Science Literacy Is Futile; Try Science Appreciation

Testifying at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee in November 1957, soon after Sputnik was launched, Edward Teller likened the need for public support of science to that of the arts. “Good drama,” he said, “can develop only in a country where there is a good audience. In a democracy, particularly if the real sovereign, the people, expresses lack of interest in a subject, then that subject cannot flourish.” Later in the hearing, giving his views on education in science for the nonscience student, Teller added “The mass of our children should be given something which may not be terribly strenuous but should be interesting, stimulating, and amusing. They should be given science appreciation courses just as they are sometimes given music appreciation courses.” Teller’s message came at a time when the U.S. public, and particularly the Congress, was worried about Soviet strides in space, and when massive NSF support for precollege science education was in its formative stage. His advocacy of science appreciation courses was not taken literally by the science or science education communities. Instead, science education for the general (nonscience) student was then, and for the most part still is, equated with science understanding, or with developing what is loosely termed “scientific literacy.” Now, the quest for such literacy, having gone the round several times since World War II, is again at a high pitch, this time related to the current drive for more and better science in our schools. In the abstract, the notion of scientific literacy, while lacking precise definition (or perhaps because it is so vague), seems very attractive. It certainly is soothing to contemplate such an ideal. But given our past dismal failures in this area, how can anyone involved with education, least of all those in the scientific community, seriously believe that a meaningful level of scientific literacy, however this may be defined, can be achieved in the educated adult population? If by scientific literacy we mean functional literacy—that is, the ability to read, comprehend, and discuss scientific matters intelligently—then obviously we are a nation of illiterates and will remain so for the foreseeable future. If we mean developing the “scientific habits of mind” espoused by philosopher, educator John Dewey more than 75 years ago—the habits of logical thinking, of quantitative and deductive reasoning, of proper questioning and reliance on sound evidence—we have also been demonstrably unsuccessful. The reasons are twofold, both having to do with the nature of science. First, try as we might to simplify science education, and to eliminate from it much of the factual trivia that repels students, it still demands a special mode of thought and more effort for the average student to grasp than most other disciplines. There are also no compelling incentives for nonscience students to expend the effort required to become literate in science—and to retain that literacy throughout adulthood. Much as we may insist, as a rationale for universal and compulsory science edu cation, that the nation would be better served by a scientifically literate public, we fail to convince students or parents of this. They need only look at their personal role models to realize that one can lead the “good life” in the United States without knowing anything about DNA or quarks or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Indeed, the vast majority of people in our society manages very well in virtual ignorance of science. This is the real crux of the matter. While enjoying the everyday comforts and benefits derived from science and technology, society has managed to insulate itself from any actual, or even perceived, need to understand their origin. Some advocates believe that scientific literacy should mean no more than being able to cope with social issues that have a scientific base, such as “Star Wars” or genetic engineering. But the argument that citizens ought to become literate in science in order to participate intelligently in decisions on technology-based issues ignores reality. The science background one needs to reach truly independent judgments on the wide variety of such contemporary issues goes well beyond that of most professional scientists and engineers, let alone the public at large. Moreover, most of our science-based issues (from “Star Wars” and nuclear power to animal experimentation and pollution control) have strong emotional ingredients that tend to distort people’s judgments regardless of how literate they may be in science. We know that when reason conflicts with emotion, whether because of religious, political, or other personal beliefs, reason is usually the loser. Perhaps the best we can hope for in this respect is that some reasonable number of our elected representatives, who actually must decide upon such issues, either themselves be literate in science or, failing that, can at least be relied upon to seek out and act largely on the basis of credible professional advice. In the final analysis, this is what we must all do in specialized fields beyond our expertise. The second major reason why scientific literacy is an unreasonable goal is that the science taught in our schools lacks “staying power.” It deals mainly with factual information that is easily testable on exams, but is also quickly forgotten, rendering the goal of adult literacy little more than fantasy. In addition, the facts themselves, even if remembered, do not constitute scientific literacy. In his recent best-seller, Cultural Literacy (Houghton-Mifflin, 1987), E.D. Hirsch argues that “cultural literacy,” by which he means a grasp of certain background information that communicators must assume their audiences already have, is the hidden key to effective education. Hirsch provides a list of several thousand names, dates, places, and events illustrating the type and scope of knowledge that is shared by literate Americans. Included are several hundred science-related terms, which, with appropriate definitions, are claimed to constitute a lexicon for the scientific literate. But science is not like history. Knowledge of terms and facts alone is hardly a sufficient condition for literacy in science. What is lacking is a sense of the process of science, a prescription for seeking out and organizing such factual informa tion in the unique manner that is characteristic of science and revealing of the basic structure of the scientific enterprise. Understanding the process of science is the only route by which one can truly share in a “common scientific culture.” Now that the goal of scientific literacy seems more remote than ever, Teller’s advice warrants much more attention. Science appreciation, as may be derived from science programs that, in Teller’s words, are “interesting, stimulating and amusing,” is what we appear to achieve in the elementary grades, but fail to sustain in our secondary schools and beyond. Yet science appreciation is a more realistic goal for the general student than scientific literacy, and might achieve a more practical end result namely, a citizenry that understands and appreciates what science is about. Such a citizenry is less likely to be antiscience than one that has been forced into the mold of knowing about science and, as a result, often regards it as a mysterious enterprise to be viewed with suspicion, if not actual distrust. The concept of developing an appreciative audience for science deserves careful thought by the education community. How this might best be done is not immediately obvious, except that it is more likely to be achieved in the case of applications of science and technology than in pure science. But it could turn out to be a far easier and more gratifying task than the elusive scientific literacy, which consumes so much of our educational effort, yet is so ineffective and generates so much antipathy toward science. Morris H. Shamos is emeritus professor of physics at New York University and a past president of both the National Science Teachers Association and the New York Academy of Sciences. He is working on a book entitled The Myth of Scientific Literacy.

Science Literacy Is Futile; Try Science Appreciation

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

Morris Shamos

Published In

October 1988

Related Research Resources

Bunsen Burners and Bad Hair Days

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

Taking the Guesswork Out of Quality Control Standards

PFAS: The Forever Chemicals

Unlocking the Unattainable in Gene Construction

Comparing Analytical Solutions for High-Throughput Drug Discovery

Products

Product News

Thermo Scientific™ Centrifuges with GreenCool Technology

Singleron Biotechnologies and Hamilton Bonaduz AG Announce the Launch of Tensor to Advance Single Cell Sequencing Automation

Zymo Research Launches Research Grant to Empower Mapping the RNome

Cytosurge Appoints Magid Haddouchi as Chief Commercial Officer