As a Tufts alum, I was thrilled to read The crisis of scientific illiteracy by Michael Shusterman in The Tufts Daily. It’s a terrific piece describing why the disconnect between science and American culture is so vital to address immediately. He begins:
Today the United States is faced with a serious crisis in scientific literacy and education. In the midst of debate over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, health care reform and the economy, this issue has receded further and further into the background. And yet the topic remains as salient as it has ever been. Our world is driven by scientific innovation and technology. Twenty-first century economies will be knowledge-based, science-oriented and dependent on workers in sectors like energy, biological sciences and information technology. The early by-products of this paradigm shift are already evident with the advent of personalized genetic testing, pharmacogenomic research, hybrid vehicles, advanced power sources and hundreds of other innovations and discoveries.
He goes on to discuss science literacy and the implications of a public that cannot grasp concepts like evolution or keep up with emerging fields such as genetics. Michael considers competitiveness with China and India and points out we may be falling behind in an increasingly globalized world. He also names many of the social and historical reasons that led to the current crisis which Chris and I have also outlined in Unscientific America.
It can be argued that there are four key areas that must be addressed: media and journalism, scientist-directed outreach, government programs and instructor training. Science journalism and the media’s portrayal of science represent one of the most visible venues for public interaction with science. But the economic realities of a dying print medium have resulted in layoffs of veteran science journalists, fewer science stories being published in favor of snazzier topics and a decrease in major newspapers with science sections or departments. At the same time, science journalists have been criticized by scientists for trying to serve the journalistic adage of presenting both sides of issues when two sides do not exist in the scientific discourse — such as intelligent design and evolution — or for oversimplifying material to the point of obscuring the science behind it. Proponents of fringe ideologies are given equal time with the bulk of the scientific community. Public and government officials are led to believe that debate exists where there is none.
What I love most about this piece is the way Michael recognizes there are many overlapping layers to the problem and demonstrates an understanding of what will be required to change the state of things.
There is a great deal of work and discussion still ahead if we are to begin the process of addressing the problems of science illiteracy and ineffective science education. Sagan noted that we have created a world “in which most critical elements profoundly depend on science and technology.” It has become a world in which a minority understands or can even reasonably assess that same science. A society in which science illiteracy and ineffective education reign is one in which the distortion of public opinion regarding science can be achieved easily, in which technocrats can wield disproportionate influence and in which innovation and new discoveries are stifled by a lack of individuals to make them. There is no time left, the time for action to address this crisis is now.
CM and I agree he is spot on and encourage everyone to go read the full article. Directly to Michael Shusterman–we look forward to hearing more from you…
December 1st, 2009 at 2:00 pm
“t the same time, science journalists have been criticized by scientists for trying to serve the journalistic adage of presenting both sides of issues when two sides do not exist in the scientific discourse — such as intelligent design and evolution — or for oversimplifying material to the point of obscuring the science behind it.”
I especially like this insight. Also prevalent is the propensity toward hyperbole when it comes to the headlines of potential future uses of a tiny discovery when practical applications are quite some ways off (for instance, a future male contraceptive just announced the other day).
Thanks for sharing.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Curiosity is a burning hunger that can never be satiated. If that fire is ignited at an early age, everything else will follow. Teach the children well – teach them as much about HOW to learn as you do about the W’s (who, what, etc.) and R’s (reading, ‘riting, ‘rithmetic). Stimulation sharpens – prefab pablum dulls.
Oh, and pay teachers M O R E – it really will work wonders.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
One of the points made in the article cited above is: “The detachment of a requirement for a strong science background from the current pedagogical curricula for teachers has created instructors who are unable to effectively demonstrate and explain concepts, create engaging activities or provide technically rigorous and insightful discussions.”
This is not just a problem of financial compensation.
My experience with some teachers at even the elementary school level leads me to believe that many school districts need to re-allign their teaching staff.
Some teachers are only able to convey their own math anxiety. They may have little or no comprehension of the process of science. Or, they may even be operating with hidden, anti-science agendas. As is frequently the case for music or art, math and scientists may need to be taught by specialists. Or at the very least, with very strong technical support.
December 1st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I am currently disgusted with the high level of science illiteracy among my peers. I’m in college, and we recently had Eugenie Scott speak at my university on Darwin’s anniversary. People were leaving early! They were so rude. And I as I left, I heard people’s comments about how she (Eugenie) didn’t know what she was talking about. Afterall, how could evolution be true if we still have fish and we still have monkeys! Idiots
December 1st, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Wars, economies, health-systems are mind-bogglingly large and complex, and need essentially scientific tools to understand: Carefully constructed statistics, peer-reviewed arguments, deftly interpreted measurements. Distrust and misunderstanding of science, scientists, and expertise in general have led to sharp disagreements not just about what we should do next, but where we are now.
