On the eve of the final mission of the U.S. space shuttle program, most Americans say the United States must be at the forefront of future space exploration.

Fifty years after the first American manned space flight, nearly six-in-ten (58%) say it is essential that the United States continue to be a world leader in space exploration; about four-in-ten say this is not essential (38%).

Looking back on the shuttle program, a majority (55%) say it has been a good investment for the country.

However, this is lower than it was in the 1980s; throughout the early years of the shuttle program, six-in-ten or more said the program was a good investment.

Majorities in nearly all demographic groups say it is essential that the U.S. continue to be at the vanguard of space exploration. And partisan groups largely agree that American leadership is vital, although this view is more prevalent among Republicans.

Two-thirds of Republicans (67%) say the nation must continue to play an international leadership role in space exploration; smaller majorities of Democrats (54%) and independents (57%) say this.

Shuttle Has Been “Good Investment”

As the shuttle program comes to a close 30 years after its first mission, 55% of Americans think the program has been a good investment for the country; 36% do not think so. In August 1981, four months after the first shuttle flight, 66% said the program was a good investment.

About two-thirds of college graduates (66%) say the shuttle program has been a good investment, as does a smaller majority of those with some college education (57%). Among those with no college experience, assessments of the value of the shuttle program are more mixed: 47% say it has been a good investment, while 43% say it has not.

Americans with annual family incomes of $75,000 or more give more positive evaluations to the shuttle program than those with lower incomes.

By greater than two-to-one those with higher incomes say the program has been a good investment (67% good vs. 27% not good); those with annual incomes of less than $30,000 are divided in their views (44% good, 47% not good).

And while about six-in-ten Republicans (63%) and independents (60%) say the program has been a good investment, Democrats are more muted in their appraisals (48% good investment).

Benefits of Space Program

Large majorities say that the space program has helped encourage interest in science, led to scientific advances and contributed to feelings of patriotism. But no more than about four-in-ten say that the program has contributed “a lot” in any of these areas.

Overall, 39% say it has contributed a lot to encouraging interest in science, 35% say it has contributed some while 22% think it has contributed not much or nothing. Nearly as many (38%) say the space program has contributed a lot to scientific advances that all Americans can use, while 34% think it has done a lot for feelings or pride and patriotism.

There are only modest political and demographic differences in opinions about the space program’s contributions. More men than women say the program contributes a lot to scientific advances (by 45% to 31%) and encouraging interest in science and technology (44% to 35%).

View the topline questionnaire and survey methodology at people-press.org.

Overview

Imagine a future in which cancer becomes a memory, ordinary people travel in space, and computers carry on conversations like humans. Now imagine a darker future — a world beset by war, rising temperatures and energy shortages, one where the United States faces a terrorist attack with nuclear weapons.

Most Americans think that these developments and many others are likely to unfold over the next 40 years. In the public’s view, this promises to be an era of technological progress. Large majorities expect that computers will be able to carry on conversations (81% say this definitely or probably will happen) and that there will be a cure for cancer (71%). About two-thirds (66%) say that artificial arms and legs will outperform real limbs while 53% envision ordinary people traveling in space.

At the same time, most say that war, terrorism and environmental catastrophes are at least probable by the year 2050. Nearly six-in-ten (58%) see another world war as definite or probable; 53% say the same about the prospect for a major terrorist attack on the United States involving nuclear weapons. An even higher percentage (72%) anticipates that the world will face a major energy crisis in the next 40 years.

The public is evenly divided over whether the quality of the earth’s environment will improve over the next 40 years; as many say the environment is not likely to improve (50%) as say it is (47%). There continues to be a widespread belief that the earth will get warmer in the future, though the percentage expressing this view has declined by 10 points, from 76% to 66%, since 1999.

Moreover, 60% say the world’s oceans will be less healthy 40 years from now than they are today; just 32% say the oceans will be more healthy. The survey was conducted just after the April 20 explosion and fire on the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico but before the full extent of the massive environmental damage caused by the oil leak became evident.

