health; cultural scientific activities - frequency of visitation to cultural spaces; support for, investment in, and perceptions of S&T, scientific and technological research; and knowledge of research professionals and institutions and trust in information.
The 20 common questions cover two dimensions of studies on public perception of S&T: “interest”, which seeks to understand the importance society assigns to scientific research; and “attitudes”, covering two groups: attitudes toward public funding of scientific research and perception of risks and benefits from science (Carvalho 2022, Polino 2015). It was not possible to compare the “knowledge” dimension because the surveys used different questions.
To conduct the comparison, we used the complete database from “survey 1” to represent the audience 15 to 24 years of age (n = 2,276) and excluded interviewees 16 to 24 years of age from the database of “survey 2” to represent the adult audience, 25 years or older (n = 1,586). To indicate differences or similarities between the two audiences, we adopted a minimum variation of five percentage points between the two surveys. Comparisons by region of Brazil and sex were performed separately for each audience, merely indicating how each of them behaves, without directly comparing the percentages between the two audiences. Comparisons of the two audiences by region of Brazil and sex were performed using the total results from each survey on each question and a minimum variation of 5%.
RESULTS
Support, funding, and perception of science and technology and scientific and technological research
Both adults and young people displayed a predominantly optimistic view of S&T. The two surveys asked interviewees about the benefits of science and technology with different wording of the question1. However, it was possible to infer that both young people and adults tended to view the area as producing benefits for humanity. Among young people, 67% reported that science brings numerous benefits for humanity, while 66% of adults reported that it only produces benefits or that it produces more benefits than harms.
The proportion of interviewees reporting that Brazilian science and technology are backward was similar between young people (49%) and adults (47%). Meanwhile, proportionally more young people than adults considered Brazilian S&T average (40% to 32%), while fewer young people than adults considered it advanced (10% to 15%). Importantly, the proportion of adults who viewed Brazilian scientific and technological research as “advanced” increased significantly with age, from 9% in the 25-34-year age group to 23% among those 60 years or older. This increase occurred as those who viewed Brazilian S&T as “average” decreased.
The two groups were asked about their degree of agreement with some statements on science and technology and scientists, providing more evidence of their perception. Among the various phrases in each survey, three were used in both questionnaires. The great majority of young people and adults responded that they “agree completely” or “agree partially” that science and technology are making their lives more comfortable (81% and 83%, respectively) and that the population should be heard on major decisions concerning the directions of science and technology (84% and 88%, respectively).
In relation to scientists’ responsibility for society’s misuse of their discoveries, we identified evidence of caution and differences between the two audiences: 53% of young people agreed at least partially that the phrase “scientists are responsible for people’s misuse of their discoveries”, while the proportion in adults was 46%. Interestingly, among adults, agreement with the statement on scientists’ responsibility for their discoveries increased with age, reaching the same proportion of agreement compared to young people in the subgroup 60 years or older (53%).
The two audiences expressed optimistic views of the area’s work and considered Brazilian S&T backward in the same proportion (nearly half), but the proportion of adults who stated that funding for S&T should be increased was significantly greater than among young people (81% and 60%, respectively). Young people were more prone than adults to state that such funding should be maintained at the current level (32% to 12%, respectively). When compared to the totals for each audience in Brazil as a whole, more young people and adults in Northeast Brazil stated that they wanted more funding for S&T; meanwhile young people in the South and adults in the Southeast showed lower proportions who wanted more funding, compared to the national totals for each audience.
Interest in science and technology, environment, and medicine and health
Both young people and adults were asked whether they had “great interest”, “interest”, “little interest”, or “no interest” in certain S&T issues. The main objective was to understand their degree of interest in three of the themes presented to them: “science and technology (S&T)”, “environment”, and “medicine and health”, noting that the latter two are subsumed in S&T. The analysis showed that young people (15 to 24 years) showed more interest (very interested + interested) in science and technology when compared to adults (25 years or older) (68% and 59%, respectively). The two themes subsumed in S&T showed different trends: interest in the “environment” sparked the same interest in both audiences, with 76% interested or very interested, while “medicine and health” had more appeal among adults (79%) compared to young people (66%).
