MODERN TIMES
Art Hobson
ahobson@uark.edu
NWA Times 15 Mar 2008
Are we
scientifically literate?
The
late Carl Sagan, astronomer and irrepressible purveyor of science to the
general public, in 1995 famously stated:
"We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial
elements Éprofoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that
almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while,
but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to
blow up in our faces." These
words seem prescient today in view of the horrors that scientifically
illiterate people, especially religious fundamentalists, have perpetrated upon
the world.
We
have not been paying our dues for the benefits of the scientific age. Those dues are that we must all learn
enough science to be able to use science wisely. If we don't, the witless use of power will destroy us.
In
recent decades, scientific literacy has been measured all over the world. The bad news is that every nation is
miserably ignorant of science. But
the good news for us is that American adults score significantly higher than
adults in nearly every other nation.
The reasons for this surprising but little-noted result are
important.
Jon
Miller of Michigan State University is perhaps the leading world expert on the
international measurement of scientific literacy. Miller defines scientific literacy as "the level of
understanding of science and technology needed to function in a modern
industrial society. This does not
imply an ideal level of understanding, but rather a minimal threshold
level." He has found evidence
for two essential dimensions of scientific literacy. The first is a basic knowledge of scientific concepts such
as stem cell, molecule, the big bang, continental drift, the cause of the
seasons, biological evolution, and the greenhouse effect. The second dimension is an understanding
of the process of science--an understanding that science's authority stems not
from emotion, ancient texts, authority figures, superstition, or religion but
rather from evidence and reason.
Miller
has developed a continually updated core set of questions used since 1988 in
studies of adults in most industrial nations. A score of 70 on these tests represents sufficient knowledge
to understand science and technology stories in the daily newspapers, while a
person scoring much below 70 would have a difficult time making sense of
current debates about global warming, embryonic stem cells, etc. Thus, a score of 70 or more marks a
person as "scientifically literate."
Among
the 34 nations tested (using standard sampling techniques) in 2005, the
scientifically literate fraction--the nation's "scientific literacy
rate"--of the adult population rose above 30 percent in only one
nation: Sweden, with 35
percent. The U.S. was second with
28 percent. Netherlands, Norway,
Finland, and Denmark were between 20 and 25 percent. Britain and 14 other western Europeans nations had
scientific literacy rates between 10 and 19 percent. Japan and 12 other nations had rates below 10 percent.
The
world obviously needs to do better.
On the other hand, adult scientific literacy has been rising in most
nations. In the U.S. it rose
steadily from 10 percent in 1988 to 28 percent in 2005.
American's
second place showing is surprising in view of our dismal showing, behind nearly
all industrialized nations, in international science tests at the high school
level. What happens between high
school and adulthood to bring Americans up to the top international ranks in
adult scientific literacy?
Miller
notes that the U.S. is the only major nation to require that college students
study "general education" topics outside of their chosen
profession. Students of business,
engineering, music, and so forth must take several courses in history,
languages, fine arts, and science.
To
investigate why Americans score so highly, Miller obtained from each U.S.
examinee in the 2005 tests a range of information that he suspected might be
correlated with scientific literacy:
age, gender, level of education, number of college science courses,
informal science learning, etc.
He
found that the number of science courses taken in college was the strongest
predictor of science literacy.
From this factor alone, it was possible to rather accurately predict
whether a person was scientifically literate. The crucial distinction here was between people who had
taken at least two or three college-level science courses, and those who had
taken none either because they didn't attend college or because their college
didn't require such courses.
The
lesson is that all nations can significantly increase their adult scientific
literacy by requiring that non-science college students take a few science
courses designed for non-scientists.
It's a big mistake to provide only professional education in
college. When one looks over
Miller's results, and compares with the results of recent international science
tests at the high school level, one can see that these few science courses,
even though they are taken only by the 25 percent of all Americans who graduate
from college, probably double America's scientific literacy rate.
Here is something that America is doing right. Other nations need to copy our general education requirements, especially the science requirements. Based on my own experience as a college teacher and author of a "physics literacy" textbook for non-science college students, America can do even better in this regard. Scientific literacy courses are given short shrift in most U.S. colleges, including the University of Arkansas. They tend to be at the bottom of most science departments' priorities. Universities and scientists should move these courses from the bottom to the top of their priority lists, even (especially) above research. The future of the planet depends on it.