Abstract: Recent years have witnessed a surge of ethical controversies surrounding science and technology—spanning gene editing, artificial intelligence (AI), biosafety, and climate change, among others. While early “deficit models” assumed that merely increasing public understanding of science would lead to greater support for innovation, this notion proves inadequate when people confront complex and value-laden dilemmas. Increasing evidence suggests that individuals with similar scientific understanding can arrive at vastly different stances if their psychological dispositions (interest in science, trust in science, and life satisfaction) differ. This study aims to deepen the critique of the deficit model by exploring how multiple knowledge dimensions (scientific knowledge vs. general education) and psychological factors collectively influence public attitudes toward seven techno-ethical issues. Using nationally representative data from the 2023 “Science, Technology, and Society Barometer Survey,” we examine Chinese adults’ attitudes toward gene editing, genetically modified foods, biosafety, AI, assisted reproduction, animal experimentation, and climate change. The survey measures both scientific knowledge (focused on factual, concept-based items) and general knowledge (proxied by formal educational attainment), while also assessing participants’ level of trust in science, interest in cutting-edge research, and perceived life satisfaction. Regression analyses test whether distinct types of knowledge correlate with more supportive or cautious positions on each issue, and whether psychological factors moderate these relationships. Our findings reveal divergent effects of scientific knowledge across issues. On assisted reproduction, animal experimentation, biosafety, and AI, individuals with higher science scores exhibit more supportive or less cautious attitudes, suggesting they see the benefits and weigh risks more analytically. Yet for climate change, greater scientific knowledge heightens anxiety, likely because it sharpens awareness of long-term, large-scale impacts. In contrast, general educational background exerts weaker or inconsistent effects. Moreover, psychological factors significantly moderate these knowledge–attitude links. People who strongly trust scientists may rely less on their own educational credentials, weakening or strengthening the effect of knowledge depending on context. High interest in science can lead to selective information processing, sometimes weakening the usual positive association between knowledge and support for new technologies. Meanwhile, those with higher life satisfaction may adopt a more cautious stance, motivated by a desire to safeguard their well-being against potential disruptions. These results underscore that public attitudes toward science are shaped by much more than informational “deficits.” Rather than merely disseminating facts, policymakers and communicators must address trust-building, support varying levels of interest, and acknowledge the role of life satisfaction in shaping how people respond to emerging technologies. This approach has the potential to foster more constructive dialogues and balanced risk-benefit assessments, facilitating alignment between scientific advancements and public values. By integrating multi-dimensional knowledge measures with psychological frameworks, this study expands our theoretical and practical understanding of why some technologies gain acceptance while others trigger concern. Ultimately, effective governance of techno-ethical controversies hinges on a nuanced approach that recognizes both the cognitive and emotional components of people’s judgments, reinforcing the need for inclusive, trust-centered, and empathetic science communication.