In the adult audience (25 years or older), increasing age was associated with a decline in interest in “S&T” and “environment” and an increase in “medicine and health”, allowing to infer that the various cycles and stages in adulthood (Levinson 1986) impact the level of interest in the area. The 45-59-year subgroup showed growing interest in all three themes when compared to the immediately younger subgroup (35 to 44 years). The proportion of interest in “science and technology” and “environment” was significantly lower in adults 60 years or older when compared to young people (15 to 24 years) and to the other age subgroups of adults (25 years or older). As shown in Figure 1, there was greater interest in “medicine and health” among young people 20 to 24 years of age when compared to young people 15 to 19 years of age.
Interest in themes related to S&T by age bracket. Questions pertaining to Figure 1: Young people (15 to 24 years) – “I’m going to list some topics and would like you to tell me to what degree you are interested in each of them - very interested (a), interested, not very interested, or not at all interested”. Themes: medicine and health, environment, and science and technology. Adults (25 years or older) – “I’m going to read a list of topics and would like you to tell me your level of interest in each of them. Would you say you are not at all interested, a little interested, interested, or very interested in: medicine and health, environment, and science and technology?”
Besides the differences by age group, among both young people and adults, interest in medicine and health was greater among women than men, while interest in S&T was greater among men than women. Concerning interest in the three themes, we also found differences by region of Brazil in both audiences. Standing out was the North of Brazil, where both young people and adults showed greater interest (interested + very interested) in the three themes when compared to the national totals for each audience. Young people in the Central-West region expressed less interest in the “environment” (71%) compared to all young Brazilians. Among adults, besides those in the North of Brazil who displayed greater interest in the three themes, the same occurred with adults in the Central-West.
Another relevant topic among adults compared to young people is religion (70% and 64%, respectively). Sports, art, and culture have more appeal for young people. Among the themes presented to the two audiences, politics drew the least interest: only three out of 10 interviewees (both young people and adults) said they were “very interested” or “interested” in politics.
Cultural scientific activities: frequency of visitation to science spaces
Both questionnaires asked about visits to scientific and cultural spaces in the previous 12 months. Three of the spaces cited in both surveys are similar in the two questionnaires: science museums2, art museums, and libraries. Visitation to the three spaces is infrequent among both young people and adults. Libraries are more present in the lives of young people (32% reported having visited a library in the previous 12 months), although the frequency decreased in the 20-24-year subgroup and dropped to only 8% among adults 60 years or older. The same was true for the subgroups starting at 25 years of age in relation to art museums, although the decline in visitation with increasing age was less sharp. As shown in Figure 2, visitation to science museums was also infrequent (only one in 10 young people or adults had visited a science museum in the previous 12 months), a rate that was practically stable over the course of life cycles (age). The exception was the 20-24-year subgroup, where there was a slight drop in visitation.
Visitation in the previous 12 months by age group. Questions for Figure 2: Young people: “In the last 12 months, have you visited any library? Yes, no, didn’t answer.” “Have you visited any art museums in the last 12 months? Yes, no, didn’t answer.” “Have you visited any science museums or science and technology centers in the last 12 months? Yes, no, didn’t answer.” Adults: “In the last 12 months, have you been to any: Library. Yes, no, didn’t answer. Science and technology museum. Yes, no, didn’t answer. Art museum. Yes, no, didn’t answer.”
In both young people and adults, we found that differences in the reasons stated for not visiting museums and libraries may be related to age group: young people were more likely to report that they “did not have time”, compared to adults (27% and 20%, respectively), and that they “did not have the money to go” (18% and 7%, respectively). Meanwhile, lack of interest was significantly less common among young people (10%) than among adults (21%), while this proportion was 32% among adults 60 years or older. Figure 3 shows the differences between the two audiences.
