How science literate are we as a society?






How science literate are we?  How science literate is the population of the U.S?

This is one tough question.

First, how do you quantify science literacy and by what measure?  Is it enough to understand the basic concepts of science as taught in public schools, and to know a little math and biology and chemistry and physics and business? (Yes, business is an exploding field of scientific research - with fascinating results.)

"Science fiction properly defined mean that if there is any real science, it is correct."
~ Ursula Le Guin, NPR interview August 29, 2015

Do we need a functional understanding?  Okay, what is a functional understanding and how do you measure this?

To go a step further, is there a need to stay current with a variety of research outside of professional interest and across an impossibly wide range of subjects?  Is it enough to (attempt to) stay current in one field?

As often pointed out, there are more scientists active today than have lived and worked across the entire 200,000 year history of us - the homo sapien. There is even a variation of Moore's Law applied to scientific endeavor.  As the capacity of semiconductors doubles every X months, it is estimated that our scientific knowledge has a similar doubling rate.  One writer predicts that our scientific knowledge will double every 75 minutes by the year 2020, and continue to grow at an exponential rate for the foreseeable future.

If you measure the knowledge of the public against this growth curve, we're all, even the best educated scientist, is an idiot going in.  As the joke goes, a scientist today learns more and more about less and less until he or she knows everything about nothing.

To me, it would seem much more important that people understand how to access the information they need, whether for work or pleasure, as there is no way any one person can carry even a sliver of all knowledge around in their head - even about their own field of expertise.  The day of the supposed universally-educated Renaissance man or woman was over probably 150 over years ago despite what Conan Doyle wrote.

As writers it seems especially important to at least be aware of the latest advances in the fields about which we write.  Take crime fiction.  Are you aware of some of the latest advances in criminology?  For example, there is technology available that tells a detective how old a fingerprint is.  There are hand-held devices that instantly tell the user whether the blood in a crime scene is human or animal; not in three weeks or a month, but at the scene.  The list of these advances is staggering, and they are changing the work of the detective faster than they can detect.

If you write crime fiction, do you really want to publish a story to have your readers reject it because the techniques you write about are so literally last year?  Ooopsie.

Let's not discuss the abysmal science knowledge of too many science fiction authors.  It makes one want to cry.  Self-help books?  Recently published research shows that the typical self-help book does more harm than good.

The same arguments can be made about the fiction in most genres.  Would you write something about England's Richard III without knowledge of the recent discovery and analysis of his remains?  Or use the Globe Theatre as a setting without reviewing the current excavation of the site by archaeologists?
Being a writer of fiction or film is daunting hard work.  In the midst of the current scientific revolution, it is certainly not getting any easier to stay current - but the benefit is being able to educate and surprise your reader with new information they may not know.

Here's the current press release.  We'll post the final study when published.
*  *  *  *  *

 Taking stock of U. S. science literacy broadly

What does it mean to be science literate? How science literate is the American public? How do we stack up against other countries? What are the civic implications of a public with limited knowledge of science and how it works? How is science literacy measured? These and other questions are now under the microscope.

These and other questions are under the microscope of a 12-member National Academy of Sciences (NAS) panel -- including University of Wisconsin-Madison Life Sciences Communication Professor Dominique Brossard and School of Education Professor Noah Feinstein -- charged with sorting through the existing data on American science and health literacy and exploring the association between knowledge of science and public perception of and support for science.

"The goal is to try and get the big picture," says Brossard, a noted social scientist and expert on science communication. "We're not looking at any single area of science and it is a consensus report, meaning we all have to agree, assuring multiple perspectives will be reflected in the final product."

The committee -- composed of educators, scientists, physicians and social scientists -- will take a hard look at the existing data on the state of U.S. science literacy, the questions asked, and the methods used to measure what Americans know and don't know about science and how that knowledge has changed over time. Critically for science, the panel will explore whether a lack of science literacy is associated with decreased public support for science or research.

Historically, policymakers and leaders in the scientific community have fretted over a perceived lack of knowledge among Americans about science and how it works. A prevailing fear is that an American public unequipped to come to terms with modern science will ultimately have serious economic, security and civic consequences, especially when it comes to addressing complex and nuanced issues like climate change, antibiotic resistance, emerging diseases, environment and energy choices.

While the prevailing wisdom, inspired by past studies, is that Americans don't stack up well in terms of understanding science, Brossard is not so convinced. Much depends on what kinds of questions are asked, how they are asked, and how the data is analyzed.

It is very easy, she argues, to do bad social science and past studies may have measured the wrong things or otherwise created a perception about the state of U.S. science literacy that may or may not be true.

"How do you conceptualize scientific literacy? What do people need to know? Some argue that scientific literacy may be as simple as an understanding of how science works, the nature of science," Brossard explains. "For others it may be a kind of 'civic science literacy,' where people have enough knowledge to be informed and make good decisions in a civics context."