These are among the findings of a new survey of attitudes and expectations about the future, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and Smithsonian magazine in conjunction with the magazine’s 40th anniversary (see “40 Things You Need to Know about the Next 40 Years“).

The survey, conducted by landline and cell phones April 21-26 among 1,546 adults, was informed by a 1999 survey on the future that explored many of the same topics (see “Optimism Reigns, Technology Plays Key Role,” October 24, 1999).

Despite the current economic slump and the widespread anticipation of crises to come, most Americans remain upbeat about the future, both for themselves and the nation. Today, 64% say they are very or somewhat optimistic about life for themselves and their family over the next 40 years, while 61% are optimistic about the future of the United States. Moreover, 56% say the U.S. economy will be stronger than it is today.

Today’s recession-weary public is less sanguine about the long-term future than it was in May 1999, a time of very strong economic growth. Still, majorities across most demographic and political groups see things getting better — both for themselves and the nation — over the next four decades.

Race Relations and Health Care Expected to Improve

Thinking ahead 40 years, 68% say race relations in the United States will better, which is unchanged from the 1999 survey. And in the wake of the election of the nation’s first African American president, large majorities say that the election of a woman (89%) and Hispanic (69%) will definitely or probably occur.

Notably, far more Americans think that health care will be more affordable in the future than did so in May 1999. Currently, 50% say health care will be more affordable in 2050, while 46% say it will be less affordable. In 1999, just 36% said health care would be more affordable compared with 60% who said it would be less affordable.

While a clear majority (58%) expects the gap between rich and poor in the United States to grow by 2050, fewer people say this than did so in 1999 (69%). About a third (34%) now says the rich-poor gap will get smaller, up from 27% 11 years ago.

However, Americans are less optimistic about long-term prospects for public education than they were 11 years ago. About half (49%) say the public education system will improve by 2050, down from 66% who expressed that view in 1999.

The public expresses mixed views about America’s role in the world in 2050. On the one hand, people are divided over whether China will overtake the U.S. as the world’s main superpower — 46% say this will definitely or probably happen, while 49% say it will not. However, most Americans (53%) say that the United States will be less important in the world 40 years from now than it is today; 40% say it will be more important.

Continue reading the full report at people-press.org.

To be sure, the passage of time may affect the way people view these historical periods. For example, had we asked the public’s impression of the 1970s in December of 1979, the negatives may well have outweighed the positives.

By a wide margin, the 9/11 terrorist attacks are seen as the most important event of the decade, with Barack Obama’s election as president a distant second — even among his political supporters. And the sour view of the decade is broad-based, with few in any political or demographic group offering positive evaluations.

Happy to put the 2000s behind them, most Americans are optimistic that the 2010s will be better. Nearly six-in-ten (59%) say they think the next decade will be better than the last for the country as a whole, though roughly a third (32%) think things will be worse.

There are a number of recent changes and trends that are viewed favorably. In particular, the major technological and communications advances are viewed in an overwhelmingly positive light.

Clear majorities see cell phones, the internet and e-mail as changes for the better, and most also view specific changes such as handheld internet devices and online shopping as beneficial trends. There is greater division of opinion, however, over whether social networking sites or internet blogs have been changes for the better or changes for the worse.

Most see increasing racial and ethnic diversity as a change for the better, as well as increased surveillance and security measures and the broader range of news and entertainment options.

But the public is divided over whether wider acceptance of gays and lesbians, cable news talk and opinion shows, and the growing number of people with money in the stock market are good or bad trends. Reality TV shows are, by a wide margin, the least popular trend tested in the poll; 63% say these shows have been a change for the worse. Tattoos are also unpopular with many — 40% say more people getting tattoos is a change for the worse, though 45% say it makes no difference and 7% see it as a change for the better.

