Trust in political parties is virtually non-existent, and the Finnish Parliament
also inspires more
distrust than trust in people. The same goes for the European Union. These indications of the political alienation of Finns are not news, of course, and correspond with many other European countries, too. With distrust in politicians’ ability to solve society’s
7 billion euros the total sum that
Finland invests (3.7 percent of its GDP) in research and development
ills, it is interesting to note that in Finland, science is seen as the answer to many problems, particularly in medicine and technology. In general, the quality and standard of science and research in Finland is deemed good; more than two-thirds of the respondents score it very or fairly good, while only a few deem it rather or very poor. Six out of 10 also regard the standard of science in Finland as good by international comparison. The perception is that there are no problems regarding the international competitiveness of Finnish universities. The recent developments in Finland’s research
activities are viewed as positive by one in three as well while the future prospects of science in Finland are viewed as positive. The share of respondents who believe in the ability of science to produce reliable and accurate results is considerably high. The question is whether the results concern the right issues, and not nearly as many are convinced about that. Approximately one in four believe that research is focused on what is essential and important. This fact could be one reason why the assessments concerning the adequacy of research funding and the communication of ideas and results to the general public contain the highest percentage of negative perceptions. In general, Finnish people are optimistic, but not
overly hopeful, about science. Pessimism seems widespread, regardless of the trust in science’s ability to assist society. Generally, most believe in science’s ability to rid us of diseases and prolong human life. Many also believe that science can be used to improve people’s welfare. However, this optimism mainly applies to material welfare (affluence) and our standard of living. Science is seen as more or less useless
for improving immaterial welfare and
increasing happiness. There is also no certainty of science’s ability to boost the safety of life; optimism barely overrides pessimism. Science’s role in improving safety at work, alongside
any other means of improving working conditions, is perceived in much the same way. The responses show that people do not believe that science can provide the tools for getting rid of or reducing unemployment. The expectations concerning the state of
the
environment are polarised. Those who view science as capable of preventing environmental pollution or improving the state of
the environment form a
majority compared to those with the opposite view. Roughly one in three believe that science has the ability to develop ways to stop or slow down climate change. The respondents put more faith in science’s ability to solve energy problems, which are also closely related to environmental issues. More than
www.projectsmagazine.eu.com
half the respondents presume that science can provide significant assistance in energy production-related problem-solving, but about a fifth are pessimistic about this. In addition to unemployment, people have the least
optimistic view of science’s abilities to promote peace and stop war or resolve armed conflicts – the sceptics take this one by a narrow margin. Science’s ability regarding food production and ending world hunger are viewed with equal scepticism alongside the promotion of democracy, human rights and equality – this exalted category of tasks is almost completely unreachable for science.
“ Media plays a crucial role in the dissemination and communication of science and research – it is through the media that most people get their information”
It seems that despite some noteworthy advances in
various fields of science, Finns have not fallen for airy idealism in their expectations for science. Instead, they hold on to a pragmatic, reserved attitude. Perhaps connected to this assessment of the
Finnish attitude to science is an overwhelming sense that the relationship between those doing the science and the public is too distant. The claim that the scientific community is too isolated from society, occupies ivory towers, and is not in touch with peoples’ everyday lives is accepted by almost half those questioned. Fewer than one in four believe that the scientific community is adequately in touch with the rest of society. This perception is understandable for several reasons. The scientific community of experts is, by nature, inevitably somewhat distant, isolated from the public. Also, it is not characteristic for the scientific community to seek publicity or overtly promote itself or its achievements. The assessment of the link between the public and
science should also be viewed in light of other results in this report. Although most believe that the scientific community fulfills its function in society, many are less convinced of the usefulness of scientific research for people’s everyday lives and well-being. Closing this gap between science and the public requires both sides to be active. In principle, a large percentage of Finns appear to have the capacity to take in scientific information, while more that three quarters believe the media should provide more scientific news and articles. ★
For all the latest news, views and analysis of European scientific and research developments, visit www.
projects.eu.com
27
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112