Science literacy, Brossard adds, might also mean having enough knowledge to make good personal decisions. For example, knowing that there is a growing problem with bacteria becoming resistant to available antibiotics might better inform people about when such medicines are helpful and when they might contribute to a growing problem.

"There is such a thing as practical science literacy," says Brossard. "What are the things we need to know to help manage everyday life and make decisions in the best interest of ourselves and our families?"

The committee's report is expected in early- to mid-2017.

Related stories:


Story Source:  Materials provided by University of Wisconsin-Madison, original written by Terry Devitt. "Taking stock of U. S. science literacy broadly." ScienceDaily, 24 March 2016. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How the lives of Georgian gaolbirds and highwaymen shaped modern Britain

Image
Writing historical fiction requires solid research of available materials and databases.  The key word here is available.   So news of a new publicly accessible database that allows an author to research a very interesting past era is priceless almost beyond words.   I expect some exciting fiction to come out of this announcement. Here's the story, with a link to the source in the attribution. *  *  *  *  * London Lives, a landmark project led by Professor Bob Shoemaker from the University of Sheffield and Professor Tim Hitchcock from the University of Sussex, has uncovered a mass of extraordinary new evidence which reveals how the lives of thousands of 18th-century poor and criminal Londoners helped shape modern Britain. Based on evidence made available in a publicly available database, the study sheds new light on the everyday lives of thieves, prostitutes, vagrants, highwaymen, con-men, paupers and jailbirds, revealing how their daily fight for survival led to t
Read more

An unexpected way to recover from a breakup

Image
Breaking up is truly hard to do. And recovery from a breakup can be even harder. Your friends may counsel you to put the whole thing out of your mind. But new research suggests that repeatedly reflecting on a break-up -- even through participation in a research study -- actually speeds emotional recovery. "Breakups are ubiquitous -- most adults have experienced at least one in their life -- and are typically very distressing," says Grace Larson of Northwestern University. After studying divorce and breakups for years using longitudinal, multi-method designs, Larson and her then-adviser David Sbarra of the University of Arizona wanted to study whether these research techniques on their own were affecting participants. One concern they had was that the studies could be harming participants, Larson says. "At first glance, it might seem like repeatedly reminding participants that they had just broken up -- and asking them to describe the breakup over and over --
Read more

Greek Bronze Age ended 100 years earlier than thought

Image
Source: www.shef.ac.uk The charred remains of Assiros Toumba in Greece. Writing historical fiction set in the Greek Bronze Age?  Or simply enjoy reading this genre'?  Here's a study you may find interesting. C onventional estimates for the collapse of the Aegean civilization may be incorrect by up to a century, according to new radiocarbon analyses. While historical chronologies traditionally place the end of the Greek Bronze Age at around 1025 BCE, this latest research suggests a date 70 to 100 years earlier. www.weather-forecast.com Archaeologists from the University of Birmingham selected 60 samples of animal bones, plant remains and building timbers, excavated at Assiros in northern Greece, to be radiocarbon dated and correlated with 95.4% accuracy using Bayesian statistical methodology at the University of Oxford and the Akademie der Wissenschaften Heidelberg, Germany. Researcher Dr Ken Wardle says, 'These new results tell a story that is totall
Read more

Mood Instability and Your Characters

Image
You're putting together a character who's mood simply bounces all over the place, happy one moment, in a fit of rage the next.  Researchers at King's College London note that this sort of mood instability is part of a number of mental health disorders.  So how do you structure the personality and behavior of a character like this?  Below is the King's College report, along with a brief description from mentalhealth.com, of typical behavior, sometimes in the extreme, of a person who is very emotionally unstable.  This is offered strictly as a guide for crafting character in fiction - and NOT for the amateur diagnosis of the state of someone's mental health.  That is always best left to trained professionals. Another note about emotionally unstable behavior:  as any parent will tell you, this is how adolescents and teen-agers often behave.  It's a normal part of growing up - but it is a matter of degree .  In the extreme, however, this behavior can be diag
Read more

Remember faces but not names? You got it wrong.

Image
Source:   Daily Excelsior So, you think you're good at remembering faces, but terrible with names? New research has revealed we are actually better at remembering names than faces The cringe-worthy experience of not being able to remember an acquaintance's name leads many of us to believe we are terrible with names. However, new research has revealed this intuition is misleading; we are actually better at remembering names than faces. With the Christmas party season fast approaching, there will be plenty of opportunity to re-live the familiar, and excruciatingly-awkward, social situation of not being able to remember an acquaintance's name. This cringe-worthy experience leads many of us to believe we are terrible at remembering names. However, new research has revealed this intuition is misleading; we are actually better at remembering names than faces. The authors of the study, from the University of York, suggest that when we castigate ourselves f
Read more