Tackling science illiteracy

In this particularly hot time of controversial scientific research, it is all the more important for the voters to understand the science behind the debate. Are the standards of science education in the US too low? If so, what should be done about it?

Next month's issue of American Journal of Botany addresses these issues in a series of invited papers. Do you agree with the opinions expressed in these discussions?

--Jef Akst, Associate Editor, The Scientist

These articles are available now for free viewing via AJB Advance Access at http://www.amjbot.org/papbyrecent.dtl, in case anyone wants instant access to these articles!
-Richard Hund
Production Editor, AJB

One of the ways I am trying to tackle this is by creating a National Day for Canadian Research. Hopefully, by dedicating one day to Canadian Scientific studies, we (the scientists) can help explain to the public what it is we do and how we can do it better. www.canadianresearchday.ca

It has been a few years since my consulting days within the education industry; Responding to JefTS1077333, removing the 'controvery', as a country we are sitting around 9th or 10th grade (in a good year) in science education. Remember this is based upon the most basic of scientific facts, (Where does the sun rise? -just kidding- sort of) typical (averages) questions.

Science behind the debate! Good question, but, are you kidding? Ask 7 people on the street today, who is the Vice President? Watch and listen. We need to get science and mathematics back to the front of the class, versus the 'red-headed stepchild' of education they are becoming.

Go to The Milken Institute and KurzweilAI.net, great information sites and Milken is fantastic on education research.

After time in the trenches of the evolution wars, teaching in colleges and a private high school, and an abortive attempt to go back and get an education degree, I'm convinced that the single most important factor producing science illiteracy today is a lack of understanding of how science is done. That's both the theory and the practice of the human, creative process we call science. There's usually an attempt to teach the scientific method in secondary school science, but awareness of the authority of the scientific community and peer review is almost deliberately obfuscated in favor of making the student feel that they're involved. The impression given by current science teaching methods is that science is democratic, that we all get a vote in what to "believe". Instead of going to the peer reviewed liturature for answers to a question about science the general population feels justified in going to Bill O'Reilly. Students going into a career in the media might go to journalism school where they learn that all information must be "balanced", further confusing their ability to report science.

Two of several thoughts-issues re this subject:

1. The Big Problem: WHAT IS "science literacy" or "science illiteracy"?

2. Please see

"Science needs ace communicators and politicians"
http://www.sciencenews.org/index/generic/activity/view/id/42644/title/Comment__Science_needs_ace_communicators_and_politicians_

and note the following two updated references in it:

"SCM, Science Creed Manifest (June 5 2003)"
http://profiles.yahoo.com/blog/2SF3CJJM5OU6T27OC4MFQSDYEU?num=5&max=160&start=58
and
"Updated Life's Manifest May 2009"
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321

Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)

I think most scientists have never bothered to find out what the public thinks science is.

In my other life (actually on another message board that has nothing to do with science), I recently had the opportunity to discuss science with several, mostly older women. It was an eye-opener for me. During our conversation, I discovered that the reason they were apt to dismiss science was because it "changed." That is, old information was constantly being replaced by new. The women thought that was not good. How could you rely on something if several years later new findings proved something different? They did not recognize that the replacement of old information with better information as a positive. Instead, all it meant to them was that science is not very reliable. And, that's not good!

That is why they dismissed science. In fact, one lady kept referring to the bible and its universal truths. The bible doesn't change, so that's why it's superior to science, she told me.

Scientists and educators have their work cut out for them -- instilling that appreciation for change that is the beauty of science. I'm afraid it's too late for adults like the ladies who post on the other message board, but maybe it's not too late to do a better job of teaching our kids.

[In this particularly hot time of controversial scientific research, it is all the more important for the voters to understand the science behind the debate. ]

Why is it a particularly hot time? Is it not primarily a US problem? We don't find it so. I have seen some articles in the Botanical journal. Having taught over 30 years, I consistently found the biggest impediment in learning are teachers and parents. It is almost ridiculous to claim that interest in plant research is flagging. As some one with no plant background and has spent more than 20 years in plant research, I had neither difficulty in persuading students nor getting grants in ample (if I did not do any thing great, definitely it was not due to lack of money) proportions. What I found most irritating is to discuss plants with botanists. When I ask a question (I often have great difficulty with their nomenclatures, which seem to follow no rules that I know of), I am not given the information but am told what is the right way to think. Thank you , but, no thank you!
What is more striking is the number of errors in physical chemistry that botanists make in published work. I had the occasion to tell the Chief Editor of Annals of Botany that even if his handling editor does not know what corresponds to the volume in an osmotic pressure response, if he does not even know that there should be a volume, what kind of research do they review? What research do they do? They simply ignore any idea that does not follow their archaic reasoning.
In fact, some soul searching is required by researchers. It is the scientists that require literacy. If the GM crops only aim at depriving developing countries of the limited resources (thank heavens that human genome failed...we would have been bankrupt) and there is no material evidence that it would help the Africans (every time something of worth was found in that continent a few hundred thousand were killed :evil

. In fact scientists suffer from the 'alien' syndrome. A biologist would consider,say, economics, 'alien' to his specialization and therefore can make conclusions in economics without knowing it because he 'knows'(hopefully not in the biblical sense :mrgreen

. The medical profession including research is probably most lopsided knowledge in human history. Hippocrates should have said: thou shalt not practise.period

.
Lastly, much that goes for scientists also goes for students. We don't treat them as adults and expect knowledge be given in potions so that their brains mimic the goose liver or whatever.
Child is the father of man is never as true as it is in education.
Coming back to plant sciences, one can still have a lot of fun and find even one's roots...literally. I do. Here is the latest.

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/sep102009/637.pdf

I write about Children's toys. Check out my latest article on [url=http://arteaselstore.com/kids-easels/an-introduction-to-melissa-and-doug-eas
el-products]Melissa and Doug Easel[/url] Products.

From two of the postings so far:

It is the scientists that require literacy.

Most scientists have never bothered to find out what the public thinks science is.

The two above points are the crux of the matter. In matters of "science literacy or illiteracy" there is no "scientists versus public". There is no essential distiction between "the public" and the "trade-union-designated scientists". The marginal overlapping distinction between the two groups is only in the nature and extent of their "sacred traditional conceptions", "Their Truth"...

From one of my earlier postings:

"It takes a determined effort to overcome the natural reluctance to extract oneself from the personal and social secure old Pavlovian routine, to exercise an individual critical assessment of established virtual concepts and to accordingly modify concepts, attitudes and actions.

IMO this is the root of impatience with science by both the general public and by most "scientists", who are bound by virtual concepts acquired-adopted in the course of their education and of their professional surroundings."

Dov Henis

I think we need better science teachers.

My son's 9th grade science teahcer wasted precious class time lecturing the students on her political views, including those on partial birth abortion. We complained to the pricipal and the BOE and WE were seen as the bad guys.

The teacher tried to use the science standards on science ethics as justification.

Until we have qualified, and focused teachers (as in focused on teaching SCIENCE, not politics or news) we are going to continued to have science illiteracy.

LISA125062 wrote:I think we need better science teachers.

My son's 9th grade science teahcer wasted precious class time lecturing the students on her political views, including those on partial birth abortion. We complained to the pricipal and the BOE and WE were seen as the bad guys.

The teacher tried to use the science standards on science ethics as justification.

Until we have qualified, and focused teachers (as in focused on teaching SCIENCE, not politics or news) we are going to continued to have science illiteracy.

I'm certain the reason your complaints were ignored has to do with current education theory and practices. The academic education community has convinced themselves that the best results (ie. best standardized test scores) result with methods that make the student feel invested in the information they're studying. Often times, that means discussing controversial topics and topical news. While it may be true that education "research" is producing methods that enhance student performance (I have my doubts), for science, at least, it has produced generations of students that don't understand the process of science, something that isn't, or can't, be tested for in a standardized exam.

Education academics have replaced rote memorization with a science education philosophy that attempts to turn students into "scientists", totally confusing an understanding of the scientific community and peer review. They're are told in explicit fashion that anyone can be a scientist, which is true enough, but in the classroom its done without extensive research, and without reference to the authority of the scientific community and peer review. They are told that all they have to do is make a few "scientific" observations, use the scientific method, and come to their own conclusions. This might be fine for a little photosynthesis experiment, but the philosophy is completely generalized for all of science. They're implicitly told that they get to vote on current science. They'll examine a few news reports on controversial topics (almost never peer reviewed papers), and told to come to their own "scientific" conclusions.