A ‘Downhill’ Decade

The breadth and depth of discontent with the current decade is reflected in the words people use to describe it. The single most common word or phrase used to characterize the past 10 years is downhill, and other bleak terms such as poor, decline, chaotic, disaster, scary, and depressing are common. Other, more neutral, words like change, fair and interesting also come up, and while the word good is near the top of the list, there are few other positive words mentioned with any frequency.

Boomers Look Back Fondly

There is no significant generational divide in impressions of the current decade: Roughly half in all age groups view the 2000s negatively, while less than a third rate the decade positively. This is in stark contrast to generational differences in views of previous decades. The 1990s are viewed far more positively by younger people — roughly two-thirds of Americans younger than age 50 have a positive impression of the decade compared with fewer than half of people ages 50 and older. The 1960s, by contrast, receive generally positive ratings from people ages 50 and older, while those under 50 offer more mixed views.

The biggest generational division of opinion is in retrospective evaluations of the 1970s. Baby Boomers — most of whom are between the ages of 50 and 64 today and were between ages 20 and 34 in 1979 — view this decade in an overwhelmingly favorable light, with positive impressions outnumbering negative views by 48 points (59% positive vs. 11% negative). By contrast, people who were younger than 20 at the end of the 1970s — who are currently in their 30s and 40s — offer a less positive assessment; just 28% view the decade positively, 20% negatively, and 52% say neither or offer no opinion.

The decade out of the last half century with the best image right now is the 1980s. While comparable percentages offer positive evaluations of the 1980s (56%) and 1990s (57%), negative ratings for the 1980s are lower than for the 1990s (12% vs. 19%).

And the balance of opinion about the 1980s is overwhelmingly positive across all age groups — with positive views outnumbering negative by more than three-to-one across the board.

Next Decade Looks Better

Most Americans (59%) think the next decade will be better than the current one for the country as a whole, and this perspective is widely shared across most political and demographic groups. But a significant minority — 32% — is of the view that things will be worse in the 2010s than in the 2000s. Republicans are twice as likely as Democrats (42% vs. 20%) to offer a pessimistic assessment of the next decade. Roughly a third (34%) of independents offer a gloomy prediction.

Generationally, Americans between the ages of 50 and 64 are the most pessimistic about the 2010s — 42% think things will be worse over the next 10 years. This compares with 30% of people under age 50 and just 26% of those age 65 and older. Along religious lines, white evangelical Protestants take a far more pessimistic view of the next decade than other major religious groups. Just over half (52%) of white evangelicals predict that the coming decade will be worse than the current one, far more than the number of white mainline Protestants (29%), white Catholics (24%) or unaffiliated (28%) Americans who take this view.

Continue reading the full report at people-press.org

Ten years ago, when asked to name America’s greatest achievement of the 20th century, the specific accomplishment cited most frequently — at 18% — was space exploration or the moon mission. Overall, 47% cited any achievement in science, medicine or technology, including space.

But in May of this year, when the public was asked to name the greatest U.S. accomplishment of the past 50 years, somewhat fewer (12%) specifically mentioned space exploration or getting a man to the moon as the greatest achievement. Only about a quarter (27%) mentioned an achievement in science, medicine or technology. (For more from this survey, see “Public Praises Scientists; Scientists Fault Public, Media,” July 9, 2009.)

In the new survey, nearly as many people point to the election of a black president (10%) as cite the space program as the greatest U.S. accomplishment of the past half-century. In addition, a third (33%) offer no response — or say “nothing” when asked about the top national achievement — compared with 24% in the 1999 survey.

Notably, Baby Boomers — Americans born between 1946 and 1964 — are about as likely to rate space exploration as the nation’s greatest accomplishment as they were a decade ago (17% in 1999, 19% in 2009). But a smaller proportion of those in the Greatest or Silent Generations cite space exploration as the top U.S. achievement than did so in 1999 (21% then, 13% today). Somewhat fewer members of Gen X also point to space exploration or landing a man on the moon as the greatest American accomplishment than did so a decade ago (17% then, 9% today).