Reasons for not visiting science and technology museums or centers. Questions for Figure 3: Young people (PROMPTED IN CASE OF NO VISITATION) “What was the main reason for you to NOT visit any Science Museum or Science and Technology Center in the last 12 months? 1. Didn’t have time, 2. There aren’t any in my area, 3. Too far away, 4. Didn’t have the money to go, 5. Don’t know where these centers or museums are located, 6. Not interested, 7. Other reasons. Which? (SPECIFY), 8. Didn’t answer, 9. Don’t remember.” Adults – “What was the main reason for you to NOT visit any Science Museum in the last 12 months? (READ OPTIONS FOR ANSWERS FROM 1 TO 5). 1. Didn’t have time, 2. There aren’t any in my area, 3. Too far away, 4. Didn’t have the money to go, 5. Don’t know where these centers or museums are located, 6. Not interested, 7. Other reasons. Which? Specify: __________, 8. Don’t remember, 9. Didn’t answer.”
As with interest in S&T issues, visitation to these spaces differs by region of Brazil: young people in the Southeast are more likely and those in the Central-West are less likely to visit art museums. Science museums are less visited by adults in the North and Northeast, and libraries are less visited in the Northeast. When asked about the reasons for not visiting science museums, “there aren’t any in my area” was the main reason among adults 25 years or older (29%) and the second most common reason among young people 15 to 24 years of age (22%). The proportion of the answer “there aren’t any in my area” was significantly higher among young people and adults in the North and Northeast and among young people in the Central-West.
Recall and trust in information sources
When asked about Brazilian scientists2 and research institutions, what did the two audiences remember? The rates were also low: only 7% of young people and 9% of adults could remember the name of any Brazilian scientist, while 19% of young people and 16% of adults could remember the name of any Brazilian research institution. Recall of a research institution was slightly higher among young people in Southeast Brazil compared to other young Brazilians. Adults in Northeast Brazil showed a lower proportion of recall of Brazilian scientists and research institutions compared to other Brazilian adults. Adults in the South showed the highest recall rates compared to other Brazilian adults.
Recall of Brazilian scientists and research institutions was low in both audiences, but when asked about sources of information and presented with a list of professionals to state which ones they trusted most for information, “scientists from universities and research institutes” were among the three most trustworthy sources. The sources of information on S&T cited most frequently by young people were teachers/professors3 (41%), doctors (39%), and scientists from universities or research institutes (33%). For adults, the most frequent sources were doctors (46%), journalists (34%), and scientists from universities or research institutes (23%). Figure 4 shows these differences.
Most trustworthy professionals for information on science and technology. Questions for Figure 4: “Of the information sources listed below, WHICH TWO do you trust the most on important issues for you and society? 1. Journalists, 2. Doctors, 3. Clergy, 4. Scientists from universities or research institutes, 5. Scientists working for companies, 6. Representatives from environmental defense organizations, 7. Politicians, 8. Teachers/professors, 9. Artists, 10. None of the above, 11. Didn’t answer; 12. Don’t know”. Adults (25 years or older) – “(SHOW CARD 2) Concerning important issues for you and society, which information source do you trust the MOST, in first place? And in second place? (INCLUDE UP TO TWO ANSWERS IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE). 01. Journalists, 02. Doctors, 03. Scientists working for companies, 04. Clergy, 05. Scientists from universities or public research institutes, 06. Representatives from environmental defense organizations, 07. Politicians, 08. Military personnel, 09. Writers, 10. Artists, 11. None of the above, 12. Doesn’t know. 13. Didn’t answer”.
Among the professionals that appeared on both lists for verifying trustworthiness, the difference between young people and adults for some was significant. Young people were more likely than adults to trust information from scientists belonging to universities or research institutes (33% and 23%, respectively), representatives of environmental defense organizations (15% and 8%, respectively), and artists (12% and 3%, respectively). Meanwhile, adults were more likely than young people to cite doctors (46% and 39%, respectively) and journalists (34% and 18%, respectively). Trust in information sources is especially important for young people, since 53% of this group reported that they had already reposted or shared some fake or potentially fake news, compared to 34% of adults.3
DISCUSSION
The audiences interviewed in the two surveys (young people and adults) displayed similarities and differences in their perceptions of science and technology, suggesting that age partially influences perceptions and attitudes toward science, scientists, and scientific institutions. Age 15 to 24 years versus 25 years or older had little or no impact on the perception of benefits from science and technology, the support for the population’s participation in the directions of scientific research, the perception of backwardness in Brazilian science, or in recalling the names of Brazilian scientists or research institutions.
