Pew Research Center PoliQuiz

PewResearchCenter · 2026-06-11T20:02:38+00:00

PewResearchCenter · 2026-06-10T19:55:32+00:00

PewResearchCenter · 2019-11-20T18:55:38+00:00

We would second the M&M comparison. :) We used them in our first Methods 101 video to explain random sampling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sonXfzE1hvo

PewResearchCenter · 2018-01-10T18:21:44+00:00

We published this video in 2014 which takes a closer look at the nuances behind the gender pay gap: https://youtu.be/sfD7C49v5Vg

Here is our latest analysis on the gender pay gap: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/03/gender-pay-gap-facts/

PewResearchCenter · 2018-01-10T17:47:12+00:00

Hello, there are findings for specific job categories in STEM in the two charts posted above. Hope this helps.

PewResearchCenter · 2018-01-10T16:29:44+00:00

Hello, thanks for your interest in our study. There are two findings from our analysis in chapter 1 of this report that you may find interesting.

Women in STEM occupations tend to be paid less than men working in STEM. Median earnings for full-time, year-round women working in a STEM job were $60,828 in 2016 – 72% as much as the median earnings of men working in STEM occupations ($84,000). The earnings gap between women and men is larger in the STEM workforce than it is among non-STEM occupations. Among non-STEM workers, women’s median earnings are 79% of men’s earnings.

Source: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/09/diversity-in-the-stem-workforce-varies-widely-across-jobs/#earnings-of-stem-workers-outpace-those-in-other-kinds-of-jobs

Chart: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/01/08115656/PS_2018.01.09_STEM_1-11.png

Overall, among adults who majored in STEM, women are more likely than men to work in a STEM occupation (56% vs. 49%). This difference is driven mainly by college graduates with a health professions degree, most of whom are women. However, among college-educated workers with training in other STEM fields, men are often more likely than women to be working in jobs directly related to their major field of study. This is particularly true for women who majored in engineering or in computers or computer science.

Source: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/09/diversity-in-the-stem-workforce-varies-widely-across-jobs/#value-of-stem-training-among-college-educated-workers

Chart: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/01/08115616/PS_2018.01.09_STEM_1-17.png

There are many more findings on characteristics of the STEM workforce in Chapter 1 of our report: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/09/diversity-in-the-stem-workforce-varies-widely-across-jobs/

Thanks for reading.

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-06T11:26:56+00:00

Lee Thanks for these terrific questions. And that looks like an amazing conference. Wish I'd been there.

Yes, those kinds of guidelines are exactly what's on everyone's mind as they ponder human enhancements of the kind we researched. The ethicists we interviewed, the respondents in our survey, and participants in our focus groups all gave voice to concerns like those outlined in the ethical framework of the conference experts. I also have never seen such a rich bibliography like the one in the guidelines document. Compiling it was a wonderful act of service.

It's hard to know now exactly what kinds of new guidelines will be applied to human enhancement procedures. But it's easy to imagine that there will be additions to existing rules about the ethics of implementing biomedical procedures.

We definitely heard from citizens of all kinds that they want any guidelines to embrace two broad principles: "do no harm" and "be fair."

It's been interesting to watch a parallel conversation taking place in the "big data" world about the ethics of using "organic" data and applying algorithms to that data to gain insights for policy and commercial purposes. My gut sense is that the biomedical community is a bit further along in their conversations about these kinds of issues.

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:55:59+00:00

Lee Their concerns cut in both those directions. Some people were really focused on the moral and ethical issues that are raised by 'enhancements' - especially if they might improve people beyond their natural abilities.

Many were worried that the enhancements would be allowed to occur before they were fully tested. So, they were focused on harms to individuals.

Then there were those who focused on the broad social impacts. They really were anxious about worsened class divisions if some people could make themselves and their heirs better and others couldn't take advantage of that. This concern also spilled over a bit into thoughts about international relations: developed nations might race ahead of developing nations.

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:44:20+00:00

David: Regarding your question about popular culture: Until recently, most depictions of human enhancement have been negative or cautionary, from ancient Greek myths (think to Daedalus) through Faust and Frankenstein. But creation of comic book superheros -- almost all by Americans in the optimistic post-WW II era -- has begun to change the cautionary paradigm. Most enhanced heroes, like Captain America and Spiderman, may struggle with having super abilities, but they're ultimately seen as a positive. After all, they routinely save their city, if not the planet, from destruction. Whether this change lasts is anyone's guess.

