This roundup of findings shows public views about science-related issues and the role of science in Brazilian society. The findings come from a Pew Research Center survey conducted across 20 publics in Europe, the Asia-Pacific, Russia, the U.S., Canada and Brazil from October 2019 to March 2020.
[chapter title=”Ratings of medical treatments, scientific achievements and STEM education in Brazil” icon_url=”https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2020/09/STEM_icon.png”]
Majorities in most of the 20 publics surveyed saw their medical treatments in a favorable light on the eve of the global pandemic. Medical treatments were often seen more favorably than achievements in other areas.
Across the 20 publics, a median of 59% say their medical treatments are at least above average. In Brazil, only 6% think their country’s medical treatments are the best in the world or above average, the lowest share of any of the 20 survey publics. A majority of Brazilians think their medical treatments are below average (63%).
Across all areas of achievement, ratings are particularly low in Brazil. One-in-ten say Brazil’s technological achievements and university STEM education are the best in the world or above average. And similar small shares say their scientific achievements (8%) and primary and secondary STEM education (8%) are at least above average.
Majorities in all publics agree that being a world leader in scientific achievement is at least somewhat important, but the share who view this as very important varies by public. A 20-public median of 51% place the highest level of importance on being a science world leader. In Brazil, 43% of people say being a world leader in scientific achievements is very important.
Overall, there is broad agreement among these 20 publics that government investment in scientific research is worthwhile. A median of 82% say government investments in scientific research aimed at advancing knowledge are usually worthwhile for society over time. In Brazil, about eight-in-ten say this (79%).
[chapter title=”Views on artificial intelligence, food science and childhood vaccines in Brazil” icon_url=”https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2020/09/AI_icon.png”]
Majorities in most publics see their government’s space exploration program as a good thing for society. Across the 20 publics, a median of 72% say their government’s space exploration program has mostly been a good thing for society. In Brazil, some 55% say the Brazilian Space Agency’s space exploration program has been good for society.
Public views on artificial intelligence (AI) and using robots to automate jobs are more varied from public to public. A median of 53% say the development of AI, or computer systems designed to imitate human behaviors, has mostly been a good thing for society, while 33% say it has been a bad thing. The Center survey also finds that publics offer mixed views about the use of robots to automate jobs. Across the 20 publics, a median of 48% say such automation has mostly been a good thing, while 42% say it has been a bad thing.
In Brazil, a larger share says the development of AI has been good for society rather than bad for society. Some 53% say artificial intelligence has been good for society, while 39% say it has been bad. Opinions about the effect of workplace automation through robotics are far more negative: 64% view these developments as a bad thing.
Across most of the publics surveyed, views about the safety of fruits and vegetables grown with pesticides, food and drinks with artificial preservatives and genetically modified foods tilt far more negative than positive. About half think produce grown with pesticides (median of 53%), foods made with artificial preservatives (53%) or genetically modified foods (48%) are unsafe. Brazilians are very skeptical by comparison. In Brazil, only 7% say fruits and vegetables grown with pesticides are safe, while six-in-ten think they are unsafe, and 31% say they don’t know enough about this issue to say. Similarly, two-thirds think food and drinks with artificial preservatives are unsafe to eat, and about half (49%) think genetically modified foods are unsafe.
When it comes to childhood vaccines such as the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, a median of 61% say the preventive health benefits of such vaccines are high, and a median of 55% think there is no or only a low risk of side effects. In Brazil, 57% say the preventive health benefits from the MMR vaccine are high; half rate the risk of side effects from the MMR vaccine as low or none.
[chapter title=”Views on climate and the environment in Brazil” icon_url=”https://www.pewresearch.org/science/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2020/09/Climate_icon.png”]
Majorities across all 20 survey publics would prioritize protecting the environment, even if it causes slower economic growth. A median of 71% would prioritize environmental protection. In Brazil, an identical share says this: 71% of Brazilians think protecting the environment should be given priority, even if it causes slower economic growth and some loss of jobs. A far smaller share (25%) says creating jobs should be the top priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.
Public concern about global climate change has gone up over the past few years in many publics surveyed by the Center.
Majorities in all 20 publics say they are seeing at least some effects of climate change where they live. A median of 70% say they are experiencing a great deal or some effects of climate change where they live. In Brazil, about three-quarters (74%) say climate change is affecting where they live a great deal (50%) or some (24%).
A 20-public median of 58% say their national government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change. Half of Brazilians say the government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change, while 41% say the government is doing about the right amount, and just 4% say it is doing too much.
Find out more
Read the full report online.
All surveys were conducted with nationally representative samples of adults ages 18 and older. Here is the survey methodology used in each public.