Just 5% of Gen Y — whose oldest members were born nearly a decade after Neil Armstrong became the first man to step on the moon (1977 or later) — cite space as the nation’s greatest achievement. Gen Y is the only age cohort in which a significantly higher percentage (14%) cites the election of Barack Obama as the first African American president than cites space exploration as the greatest achievement of the last half-century.

The following report is based on a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science

Americans like science. Overwhelming majorities say that science has had a positive effect on society and that science has made life easier for most people. Most also say that government investments in science, as well as engineering and technology, pay off in the long run.

And scientists are very highly rated compared with members of other professions: Only members of the military and teachers are more likely to be viewed as contributing a lot to society’s well-being.

However, the public has a far less positive view of the global standing of U.S. science than do scientists themselves. Just 17% of the public thinks that U.S. scientific achievements rate as the best in the world.

A survey of more than 2,500 scientists, conducted in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), finds that nearly half (49%) rate U.S. scientific achievements as the best in the world.

When asked about their own scientific specialty, about the same share of scientists (45%) rate U.S. scientific achievements the best in the world.

There are indications that the public also is somewhat less confident in America’s scientific prowess than it once was.

Significantly fewer Americans volunteer scientific advances as one of the country’s most important achievements than did so a decade ago (27% today, 47% in May 1999). As an example, 10 years ago, 18% cited space exploration and the moon landing as the country’s top achievement of the 20th century. Today 12% see it as the greatest achievement of the past 50 years.

While the public holds scientists in high regard, many scientists offer unfavorable, if not critical, assessments of the public’s knowledge and expectations. Fully 85% see the public’s lack of scientific knowledge as a major problem for science, and nearly half (49%) fault the public for having unrealistic expectations about the speed of scientific achievements.

A substantial percentage of scientists also say that the news media have done a poor job educating the public. About three-quarters (76%) say a major problem for science is that news reports fail to distinguish between findings that are well-founded and those that are not. And 48% say media oversimplification of scientific findings is a major problem.

The scientists are particularly critical of television news coverage of science. Just 15% of scientists rate TV coverage as excellent or good, while 83% say it is only fair or poor. Newspaper coverage of science is rated somewhat better; still, barely a third (36%) of the scientists say it is excellent or good, while 63% rate it as only fair or poor.

While scientists are generally upbeat about the state of their profession, they do see several obstacles to conducting high-quality basic research. As might be expected, by far the biggest impediment is a lack of funding; more than eight-in-ten say this is a very serious (46%) or a serious (41%) impediment to research. A majority (56%) also says that visa and immigration problems for foreign scientists and students stand in the way of high-quality research. Far smaller percentages say that regulations on animal research (27%) or other factors are serious impediments to scientific research.

Points of Agreement

The survey of opinions about the state of science and its impact on society was conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the world’s largest general scientific society. The survey of the general public was conducted on landlines and cell phones among 2,001 adults April 28-May 12; the online survey of scientists was conducted among a sample of 2,533 members of the AAAS from May 1-June 14. Science knowledge questions were included in a separate survey of the general public, conducted on landlines and cell phones among 1,005 adults June 18-21.

While scientists express frustration with the public, there are some significant points of agreement between the public and the scientific community. First, majorities of both groups point to advances in medicine and life sciences as important achievements of science. About half of the public (52%) cites medicine — including health care, vaccines, and medical cures — when asked to describe ways that science has positively affected society; by comparison, just 7% mention communications and computer technology. Similarly, most scientists (55%) mention a biomedical or health finding when asked about the nation’s greatest scientific achievement of the last 20 years.

There also is common ground between the public and scientists regarding the pivotal role of government in funding scientific research. Government institutions and agencies are the dominant funders of research, according to scientists: 84% list a government entity as an important source of funding for their specialty, with nearly half specifically citing the National Institutes of Health (49%) or the National Science Foundation (47%). Half of the scientists (50%) cite non-government funding sources as among the most important in their field.

A majority of the public (60%) says that government investment in research is essential for scientific progress; only about half that percentage (29%) is of the view that private investment will ensure that enough scientific progress is made even without government intervention.