Sound-bite courses of ideologically-comfortable action for situations simplified to fit cable-TV will not give us workable resolutions, but that’s what a scientifically illiterate public responds to.
If scientific illiteracy has receded further into the background due to the high-profile debates, it’s merely a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
I guess I take exception to the word “salient” in the first paragraph. IMO scientific illiteracy isn’t a separate, equally important issue. Instead it lies at the heart of why we’re having so much trouble with the others. Scientific illiteracy will not just give us ever-increasing problems down the line, it’s the root of many of our problems right now, and not just in “technical” areas.
December 1st, 2009 at 5:32 pm
[...] sono imbattuto (via The Intersection) in questo interessante articolo che parla dell’importanza di diffondere la conoscenza [...]
December 1st, 2009 at 5:43 pm
The problem with school’s today is they’re too focused on psychological/behavioral factors and teaching to standardized tests that they don’t necessarily teach anymore. I hold a degree in math with a minor in education and can tell you from my experiences that this is the case more often than not. Children today are generally spoon fed answers, which are parroted back on a test. In this respect, there’s less creativity and curiosity provoked in teaching math and science today. Therefore, children may perform well on tests, but never truly understand the process of how and why things come to be. Science requires more than being able to answer questions, it’s a mindset of professional skepticism dealing with material evidence that requires critical thinking and problem solving skills. I don’t feel teachers emphasize this enough today.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:21 pm
I’m constantly amazed at the inability of all sides in this debate to critically examine themselves as a contributor to illiteracy. Teachers get offended when the sorry state of our education system is mentioned. Journalists get all indignant and self-righteous when someone calls out their unrealistic use of hyperbole. Scientists call people “woolly-headed” and say they “just don’t get it” when someone makes the point that publishing stuff in journals and hoping the public finds (and pays for!) it isn’t good enough.
Everyone’s willing to point fingers and heap the blame on somebody else, but no one’s willing to say “yes, I’m part of the problem” and change how they operate. That’s disgusting. Until we can get past that kind of narcissism, the public’s knowledge of science is going nowhere. Period.
December 2nd, 2009 at 12:50 am
[...] the denialists have to be fought December 1, 2009 — Richard The Crisis of Scientific Illiteracy: [Via The Intersection] As a Tufts alum, I was thrilled to read The crisis of scientific illiteracy [...]
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:09 am
If we work on improving general literacy (especially among the poor) then scientific literacy will naturally follow.
We must not equate science with atheism or any other ‘ism’ because that will prevent some children from even being exposed to the right information. Their parents will ‘home school’ them instead of allowing them to learn what they view as being anti-religious teachings.
December 2nd, 2009 at 9:20 am
Good point, guy. Let me add those two groups to my list of people above who can’t (or just simply won’t) critically examine themselves:
Atheists (ironically) get all huffy and offended when someone reminds them that spitting in someone’s face/seeing how offensive you can be isn’t typically a useful prelude to teaching the same people science.
The religious get all self-righteous and refuse to admit that a literal interpetation of their texts and blind faith without intellect only harm science.
December 2nd, 2009 at 10:41 am
@ bilbo -
I strongly second both of your comments. Couldn’t have said them better myself.
Appreciatively yours,
John
December 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
The main problem with scientific illiteracy is that it can’t really be delt with until we address the issue of regular illiteracy. The average american reads at an 8th grade level. Below him are 92 milliion others who read at a 6th grade level or less; 40 million of these are almost completely illiterate.
How can an individual become more scientifically savvy if he can barely read a childrens book, let alone Discover Magazine or Popular Science?
December 3rd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
This is a bit off the topic, but still relevant to note here. Vertebrate paleobiologist Donald Prothero has just had published a book review which is an excellent overview not only of Stephen Jay Gould’s scientific career, but one which puts Gould’s scientific popularizer status in proper context, noting that Gould was a far more productive scientist than many of his colleagues, including such luminaries as Ernst Mayr, E. O. Wilson, Jared Diamond and even Carl Sagan. If nothing else, Prothero’s excellent essay merely confirms my observation stated often here that Gould was probably far more important as a scientist and as a science popularizer than was Sagan:
http://philosophyandtheoryinbiology.org/