Can famous celebrity scientists help shape the public’s view on evolution? And how do public perceptions about them change that?

In today’s media-saturated world, the public often comes to understand scientific ideas through how they are embodied by famous individuals. Declan Fahy wrote about that in his 2015 book The New Celebrity Scientists and in his related cover article in the Skeptical Inquirer, “A Brief History of Scientific Celebrity” (July/August 2015).

Now two researchers in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at University College London have published a detailed study of how the four best-known celebrity scientists in Britain—David Attenborough, Brian Cox, Richard Dawkins, and Stephen Hawking—influence the understanding of popular science, in particular evolution.

Amy Unsworth and David Voas analyzed whether familiarity with these four celebrity scientists (plus two creationists, Ken Ham and Harun Yahya) changes acceptance of evolutionary theory among members of the public, both religious and nonreligious.

They tested predictions from social identity theory that celebrity scientists known for their positions in the science-religion conflict would exert different effects on audiences—specifically that they would promote increased acceptance of evolution among nonreligious groups and decreased acceptance of evolution among religious groups.

They began with Fahy’s concept of celebrity scientists and noted that among the four most influential in Britain, three (Attenborough, Cox, and Dawkins) had worked to popularize evolutionary theory through their popular science books and television appearances. All four have stated they do not believe in a deity, but they all have presented slightly different approaches about that to the public. Dawkins and Hawking believe science and religion are in opposition, while Attenborough and Cox tend to say little publicly about religion.

The researchers commissioned a polling company to conduct a survey of the British population in August 2014, gathering a nationally representative sample, including people from five different religious traditions. (This survey period was of course while Stephen Hawking was still alive.)

Respondents reported they had learned about evolution mostly through science/nature programs on television, followed by “studied at school.” Books, newspaper or magazine articles, and conversations with friends and family came in next. “These results,” the researchers say, “point to the importance of popular science media in informing people’s ideas about evolution.”

The four celebrity scientists analyzed in their paper were in general well known to the respondents. Hawking was associated with science by 93 percent, Attenborough by 79 percent, Cox by 72 percent, and Dawkins by 49 percent.

One of their questions was to what extent people trusted each to present reliable information about science. Among the nonreligious (who now represent 53 percent of Britain’s population, according to 2017 social survey data), as well as Anglicans and Catholics, there was high trust in Attenborough, Hawkins, and Cox, with about 90 percent agreeing. The chart for Dawkins looked a bit different. About 78 percent of nonreligious people thought he presented reliable science information. But his trust levels were in the 40 to 50 percent range for Anglicans, Catholics, and Muslims and only 19.8 percent and 25.1 percent among independent evangelicals and Pentecostals, respectively.

The survey showed that many more people perceived Dawkins as viewing religion negatively compared to any other celebrity scientist.

The researchers were particularly interested in respondents who reported a change in view about evolution, either more or less accepting.

For the nonreligious, associating Dawkins with science increased the odds of becoming more accepting of evolution. This was also true among Catholics. The other celebrity scientists showed no significant positive effect.

But among religious people, especially Muslims and Pentecostal Christians, those familiar with Dawkins as both a scientist and as someone who holds negative views about religion are more likely to become less accepting of evolution.

As Unsworth and Voas report in the journal Public Understanding of Science (“The Dawkins Effect? Celebrity Scientists, (Non)religious Publics and Changed Attitudes to Evolution,” vol. 30 issue 4, pages 434–454, 2021), “Among non-religious publics Dawkins was the only celebrity scientist associated with higher odds of becoming more accepting of evolution.”

But given the opposite effect among those who are religious, they advise, “We suggest that engaging certain religious audiences with the science of evolutionary biology may be more effective when their religious identities are not threatened.”