Moreover, large percentages think that government investments in basic scientific research (73%) and engineering and technology (74%) pay off in the long run. Notably, the partisan differences in these views are fairly modest, with 80% of Democrats and 68% of Republicans saying that government investments in basic science pay off in the long run. Comparable percentages of Democrats and Republicans say the same about government investments in engineering and technology.

In this regard, public views about whether funding for scientific research should be increased, decreased or kept the same have changed little since the start of the decade. Currently, more than twice as many people say that, if given the task of making up the budget for the federal government, they would increase (39%) rather than decrease (14%) funding for scientific research; 40% say they would keep spending as it is. That is largely unchanged from 2001, when 41% said they would increase funding for scientific research.

As in the past, scientific research rates as a second-tier funding priority, well behind education (67% favor increased funding), veterans’ benefits (63%) and health care (61%). But since 2001, support for increasing funding in several areas, including education and health care, has declined. Over the same period, opinions about funding scientific research have remained more stable.

Opinion Gaps between Scientists, Public

The public and scientists generally concur about the importance of government funding of scientific research, but there are substantial gaps in the opinions of scientists and the public about various scientific and societal issues. Scientists are far less critical than the general public of government performance. Just 40% of scientists agree that “when something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful”; a majority of the public (57%) agrees with this statement.

Scientists are, however, more critical of business; they are roughly half as likely as the public to say that “business corporations generally strike a fair balance between making profits and serving the public interest” (20% of scientists vs. 37% of public).

When it comes to contemporary scientific issues, these differences are often even larger. Most notably, 87% of scientists say that humans and other living things have evolved over time and that evolution is the result of natural processes such as natural selection. Just 32% of the public accepts this as true.

And the near consensus among scientists about global warming is not mirrored in the general public. While 84% of scientists say the earth is getting warmer because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels, just 49% of the public agrees.

More than nine-in-ten scientists (93%) favor the use of animals in scientific research, but only about half of the public (52%) agrees. There also are wide differences in the proportions of scientists (93%) and the public (58%) that favor federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. There is less of a schism over the need for universal vaccinations: 82% of scientists and 69% of the public at large say that all children should be required to be vaccinated. Just 17% of scientists and 28% of the public say parents should be able to decide not to vaccinate their children.

Despite these differences, science and scientists are viewed positively by those who differ over evolution, global warming and other contentious issues.

On the question of evolution, for instance, 78% of those who say that humans and other living things have evolved over time because of natural selection and other natural processes say that scientists contribute a lot to the well-being of society. Those who say humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time express a less positive view of scientists; nonetheless, 63% of them say scientists have contributed a great deal to society.

Views of scientists also differ only modestly between those who say global warming is caused by human activity and those who say there is no solid evidence the earth is warming. In addition, those who say that science sometimes conflicts with their own religious beliefs — 36% of the public — are only slightly less likely than those who see no conflict to say that scientists contribute a great deal to society (67%, 72% respectively).

Good Times for Science

The poll finds scientists upbeat about the state of their profession. Three-quarters (76%) say this is generally a good time for science and nearly as many (73%) say it is good time for their scientific specialty. Positive views are shared by scientists irrespective of specialty. In addition, despite the bad economy, 67% say it is either a very good time (17%) or a good time (50%) to begin a career in their scientific field.

Politics may play some role in the positive way the scientists surveyed judge the times. More than half of the scientists surveyed (55%) say they are Democrats, compared with 35% of the public. Fully 52% of the scientists call themselves liberals; among the public, just 20% describe themselves as liberals. Many of the scientists surveyed mentioned in their open-ended comments that they were optimistic about the Obama administration’s likely impact on science.

For its part, the public does not perceive scientists as a particularly liberal group. When asked whether they think of scientists as liberal, conservative or neither in particular, nearly two-thirds (64%) choose the latter option. Just 20% say they think of scientists as politically liberal. However, a majority of scientists (56%) do see members of their profession as liberal.