The results corroborate findings reported by Polino (2012). Comparing the answers by Ibero-American adults and young people on attitudes toward science and technology, the author found that both age groups acknowledge the existence of benefits and risks that should be managed socially. Neither adults nor young people displayed “enthusiastic fanaticism” or “extreme pessimism” toward science, but rather a stance of “trustful criticism” (Polino 2012).
In this sense, to analyze, contextualize, and seek differences in the perception of science and technology on these aspects, other variables such as individual, cultural, and socioeconomic aspects and social factors, access to information and knowledge, individual and collective experiences and feelings, among others (Koswatta et al. 2023, Di Giulio et al 2015) may help provide new input. Different life cycles impact the support for funding in science and technology, interest in S&T topics, visitation to scientific and cultural spaces, the perception of scientists’ responsibility for the application of their research, and reasons for not visiting science spaces (museums and centers), suggesting different challenges for administrators, educators, and communicators.
Young people and adults generally have a positive view of S&T, which does not mean that there are no important challenges for expanding and improving the public understanding and perception of the area. Most interviewees in both groups see S&T as providing benefits for humanity and agree that science and technology are making their lives more comfortable. Notwithstanding a positive overall perception and high interest in S&T, the two audiences also expressed a critical view of the area’s performance, and half of each audience considered Brazilian science backward. However, viewing Brazilian science as backward does not mean that they fail to support domestic S&T (as reflected in attitudes toward public financing of scientific research), since most people in both groups stated that the Brazilian government should increase funding for scientific and technological research in the future.
The results of instrumental advances in science and technology (Castelfranchi 2010) permeate daily reality and are appropriated intentionally or unintentionally, with greater or lesser intensity, depending on socioeconomic contexts and conditions, and are thus a common good. Corroborating this reasoning, most members of both age groups in our study believed that the appropriation of this common good (scientific and technological progress) should be democratic. Therefore, they support the population’s participation in major decisions on the directions of science and technology, reflecting their importance in contemporary democracies (Castelfranchi et al 2016, Polino 2012, Lewenstein & Brossard 2010).
We identified low recall of the names of Brazilian scientists and research institutions in both audiences. Importantly, although the data suggests low name-specific recall, scientists from universities or research institutes were cited among the three most reliable sources of information (with varying proportions) for both young people and adults. Trust in scientists from universities or research institutes corroborate the argument by Castelfranchi (2010) that science communication is not merely a personal choice by professionals involved in the research, but rather is essential for the functioning of technoscience itself, and that trust in experts to speak on scientific research is crucial. It would be useful for Brazilian universities to significantly expand their support for the communication of their researchers’ work, when important gaps have been identified in communication with society (Da Costa 2022). Such expansion or adjustment could contribute significantly to the population’s trust in science and scientists, since 36% of the population 16 years or older expressed little or no trust in Brazilian scientists and 31% in Brazilian science (Massarani et al. 2022). Finally, besides the low recall of names of Brazilian scientists and research institutions, the data reveal another weakness in the democratization and communication of scientific culture in Brazil, since the two audiences reported making little use of science spaces.
We identified specificities in the influence of younger age versus adulthood, providing important clues on the most relevant scientific topics, interlocutors with the greatest appeal, and the most assertive public policies. Young people proved to be more interested than adults in S&T, while adults were more interested than young people in medicine and health. Science communication needs to extend beyond more trendy and popular topics, activities, and events that generate more attention (Wilkinson 2021) and seek contents with greater appeal for communication with each of the audiences. We believe such an approach is more promising and can benefit dialogue with society. Besides the choice of science themes with greater appeal, we identified differences in what were considered more reliable information sources: to talk about S&T, young people highlighted teachers/professors (41%), doctors (39%), and scientists from universities or research institutes (33%); for topics of their interest, adults highlighted doctors (46%), journalists (34%), and scientists from universities or research institutes (23%). We found that adults were more interested in medicine and health and considered doctors their most trustworthy source of information.
