The crisis of scientific illiteracy

Today the United States is faced with a serious crisis in scientific literacy and education. In the midst of debate over the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, health care reform and the economy, this issue has receded further and further into the background. And yet the topic remains as salient as it has ever been. Our world is driven by scientific innovation and technology. Twenty-first century economies will be knowledge-based, science-oriented and dependent on workers in sectors like energy, biological sciences and information technology. The early by-products of this paradigm shift are already evident with the advent of personalized genetic testing, pharmacogenomic research, hybrid vehicles, advanced power sources and hundreds of other innovations and discoveries.

But the United States has not met the challenge of redesigning its approach to science education and training. The science literacy of the American public is abysmal. The National Science Education Standards define science literacy as "the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity." However, it seems unlikely that vast portions of the American public meet this definition.

For instance, a recent 2009 survey by the California Academy of Sciences found that 47 percent of Americans did not know how long it takes Earth to revolve around the sun, and 41 percent believed that dinosaurs and early humans coexisted. The notion of human-dinosaur coexistence is an intriguing science fiction plot, but also something that over 120 million Americans might believe. Individuals who do not have a grasp of basic facts like the enormous amount of time between evolutionary periods cannot understand when scientists try to explain that evolution requires tens of millions of years. Similar studies have found that the public does not understand what DNA is, much less what the implications of complex topics like genetic testing might be — for example, genetic discrimination based on genotypes and associated legislation against it, research into personalized medications and direct consumer testing of individual genotypes.

Concurrent to this epidemic of science illiteracy, our higher-education system has failed to produce the prerequisite scientists, engineers and professionals for the new science economy. In 2000, 38 percent of positions that required a doctorate in science-related fields were filled by immigrants. But the United States will not be able to continue to depend on foreign migrants to support its high-tech infrastructure. As nations like China and India become more lucrative for highly trained specialists, fewer and fewer may decide to migrate. Current immigration restrictions have only exacerbated this trend. If the United States cannot meet the demand for science professionals, it will undoubtedly lose competitiveness in an increasingly globalized world.

How then can we correct this predicament? It can be argued that there are four key areas that must be addressed: media and journalism, scientist-directed outreach, government programs and instructor training. Science journalism and the media's portrayal of science represent one of the most visible venues for public interaction with science. But the economic realities of a dying print medium have resulted in layoffs of veteran science journalists, fewer science stories being published in favor of snazzier topics and a decrease in major newspapers with science sections or departments. At the same time, science journalists have been criticized by scientists for trying to serve the journalistic adage of presenting both sides of issues when two sides do not exist in the scientific discourse — such as intelligent design and evolution — or for oversimplifying material to the point of obscuring the science behind it. Proponents of fringe ideologies are given equal time with the bulk of the scientific community. Public and government officials are led to believe that debate exists where there is none.

Scientists, like the media, have failed to adequately contribute to the presentation of the science that they work on to the public. Multiple books have recently addressed this lack of media-savvy on the part of the scientific community. In "Unscientific America," science journalist Chris Mooney and marine biologist and Tufts alumna Sheril Kirshenbaum argue for a new generation of scientist communicators in the vein of Carl Sagan. The authors call for training grants and programs to be applied towards offering graduate students opportunities to receive communications training to assist in future research careers or communications track positions. In "Am I Making Myself Clear?" Cornelia Dean, a long-time science journalist, presents the same idea as Mooney and Kirshenbaum and details the specifics of how scientists should dress for interviews, present information, speak to the public and more.

Beyond the two media-oriented dilemmas are the deeper problems of science education. After the Cold War scare over Russian science superiority ended, the U.S. government became relatively complacent and avoided large-scale investment in science education. Instead, a focus on standardized testing and routine memorization of materials for exams turned science classrooms from exciting places for students to explore and innovate into teach-to-the-test environments. However, a nascent effort by the Obama administration to promote science fields through non-profits, shows like "Sesame Street," classroom programs and demonstrations and even science video games represents an important step in the right direction. By showing students that science is more than one fact or problem after another and by doing so with sufficient saturation when they are at an early age, these efforts can help to entice students to become more interested or aware of the topic.