Most scientists had heard at least a little about claims that government scientists were not allowed to report research findings that conflicted with the Bush administration’s point of view. And the vast majority (77%) says that these claims are true. By contrast, these claims barely registered with the public — more than half heard nothing at all about this issue. Only about a quarter of the public (28%) said they thought the claims were true.

Both scientists and the public overwhelmingly say it is appropriate for scientists to become active in political debates about such issues as nuclear power or stem cell research. Virtually all scientists (97%) endorse their participation in debates about these issues, while 76% of the public agrees.

Science Knowledge

Americans are knowledgeable about basic scientific facts that affect their health and their daily lives. But the public is less able to answer questions about more complex science topics.

The 12-item quiz administered to the public is available online. If you would like to take the quiz before reading this section, click here.

Fully 91% know that aspirin is an over-the-counter drug recommended to prevent heart attacks and 82% know that GPS technology relies on satellites. Topics covered in major news stories also are widely understood; 77% correctly identify earthquakes as a cause of tsunamis and 65% can identify CO2 as a gas linked to rising temperatures.

Slightly more than half (54%) knows that antibiotics do not kill viruses along with bacteria, and about the same percentage (52%) knows that what distinguishes stem cells from other cells is that they can develop into many different kinds of cells. And some high-school science knowledge is elusive for most Americans: Fewer than half (46%) know that electrons are smaller than atoms.

Previous Pew Research Center knowledge surveys have shown that young people are poorly informed about current events and politics. But this is not the case with science knowledge. In fact, those younger than age 30 get higher scores on the knowledge test than do those ages 65 and older. Still, the best-informed people about science, according to the results of this quiz, are those ages 30 to 49.

Continue reading the full report at people-press.org including methodology and topline findings.

Also at people-press.org, find a commentary by Dr. Alan I. Leshner, Chief Executive Officer, American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of Science.

Far from resolving an epic moral quandary, last year’s groundbreaking discovery that ordinary skin cells eventually could replace the use of human embryos in stem-cell research actually stoked the fiery debate over the cutting-edge science.¹

Much of that battle is being waged in state capitals.

At the forefront, seven big states are leading the world in political and financial support for embryonic stem-cell research.

Their goal: Attract the best stem-cell scientists from around the globe and become a hub for a multi-billion-dollar bioscience industry. So far, their plan appears to be working.

In the past two years, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin have awarded some $230 million in grants — more than three times as much as the federal government spent on embryonic stem-cell studies in that time — and there has been no shortage of scientists seeking the money.

Three more states — Iowa, Massachusetts and Missouri — have affirmed the legality of the research in hopes of keeping or encouraging scientists to work within their borders.

But six others — Arkansas, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota and South Dakota — now ban studies that result in the destruction of human embryos, and Arizona bars state funding for embryonic studies. These states have positions closer to those of Japan and most European countries.

Except in these states, work on embryonic stem cells is free to go on in the United States at places such as universities and private, nonprofit and corporate laboratories — as long as no federal money is involved. But states that want to be players in the nascent stem-cell arena are finding they must ante up with state financing and a science- friendly environment.

Polls indicate a majority of Americans approve of embryonic stem-cell research, which explores special cells in 5-day-old embryos that have the unique ability to transform into cells from any organ tissue in the body. Scientists say these so-called pluripotent cells hold the keys to discovering the causes and cures for many human ailments, including Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Lou Gehrig’s disease, juvenile diabetes, blindness and spinal-cord and brain injuries.

But President George W. Bush, the Catholic Church and right-to-life groups have cited the same moral objections they raise to abortion in demanding that human embryos — which they regard as the beginning of life — not be sacrificed, even in a search for cures to save human lives. Instead, they pressed for research into non-controversial adult stem cells.

The latest discovery satisfies those with moral objections and dramatically tips the balance toward more work on skin cells. But for scientific reasons, embryonic studies won’t be abandoned just yet.

Embryonic stem-cell research is still the “gold standard” for scientists, said Jonathan Moreno at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics. “Everyone is saying the future is with the new cells. But we’re not in the future yet. It’s going to take several years to get there.”

Scramble for scientists

Among states seeding the fledgling science, California is the bellwether with a $3 billion fund of taxpayer dollars being spent to build world-class research labs and lure leading stem-cell scientists to the sunny West Coast. When all seven states’ investments are totaled, the commitment comes to nearly $5 billion over the next 10 years. Massachusetts could add another $1 billion.

States with a financial and political climate that welcomes embryonic stem-cell work may shift more emphasis to the new techniques, but existing investments in embryonic studies will continue as well. “States that have chosen to fund the research are in an ideal position,” said Bernard Siegel, founder of the Genetics Policy Institute, a nonprofit stem-cell advocacy group. “Scientists are energized by the new developments, and many of the best and brightest already are flocking to California and other states with generous grants and friendly science policies.”

Read the complete story at stateline.org.

This article was excerpted from “State of the States 2008,” Stateline.org’s annual report on significant state policy developments and trends. The 72-page report will be published Jan. 16. You can order a print copy, while supplies last. Or register for a PDF version.

Notes

¹Religious opponents hailed the skin-cell breakthrough as proof that research involving the destruction of embryos is unnecessary and must end. Scientists countered that studies on stem cells harvested from human embryos must continue for at least several more years while the new technique is perfected. A subsequent report, published in a scientific journal Jan. 11, revealed that stem cells had been produced from human embryos in a private U.S. lab without destroying the embryos, adding to already mounting enthusiasm for the science although that technique may not hold as much promise as the skin cell method, because it is more difficult to perform, scientists say. In addition, religious leaders strongly objected to early reports of the research in 2006, and administration officials so far have said the federal government is not likely to approve it for funding.

As a primary source for science information, the internet is second only to television among the general population. For Americans with high-speed internet connections at home, the internet is as popular as TV for news and information about science. And for young adults with high-speed connections at home, the internet is the most popular source for science news and information by a 44% to 32% margin over television.

The national survey conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project in collaboration with the Exploratorium benchmarks how the internet fits into people’s habits for gathering news and information about science. Findings include:

<ul >

• Nearly 9 in 10 (87%) online users have used the internet to look up the meaning of a scientific concept, answer a specific science question, learn more about a scientific breakthrough, complete a school assignment, check the accuracy of a scientific fact, download scientific data, or compare different or opposing scientific theories.
• Most Americans say they would turn to the internet if they needed more information on specific scientific topics. Two-thirds of respondents asked about stem cell research said they would first turn to the internet and 59% asked about climate change said they would first go to the internet. Most of those searches would begin with search engines.
• Nearly three quarters (71%) of internet users say they turn to the internet for science news and information because it is convenient.
• Two-thirds (65%) say they have encountered news and information about science when they have gone online with a different reason in mind.Users of the internet for science information also report better attitudes about the role science plays in society and higher assessments of how well they understand science. Specifically:

  <ul >

• 78% of those who have gotten science information online describe themselves as “very” or “somewhat” informed about new scientific discoveries; 58% of remaining internet users says this.
• 48% strongly agree that to be a strong society, the United States needs to be competitive in science; 33% of remaining online users strongly agree with this.
• 43% strongly agree that scientific research is essential to improving the quality of human lives; 27% of other online users also say this.The report also showed that many Americans visit science museums and websites whose main focus is on science. Three in five Americans (59%) have been to some sort of science museum in the past year, such as a zoo or aquarium, natural history museum, science or technology museum, or planetarium. Half (49%) of internet users have gone to a website whose content is devoted to science, such as the Smithsonian’s website or NationalGeographic.com. The report also shows a relationship between the two behaviors: those who have gone to a science museum are more likely to visit science websites, and vice versa.

  The Pew Internet Project/Exploratorium report, made possible by the National Science Foundation, is based on a survey of 2,000 Americans conducted in January 2006. It has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.