Despite declining interest with age in relation to S&T topics and greater distance from cultural scientific activities, adults were more inclined to support and understand the need for more funding for S&T in Brazil (81% of adults compared to 60% of young people). That is, adults were less interested in S&T topics, but their support for funding was greater. This suggests that lesser versus greater interest, or less versus more visitation to science spaces, does not necessarily translate as less support for the area, and that the indicators of perception (Carvalho 2022, Polino 2015) are more useful when observed jointly. Young people participate more in cultural scientific activities and visit libraries and art museums more often than adults. With the same percentage of visitation to science museums, the main reasons for not frequenting such spaces differed between the audiences: young people stated that they “didn’t have time” and “didn’t have money to go” more often than adults, while “lack of interest” was significantly more common in adults, emphasizing the decline in interest in S&T with increasing age. In this context, public policies to encourage access and approaches to the two audiences should be different and assertive.
As for infrequent visitation to art museums, science museums, and libraries, an interesting point emerged again: both young people and adults in the North of Brazil (with low HDI-M) expressed more interest than in other regions of the country and were more likely to report that they do not visit science museums because none exist in their region. The answer “there aren’t any in my area” to justify not visiting science museums was more frequent among both young people and adults in the North and Northeast, which have the states with lower HDI-M (Atlas do Desenvolvimento Humano no Brasil 2025). The insufficient and unequal distribution of science centers and museums across Brazil’s regions (Massarani et al. 2023) is consistent with the answers to the questionnaires, since 8% of such centers and museums are in the North, 5% in the Central-West, 19% in Northeast, 20% in the South, and 49% in the Southeast. Interestingly, the Northeast and South of Brazil have practically the same proportions of Brazil’s science museums (19% and 20%, respectively), while the percentage of young people and adults in the South who claimed that “there aren’t any [such museums] in my area” was significantly lower, suggesting that these science spaces are more publicized and/or appropriated by that region’s population. The data again suggest different needs for public policies focused on this field, to increase the amount of available centers in the country, with greater attention to the North and Central-West, and that besides increasing the number of available science spaces, to improve the use, appropriation, and publicizing of these spaces in the Northeast.
The regional issue and regional inequalities are another important aspect for our analysis (Peters 2022). Both young people and adults in Northeast Brazil (with low HDI-M in the states) reported that they want more funding for S&T, while young people in the South and adults in the Southeast (with high HDI-M in the states) were those expressing the lowest percentage wanting more funding, compared to the totals for the country, besides the fact that interest in S&T was higher in the North, where both young people and adults expressed greater interest than in the other regions.
Besides the definition of age brackets for young people versus adults (UNESCO, 2004), the data provide food for thought on the importance of an attentive view of regional differences and age subgroups among adults, since the data show that different life stages in adulthood (Levinson 1986) influence the perception of S&T.
CONCLUSIONS
Our study aimed to compare the public perception of science and technology between two groups, young people and adults, based on surveys with representative samples of the Brazilian population, seeking to highlight similarities and specificities. The results show that youth versus adulthood partially impacts perceptions and attitudes, and that the specificities pose different challenges for administrators, educators, and communicators. The data show that the two audiences have mostly positive attitudes toward the role of science in society, and that they are interested in knowing and participating more in scientific citizenship. However, the challenges are still huge. Low rates of involvement in scientific-cultural activities and limited recall of national scientists and science institutions show the need for a keener view by public policymakers and universities to develop policies for encouraging such cultural and political participation.
We also identified important information for seeking more relevant paths for the appropriation of actions in the field, considering each of the two audiences, more adequate interlocutors, themes with greater appeal, and specific public policies to foster greater engagement with science spaces. Beyond the two audiences’ specificities, the regional issue merits a close look due to Brazil’s deep structural inequalities. The interviewees, both young people and adults, in the North and Northeast, namely from states with low HDI-M and with fewer spaces for scientific and cultural activities, expressed greater interest in the area and wanted more government funding for it, reflecting an unmet need in these regions and emphasizing the need for infrastructure investments.