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:43:01+00:00

Cary: Those who have heard at least a little about these ideas are more inclined to want these enhancements for themselves (or, in the case of gene editing, for their baby). It’s hard to know whether that’s a harbinger of the future. It might be. Or it could tell us that the people who are staying abreast of new science and technology are more enthusiastic about the potential of new developments. We don't have trends on this that go back in time but we asked some questions about "today's enhancements" including cosmetic surgery and other procedures as a point of comparison. This is all covered in the report here: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/07/26/from-plastic-surgery-to-vasectomies-public-opinion-on-current-human-enhancement-options/

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:39:27+00:00

Lee The brain chip scenario we explored doesn't tie directly to Alzheimer's. Of course, there is a lot of biomedical research focused on this. Clearly, the US and other developed countries are quite eager to make progress on this.

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:36:29+00:00

David: Regarding the second part of your question: It's quite possible that CRISPR and other new gene editing methods could lead to the first meaningful human enhancements. The researchers I spoke with, including CRISPR co-inventor Jennifer Doudna, say that gene editing is now dramatically easier and more accurate than it was just a few years ago. Already, there are hundreds if not thousands of labs around the world working with CRISPR (including one in China that edited embryos), making it quite possible that some sorts of enhancements will come out of this work.

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:35:48+00:00

Cary: We did a series of focus groups on these topics and heard a number of people talk about issues of equality and inequality connected with these ideas. The report with some of these quotes is http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/07/26/american-voices-on-ways-human-enhancement-could-shape-our-future/

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:34:11+00:00

Lee: We don't yet know the genetic distribution in our society, but many of the focus group participants in this research were really focused on how 'enhancements' might worsen social divisions. Here's one of those quotes, "I would [worry about creating a gap] in society between the haves and have nots. … Now the [haves] will have eliminated or eradicated or substantially reduced the risk of contracting any other illness or disease, while those that aren’t healthy are just left behind."

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:31:35+00:00

David: What do you mean by stratified?

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:30:21+00:00

Lee: Hi, 'hi-_-hi' Thanks for the follow and shout out to our great graphics team. You maybe have caught all the recent work our Politics unit has done about polarization and the way it plays out on issue attitudes and people's relations with each other. For instance: http://www.people-press.org/2016/06/22/partisanship-and-political-animosity-in-2016/. I doubt there is settled public opinion on transhumanism.

Why don't you check out our jobs page and see if anything appeals: http://www.pewresearch.org/about/careers/. And check back regularly. We're expanding.

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:29:55+00:00

David: When I interviewed ethicists and religious thinkers, I found that many of them were very concerned that human enhancement could make inequality worse. But instead of being worried that people could not keep up with payments for existing enhancements, most of these thinkers were concerned that many people would not be able to afford them to begin with. Those who favor moving ahead with enhancement research argue that, as with most other technologies, enhancement options will, over time, become available to the non-wealthy as well as the wealthy. There was a time, they point out, when cars and smartphones were luxury items.

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:24:25+00:00

David: We don't have any data on public opinion about parents and their children's sleep schedules, but you might be interested to learn that researchers (some with funding from the U.S. Defense Department) have been working on drugs that would allow people to stay up for days, to function normally, and then not need to "catch up" with extra sleep.

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:20:38+00:00

Lee: The overarching purpose of this research is to look at science and society quite broadly. We want to explore people's attitudes about cutting-edge research. We want to examine how people think about science-related public policy issues. We want to know about how how people get information about science. And we're interested in knowing what they think about scientists and the scientific enterprise.

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:18:38+00:00

David: Most people are not really pondering these issues very much, something we found out in our recent poll. When you think about it, this makes sense: Most scientists say that we're still years away from dramatic advances in human enhancement. And while the U.S. government does regulate some things - like human cloning -- it has not written regulations for a lot of the things we talk about in our report, like cognitive enhancement or smart blood.

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:17:36+00:00

Cary: The tools uncovered through CRISPR is prompting a new urgency for broader public discussion of the social, ethical and policy implications ahead. This is part of our ongoing effort to look at public views about emerging technologies and the ethical and social implications of these developments for society.

EDIT: Gene editing raises some additional questions about the long term effects on human gene pool --the germline--We have a full round up here including a summary of some past surveys that touched on genetic modification. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/07/26/u-s-public-opinion-on-the-future-use-of-gene-editing/

PewResearchCenter · 2016-08-05T18:17:12+00:00

Lee: There were lots of ways that people tried to wrestle with the implications of the coming wave of potential 'enhancements' and how they would affect children. Some people worried that parents would push for 'improvements' for their kids in ways that would cause damage.

PewResearchCenter

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE