Researchers Alarmed By Reports Of Public's Lack Of Scientific Knowledge

Scientific Knowledge Author: KAREN YOUNG KREEGER, pp.3 Date: June 27,1994 A recent survey by the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York confirms what scientists across the United States have been fearing for some time: Despite their professed interest and confidence in science, Americans' understanding of the natural and physical world remains disturbingly low. Researchers say that it is imperative to the future of the nation that this situation be reversed. "However you cut it, you become alarmed." says Bonnie Kalberer, director of the National Institutes of Health's office of science education. "Every day, people are having to deal more and more with scientific, technical, and mathematical issues. And, if they're not prepared for that, one could say your whole democratic system is in jeopardy." To counter what they perceive as a dangerous level of ignorance, scientists interviewed for this article say, they must mobilize themselves to make people smarter about science, especially young people, who will be responsible for shaping society in the next century. One of these scientists, Paul Saltman, a professor of biology at the University of California, San Diego, who is involved in training San Diego-area teachers in science, says: "My position is one of fighting. I can't sit still for this." "The whole notion," says Saltman, "becomes: `How do we start to create an environment for it to be cool and for it to be fun to know science?' We have to take into account this knowledge [about scientific ignorance] and do something about it." The AMNH study--entitled "Science and Nature Survey" and released in late April--consisted of telephone interviews with 1,255 adults from across the United States. Respondents were asked a series of multiple-choice and true-false questions to gauge how they feel about science and to measure the level of their understanding in disciplines, such as evolution, that coincide with the museum's mission. According to museum officials, figures for age, sex, race, education, and number of adults per household were weighted where necessary--using data from the latest U.S. Census--to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the overall population. The study points out, among other things, the following statistics, which the survey designers find particularly dismaying: 46 percent of respondents do not believe that humans evolved from earlier species of animals; 65 percent don't know how many planets there are in the solar system; percent cannot identify the cause of the hole in the ozone layer. Other recent surveys concur with these findings. Science & Engineering Indicators (National Science Board, Science & Engineering Indicators--1993, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993 [NSB 93-1]) revealed, for example, that: 41 percent of respondents do not believe that "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals"; 41 percent do not know that DNA regulates inherited characteristics for all plants and animals; 92 percent cannot correctly identify the causes of acid rain. Although no observer contacted denies that such revelations are distressing, Mary Woolley, president of Alexandria, Va.-based Research!America--a nonprofit medical-research advocacy organ- ization--says capitalizing on the public's high opinion of science should be paramount. "The attitudes are positive, the interest is there," says Woolley, "but we're not exploiting it in a manner that will really pay off for us. "Scientists tend to be invisible in their neighborhoods as scientists. We need to get out there. Scientists have the opportunity to describe to the public how it is that their dollar goes to something that we already know they value." In a statement, Ellen V. Futter museum president, said the results of the recent museum survey show that the public has "an acute recognition of the importance of science and a healthy respect for the potential negative consequences and abuse of scientific research." However, the science literacy portion of the AMNH study found that the public has an almost "paradoxical"--as Futter put it--view of some subjects, demonstrating misconceptions about some things and a relatively clear understanding of others. "We were surprised with some of the contrasts, such as how so many people knew that continents gradually move over millions of years. But more than one-third believed that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time," says David Grimaldi, curator of entomology at AMNH and codeveloper of its survey. Specifically, 35 percent said that the earliest humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs and 78 percent said they believed that the statement that continents gradually change their positions was true. Findings from the AMNH study are expected to be used primarily for designing museum programs, but researchers and educators anticipate they will also be helpful to people outside AMNH. Futter said the survey results will be used for a range of activities, "from conceiving and designing new exhibits to developing innovative educational programs for application within and without our walls, to informing the public about the results of the often cutting-edge research of our scientific staff." Grimaldi adds: "We don't see the survey as setting an agenda for our research, but it reveals what the populace expects or is concerned about in science." For example, he says, there was stronger support for and interest in environmental issues than expected (22 percent; see chart on page 1), so he anticipates more rigorous informal science education programs on such subjects as biodiversity as a result. Research!America's Woolley adds that information from the AMNH survey will be useful in fashioning her organization's fledgling educational outreach program--to be conducted in partnership with AMNH--in New York City. Linda Pifer, associate director of the International Center for the Advancement of Scientific Literacy, says that the AMNH survey results will eventually be archived at her organization to make them available to scholars and professional societies, such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The AMNH study, like most public-and-science surveys, established that the public's interest level is high. For example, more than two-thirds of the respondents said they were very or somewhat interested in such subjects as "plants and trees," "peoples of the world," and "the history of life." Similarly, in NSF's 1993 Science & Engineering Indicators, 66 percent of those surveyed said they were very interested in new medical discoveries and 59 percent were very interested in environmental pollution. A 1992 study conducted by Research! America (Medical Research and Health Care Concerns: A Survey of the American Public, Research! America, Alexandria, Va., 1993)--which concentrated on assessing attitudes about medical research-- found that 66 percent ranked medical research as the most valuable type of scientific inquiry and 18 percent ranked environmental research as the most important. Although interest is high, people still feel distanced from science, say literacy experts. According to the Science Indicators, only one out of every 10 adults considered himself or herself well-informed about new scientific discoveries or the use of new inventions and technologies. The AMNH study found similar attitudes among its interviewees: 51 percent agreed with the statement "I understand less and less of what scientists are doing today." At the same time, however, 68 percent agreed with the statement "Science will solve many of the world's problems" (see chart at left). "The point of all of this is that science is perceived as remote from and inaccessible to nonscientists. Science is not for experts only," said Futter. A survey sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, North Carolina State University, and Colorado State University (T.J. Hoban, P.A. Kendall, Consumer Attitudes About Food Biotechnology, Project Report [#91-EXCA-3-0155], U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1993) found another dichotomy: 86 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement "Most problems can be solved by applying more and better technology," whereas 58 percent agreed with the statement "Science and technology have made the world a riskier place to live." Thomas J. Hoban, an associate professor of sociology and anthropology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh and coauthor of the USDA study, characterizes this seemingly conflicting result as the public's "love-hate" relationship with science. "The public recognizes many of the benefits that science and technology have given us, but at the same time they are very fearful of environmental and health impacts of new technologies and related ethical issues," he says. Some researchers, however, say that in contrast to the relatively large body of work on people's attitudes and understanding, too little effort has been spent on ascertaining what people know about the scientific method. Bruce Fuchs, an assistant professor of pharmacology at the Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, who is on a two-year appointment with NIH's office of science education policy, says, "One thing that does concern me--and I don't see this survey getting at this--is that I think people really need to understand the process of science rather than some of these facts." He adds that this kind of knowledge is important so people can put what they read about scientific controversies "into some perspective." Although statistics from these surveys paint a grim picture, say some observers, many programs are taking action to make science more accessible. One successful example--based on similar programs across the U.S.--is NIH's Mini-Med School, a series of talks geared toward the general public that cover the basic subjects of medical school. Kalberer, one of the developers of the "school," says the Mini-Med scheme has received "an overwhelmingly positive response." In fact, interest was so keen that organizers had to turn away more than 500 people who attempted to sign up for the 250 slots. Mini-Med "students," she says, have commented favorably on the program's informativeness, level of scientific detail, and relevance to health-care issues. NIH plans to build on the achievements of its first year by promoting it as a model for other organizations planning their own lecture series. Although success stories like Mini-Med are becoming more and more prevalent, science literacy experts agree that attention still needs to be paid to what they consider the root cause of science illiteracy. They say inadequate exposure to science in high school is the primary reason for the lack of understanding of some scientific concepts among adults. UC-San Diego's Saltman characterizes this as the "benign neglect" of science in the American educational system. "You're left with a population of 11- or 12-year-olds that is turned off to the curiosity about the nature of the universe in which they live," he says. Don Herbert--also known as Mr. Wizard--who for more than 40 years has hosted hands-on science television shows for children and who was recently awarded an honorary doctor of science degree from the University of Michigan, Dearborn (see story on page 1), says, "I don't think it's a reflection of the kids at all. I think it's been the method of presenting science. In the past, there was an emphasis on rote learning. They haven't been teaching the way science is done at all." Hoban concludes: "Because scientists can influence people's impressions, they really need to take responsibility for getting out there and trying to help demystify science."

Researchers Alarmed By Reports Of Public's Lack Of Scientific Knowledge

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of