We can infer that the doors for dialogue are open and that there is a demand that requires answers, with better and more varied actions considering both the similarities and specificities of each target audience (including university extension, campaigns, and educational and communication activities by governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations) and infrastructures (science museums and centers, botanical gardens, parks, and zoo-parks with good communication and educational communication practices, among others), strengthening the appropriation of knowledge and science citizenship.
Acknowledgements
This study was conducted within the purview of the Brazilian National Institute of Public Communication of Science and Technology, with support from the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq). The study was also supported by the CNPq through the Universal Call for Projects 2023 and the Call for Projects in Cooperation with proven International Exchange 2023. Mendes, Massarani, and Moreira wish to thank CNPq for the respective Visiting Expert grants EV-1 - 1, Research Productivity Fellow CNPq A, and Research Productivity 1C; Fagundes acknowledges the support of the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) for the grant for Incentives to Research and Technological Development. Massarani acknowledges FAPERJ for the Scientist of Our State grant.
References
-
ATLAS DO DESENVOLVIMENTO HUMANO NO BRASIL. 2025. Available at: http://www.atlasbrasil.org.br/consulta/planilha
» http://www.atlasbrasil.org.br/consulta/planilha - BAUER M, ALLUM N & MILLER, S. 2007. What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science 16: 79-95.
- BAUER MW. 2008. Survey research and the public understanding of science. In: Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology. Routledge, p. 125-144.
- BOURDIEU P. 2013. Questões de Sociologia. Lisboa: Fim de Século.
- CASSAB C. 2011. Contribuição à construção das categorias jovem e juventude: uma introdução. Locus 17(2): 145-159.
- CARVALHO VB. 2022. Percepção pública da ciência em tempos de pandemia: algumas questões. Reciis – Revista Eletrônica de Comunicação, Informação & Inovação em Saúde 16(3): 500-506.
-
CASTELFRANCHI Y, VILELA E, MOREIRA I, MASSARANI L, SIMÕES S, FAGUNDES V. 2016. Os mineiros e a ciência: primeira pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais sobre percepção pública da ciência e tecnologia. Belo Horizonte: KMA. Available at https://www.fafich.ufmg.br/incite/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/OS-MINEIROS-E-ACI%C3%8ANCIA-comprimido.pdf
» https://www.fafich.ufmg.br/incite/wpcontent/uploads/2018/07/OS-MINEIROS-E-ACI%C3%8ANCIA-comprimido.pdf - CASTELFRANCHI Y. 2010. Por que comunicar temas de ciência e tecnologia ao público? (Muitas respostas óbvias... mais uma necessária). Jornalismo e ciência: uma perspectiva ibero-americana, v. 1, p. 13-22.
-
CGEE - CENTRO DE GESTÃO E ESTUDOS ESTRATÉGICOS. 2023. Percepção pública da C&T no Brasil – 2023. https://www.cgee.org.br/documents/10195/4686075/CGEE_OCTI_Resumo_Executivo-Perc_Pub_CT_Br_2023.pdf/02c40801-8a7c-4822-a77e-2859c0c53334?version=1.8
» https://www.cgee.org.br/documents/10195/4686075/CGEE_OCTI_Resumo_Executivo-Perc_Pub_CT_Br_2023.pdf/02c40801-8a7c-4822-a77e-2859c0c53334?version=1.8 - CNPQ - CONSELHO NACIONAL DE DESENVOLVIMENTO CIENTÍFICO E TECNOLÓGICO/GALLUP. 1987. Pesquisa “A imagem da ciência e da tecnologia junto à população urbana brasileira”.
- DA-COSTA IRB. 2022. A percepção de pesquisadores sobre o processo de divulgação científica. Animus. Revista Interamericana de Comunicação Midiática 21(47).
