In my last column, I asked you to consider your journey as a scientist and to consider the role that you might play as a scientific mentor. In that column, I touched on scientific literacy, and I decided to expand on my thoughts about that topic because it is so important to all of us at the dawn of the 21st century. Previously, I mentioned Dr. Carl Sagan’s book, The Demon-Haunted World, and again encourage you to read it, if you have not done so. We really are at a crossroads in science, and it is crucial that we educate the citizenry to become scientifically literate. If we fail to do so, the chasm that exists between those who understand something of science and those who do not, will grow increasingly wider, perhaps to the point that we will be plunged into some version of the dark ages. I once thought that the “dark age” analogy was too pessimistic and not remotely possible, but now I am not so sure. Maybe I have lost my youthful optimism, but I think my pessimism is grounded in more complex reasons. Two major topics come to mind that have made me reconsider the future of science: biological evolution and global warming. In both instances, the scientific community has reached overwhelming consensus that both are real phenomena, but politicians and media pundits have made the public at large believe that there is major disagreement among scientists about these two topics, and therefore the theories are not valid. So, what are the problems, and how can we help address them?
The role of the media cannot be understated. Interestingly, stories about science are everywhere in an era when many cannot critically analyze the information. For example, an examination of the NPR web site for the past week or so yielded several scientifically related stories. A few examples include reports about research on mustard plants, obesity, the Viking mission, jellyfish, HIV in Africa, migraine headaches, Vioxx, and the Alaska wilderness. We humans are fascinated by science because it is exciting, fun, and mysterious, and we are naturally curious; however, the public listens to these narratives with no concept of the tedious nature of the enterprise. The exacting nature of science is not well-understood by the public at large, and the perception is that scientists sit at a desk spouting theories because they “believe” in them. There is little understanding of hypothesis generation and testing in peer reviewed research and statistical analysis that accompanies most scientific papers. Also, there is serious confusion and little understanding of the difference between “hypothesis” and “theory” or about the concept of consensus in science. There is no accountability for scientifically inaccurate or dishonest statements made in the media. “Truthiness,” that something is true because one wants it to be true, is pervasive nowadays. It is incumbent on the scientific community to engage the media to explain the nature of science in ways that force the citizenry to become more critical in contemplation of scientific phenomena.
The National Science Foundation Indicator reports provide very useful information to help us understand the reality of the perception of science in the world. In the 2006 document, the foundation reported that Americans strongly support science and technology, but have very poor understanding of science. The good news from the document is a graph that indicates a decline in belief in paranormal phenomena from 2001 to 2005. The bad news is that basic knowledge of scientific facts did not improve. A substantial percentage of the populace could not answer basic scientific questions. For example, fewer than 50% of Americans understand that electrons are smaller than atoms, more than 40% think that antibiotics kill viruses, and a quarter of Americans believe that the sun goes around the earth. These data are scary in light of the fact that we live in an age of science and technology.
How can we expect this same public to understand the complexities of evolutionary theory or global warming, if they have no fundamental knowledge base, much less an understanding of scientific process? We must be proactive in developing scientific curricula that require a base of factual knowledge, but more importantly, we must embrace the concept of “science as a way of knowing.” We must train students in the ways of science, and we must work to turn the tide so that policy decisions are based on empirical data, not on someone’s view of what they want the truth to be. China and India are embracing change in terms of their educational processes relative to science and technology. If we do not do the same, we will no longer be the leaders in science education. The competition is knocking at the door. Are we willing to do what it takes to turn the tide of scientific illiteracy in Oklahoma and the country? As Oklahoma scientists, we should all be dedicated to the cause of science that is grounded in sound principles.
Susan C. Barber, OAS President
sbarber@okcu.edu
