EDITORIAL
Refractory Public Opinion The growth of communications is exceeding that of understanding
T
here is a noticeable increase in the acceptance by industry and business of the need to give the public an understanding of their aims and practices. To some this may seem a distraction of energies needed in pursuing more obvious goals. However, in a republic based on democratic principles, public understanding is extremely important. As our communications system becomes more highly developed, the importance rises. Not only business and industry are affected, but any area of influence upon the life of the individual citizen. Science, so long looked upon by most of the public as something obscure, has at last gained some of the standing needed for its support and progress. Scientific research is now moving at an unprecedented pace. But as both its public support and influence increase, its dependence upon understanding by the public also increases. Controversies such as that over radioactive fallout illustrate the problem. Examples of public opinion unfavorable to business are not rare. With science, as something relatively new in the public eye, any emphasis on unfavorable views and misunderstandings ought to be watched and studied. For example in a recent New York Times review by zoologist Marston Bates of "Man on Earth," by S. P. R. Charter, a research scientist, we read: "He is shocked by the deteriorating ethics of scientists who often seem willing to investigate anything if given a large enough grant of money —and to have forgotten about the true value of science as an approach to understanding of the world." Industry and the economy are not unrelated to science and the development of new knowledge. They are interrelated through technology. The product of each contributes to the support of the other. Public respect for the whole sys-
tem is important to all its parts. As the public is exposed to a growing stream of words, the number of opportunities for misunderstanding will grow. In any area of work, whether industrial or scientific, its practitioners can talk inspiringly to their own group. But this does not solve the problem of creating understanding outside those groups. Mere statements of general and obvious benefits will not penetrate a case-hardened shell of emotionally tempered public opinion. That shell is much more readily pierced by the emotionally charged specific item of negative evidence. Media of communication which are independent of the parties involved are particularly important to public understanding. Those media are most likely to be accepted as sources of objective information. Frank and open dealings with the reputable media should make possible a constructive service while providing desirable and interesting knowledge to the reading public. The time and energy required should be well repaid through avoiding problems that need not arise. Our communication of information can be expected to grow in pace and volume. Increasing the percentage of that information which is directed toward understanding rather than merely to entertaining or to repetitive drumming is a difficult task that cannot be solved in one stroke. But, in the interest of constructive advancement of the entire system, it does deserve greater attention and support from both industry and scientists than it now receives.
NOV.
2 6, 1962
C&EN
5