- DI GIULIO GM, VASCONCELLOS MP, GUNTHER WMR, RIBEIRO H & ASSUNÇÃO JV. 2015. Percepção de risco: um campo de interesse para a interface ambiente, saúde e sustentabilidade. Saúde e Sociedade 24(4): 1217-1231.
- FAGUNDES, V. 2024. Confiança na ciência em (tempos de) crise: uma análise dos fatores que influenciaram a percepção dos brasileiros durante a pandemia de covid-19. PhD Thesis. Faculdade de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas da Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.
- FAPESP - FUNDAÇÃO DE AMPARO À PESQUISA DO ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO. 2011. Percepção pública da ciência e da tecnologia no Estado de São Paulo. In: Indicadores de ciência, tecnologia e inovação em São Paulo 2010, v. 2, Chap. 12: 7-49. https://fapesp.br/indicadores2010.
- GUIVANT JS. 2006. Transgênicos e percepção pública da ciência no Brasil. Ambiente & Sociedade 9: 81-103.
- KOSWATTA TJ, WINGENBACH G & LEGGETTE HR. 2023. Factors Influencing Public Perception of Science. J Appl Comm 106(4): 7.
- LEVINSON DJ. 1986. A conception of adult development. Amer Psychol 41(1): 3.
- LEWENSTEIN B & BROSSARD D. 2010. A critical appraisal of models of public understanding of science: using practice to inform theory. In: Kahlor L & Stout P (Eds), Communication Science: new agendas in communication. New York: Routledge.
-
MACIEL B & SOUZA FC. 2018. Comunicação, Ciência, Tecnologia e Conhecimento: percepção pública de estudantes do ensino médio em escola da zona rural, Pernambuco - Brasil. RELACult - Revista Latino-Americana de Estudos em Cultura e Sociedade, v. 04, edição especial. Available at: http://periodicos.claec.org/index.php/relacult/article/view/697 Accessed March 2024.
» http://periodicos.claec.org/index.php/relacult/article/view/697 -
MASSARANI LM, CASTELFRANCHI Y, FAGUNDES V, MOREIRA I. 2021a. O que os jovens brasileiros pensam da ciência e da tecnologia: pesquisa realizada pelo Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Comunicação Pública da Ciência e Tecnologia (INCT-CPCT).https://www.inct-cpct.ufpa.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/LIVRO_final_web_2pag.pdf
» https://www.inct-cpct.ufpa.br/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/LIVRO_final_web_2pag.pdf -
MASSARANI L, CASTELFRANCHI Y, MENDES I, FAGUNDES VO & MOREIRA I. 2021b. Science in society: What young Brazilians think about S&T. An Acad Bras Cienc 93: e20200204. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202120200204.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202120200204 -
MASSARANI L, LIMA MS, PATIÑO-BARBA ML, AMORIM L, REIS RA & RAMALHO M. 2023. Guia de Centros e Museus de Ciência da América Latina e do Caribe 2023 Guía de Centros y Museos de Ciencia de América Latina y el Caribe 2023. https://www.museudavida.fiocruz.br/images/Publicacoes_Educacao/PDFs/Guia-de-Centros-e-Museus-de-Ci%C3%AAncia-da-America-Latina-e-do-Caribe-2022.pdf
» https://www.museudavida.fiocruz.br/images/Publicacoes_Educacao/PDFs/Guia-de-Centros-e-Museus-de-Ci%C3%AAncia-da-America-Latina-e-do-Caribe-2022.pdf -
MASSARANI L, POLINO C, MOREIRA I, FAGUNDES V & CASTELFRANCHI Y. 2022. Confiança na ciência no Brasil em tempos de pandemia. Resumo executivo. Pesquisa do Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Comunicação Pública da Ciência e Tecnologia (INCT-CPCT). 2022. https://www.inct-cpct.ufpa.br/wpcontent/uploads/2022/12/Resumo_executivoConfianca_Ciencia_VF_Ascom_5-1.pdf
» https://www.inct-cpct.ufpa.br/wpcontent/uploads/2022/12/Resumo_executivoConfianca_Ciencia_VF_Ascom_5-1.pdf -
MASSARANI LM, MOREIRA I, MENDES I, FAGUNDES V & CASTELFRANCHI Y. 2024. O que os jovens brasileiros pensam da ciência e da tecnologia: Survey 2024. Estudo do Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Comunicação Pública da Ciência e a Tecnologia. https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/handle/icict/66563
» https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/handle/icict/66563 -
MENDES I. 2019. Percepções de jovens cariocas sobre ciência e tecnologia. Dissertação de mestrado. Casa de Oswaldo Cruz/ Fiocruz. Available at: https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/handle/icict/40095 (Unpublished).
