Elevation of the public understanding of science is a heartfelt goal of the scientific establishment. Too many of our citizens do not know whether the earth moves around the sun or the sun moves around the earth, a deficiency that some scientists deem intolerable, though the extent of ill effects is debatable.
There is similar dismay over astrology, UFO sightings, Bigfoot reports, creationism, snake-oil medicines, and other phantasms of the scientifically untutored that are embedded in popular belief. Surely these dark-ages relics must be dispelled.
It would be churlish to disparage the sciences’ efforts to shepherd the benighted into modern times. But let me try.
My endeavor, though futile, is inspired by a concern for wise use of limited resources and a desire to curb missionary hallucinations within the research community, so that our scientists can get on with important work. In reality, the public understanding of science is not so bad, and efforts at improvement outside of conventional schooling are not so effective that they merit a wholesale mobilization. It’s hard to learn science from a newspaper, a museum visit, or a TV show, though all can be supplements to a decent school-based understanding.
This brings us to COPUS, the Coalition on the Public Understanding of Science, a proliferating nationwide network of universities, museums, high-tech industrial firms, and many other organizations more or less associated with science. Discerning a crisis in public understanding of science, COPUS is revving up for “Year of Science 2009,” a “nationwide celebration of science focused on the theme of ‘How We Know What We Know.’”
The COPUS call to arms bristles with anxious, though vaporous, assertions, e.g., “There is a growing public complacency about and disengagement from science at the very moment when the impact of science on public life is greater than ever.” Because of this, “it is essential that we rekindle the American public’s interest in and support of science that was so prevalent in earlier decades and that laid the groundwork for the many fruits of scientific research, educational advances, and technical accomplishments that we enjoy today.”
Where is the evidence for a falloff of public interest in and support of science? If federal support of research is a measure, the present day situation is actually quite rosy: Two decades ago, the budget of the National Institutes of Health totaled $3.4-billion. Today, it is $29.2-billion. Growth at NIH has stalled in recent years, but the current budget is immense in comparison to former times and to the biomedical-research spending of any other nation or combination of nations.
Surveys consistently find a high level of support for science and technology among Americans, though accompanied by a weak understanding of basic scientific matters — a reflection of poor schooling rather than lack of public-relations drumbeating for science. “In general, Americans have highly favorable attitudes about S&T,” the National Science Board reported in its most recent biennial compilation of data on the state of science and technology, “Science & Engineering Indicators 2006.” The report notes that “All indicators point to widespread public support for government funding for basic research in the United States and elsewhere. This has been the case since at least the mid-1980s.”
Nonetheless, while citing improvements in some areas of public understanding of science, the board also found that “Surveys conducted in the United States and other countries reveal that most citizens do not have a firm grasp of basic scientific facts and concepts, nor do they have an understanding of the scientific process.” And it noted, too, that “pseudoscientific beliefs continue to thrive. Such beliefs coexist alongside society’s professed respect for science and the scientific process.”
Does an anti-enlightenment surge threaten the great edifice of modern science? It’s easy to gain that impression from the public-understanding camp. But the evidence is paltry. Often cited is creationism’s assault on evolutionary teaching. But in reality, creationism has made scant progress in the nation’s thousands of school districts. Has the public “disengaged” from science? There’s no evidence for that claim. And there’s plenty of counter evidence in efforts throughout the country to improve science education and in numerous community efforts, in tandem with local universities, to seek prosperity by attracting high-tech industry.
What, then, is the source of the anxiety about public understanding of science? Much of it originates in the fallacious but appealing assumption that a public that doesn’t understand science will not support science. The late Carl Sagan summed it up a decade ago: “Here’s science dependent as never before on public funds…. And how’s the public going to support it if they don’t understand it?”
The oddity of it all is that a public that doesn’t understand it to the level deemed proper by the scientific establishment nonetheless supports it.
The budding campaign for better understanding, one of a series over many years, will, in the end, leave the missionaries of science dissatisfied as ever and eager to mount yet another assault on scientific ignorance.
Unfortunately, ignorance of important matters is endemic in this complicated world, even among scientists who rail about the public understanding of science.
On a par with the importance of public understanding of science, there’s public understanding of the Constitution of our country. Which is why it’s amusing to ask my scientific friends: What rights are guaranteed by the third and ninth amendments to the Constitution?
The lack of Constitutional understanding is amazing.
Public relations bombast is no substitute for formal education.