» https://www.arca.fiocruz.br/handle/icict/40095 - PAULINO DS, DUTRA-THOMÉ L, BENDASSOLLI F. 2021. Adultos e o fenômeno nem-nem: gênero, educação e mercado de trabalho. Revista Brasileira de Orientação Profissional 22(1):: 1-15.
- PETERS HP. 2022. Looking back and looking ahead. Public Understanding of Science 31(3): 256-265.
- PINAFO J. 2016. O que os jovens têm a dizer sobre ciência e tecnologia?: opiniões, interesses e atitudes de estudantes em dois países: Brasil e Itália. PhD thesis in Education) - Faculdade de Educação, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo. http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/48/48134/tde-01112016-110406/pt-br.php.
- POLINO C. 2012. Las ciencias en el aula y el interés por las carreras científico-tecnológicas: Un análisis de las expectativas de los alumnos de nivel secundario en Iberoamérica, Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, Número 58, Jan.-Apr., p. 167-191.
- POLINO C. 2015. Las encuestas de percepción pública de la ciencia en América Latina: estructura, evolución y comparabilidad. RedPOP: 25 años de popularización de la ciencia en América Latina, p. 97.
-
REZNIK G, MASSARANI LM, RAMALHO M, MALCHER MA, AMORIM L & CASTELFRANCHI Y. 2018. Como os adolescentes apreendem a ciência e a profissão de cientista? Estudos Feministas, Florianópolis, 25(2), 2017. Disponível em: https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/ref/article/view/39479/34259 Acesso em 12 dez.2018.
» https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/ref/article/view/39479/34259 - SZWAKO J. 2024. Ciência com aspas I: político, ideológico, cultural [1] – Pensar a democracia | Boletim Lua Nova | CEDEC. Nov, 04. https://boletimluanova.org/?print-myblog=1&posttype=post&statuses%5B0%5D=publish&rendering_wait=0&columns=1&font_size=normalℑ_size=small&links=include&show_site_title=1&show_site_url=1&show_title=1&show_date=1&show_featured_image=1&show_content=1&pmb_f=pdf&pmb-post=5002.
- TOLENTINO-NETO LC. 2008. Os interesses e posturas de jovens alunos frente às ciências: resultado do Projeto ROSE (Relevance of Science Education) aplicado no Brasil. PhD thesis in Education) - Faculdade de Educação, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo. https://roseproject.no/network/countries/brazil/bra-caldeira-tolentino-neto.pdf.
-
UNDP – UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM. 2022. Desenvolvimento humano – relatório 2021/2022. https://www.undp.org/pt/brazil/desenvolvimento-humano/publications/relatorio-de-desenvolvimento-humano-2021-22
» https://www.undp.org/pt/brazil/desenvolvimento-humano/publications/relatorio-de-desenvolvimento-humano-2021-22 -
UNESCO - ORGANIZAÇÃO DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS PARA A EDUCAÇÃO, A CIÊNCIA E A CULTURA - REPRESENTAÇÃO NO BRASIL. 2004. Políticas públicas de/para/com as juventudes. Brasília: UNESCO, 2004. Disponível em: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000135923
» https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000135923 - WEST JD & BERGSTROM CT. 2021. Misinformation in and about science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(15): e1912444117.
- WILKINSON C. 2021. Neglected spaces in science communication. J Sci Comm (1): C01.
Edited by
-
Handling editor
Jailson de Andrade
Data will be made available upon reasonable request.
