 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Dan Greenberg is a longtime observer of science policy and politics. He is the author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press), as well as other books, and has published widely in newspapers and popular and professional magazines.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Michael Nelson, guest blogger
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Marty Nemko, guest bloggerBob Zemsky
Recent Posts
Scientific Misconduct Is Not a Hanging Offense---But | Comment [11]
Reading the News: Getting More in Less Time | Comment [4]
Stamp Out Election Polls and Surveys: You Can Help | Comment [10]
Bending the Rules for Drug Approval | Comment [3]
Truth in Publishing: Blurbs and Acknowledgments, Continued | Comment [1]
Featured Articles By the Author
You Don't Have to Understand Science to Support It
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.
Posted at 12:12:05 PM on January 2, 2008 | All postings by Dan GreenbergComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: A Year-End List of Puzzlements
Next: Absent from Politics, As Usual: Scientists and Engineers
While not at all agreeing with the idea that a “public relations blitz” as you called it would be effective, I have no doubt that the problem is real. Teaching in a community college, in a poor rural area, not only do the majority of my students believe the eath is only a few thousand years old, but even some of my academic colleagues hold that belief, and most certainly the majority of high school teachers of biology in this region hold to such a belief.
— Sue · Jan 2, 05:30 PM · #
Agreed, sadly, that many believe the earth to be a few thousand years old. But happily, this doesn’t slow the $30 billion of NIH research, firmly founded on the understanding that life on earth has been evolving for 4 billion years. Among other things, I’m a computer scientist. I know that people’s misunderstandings of computers is profound; the myths, the folk science beliefs they hold, don’t seriously interfere with their use of computers. People cope with the complexities of science and the complexities of the world by simplifying them to a level that allows them to cope, day to day. I’m an educator, so I do what I can. I educate the specialists who keep the world humming. No human being can hope to have deep understanding of the enormous variety of complex systems and events in the world, past or present. These complexities transcend the capacity of the (mere) human mind today, and they always have.
— Bob Futrelle · Jan 3, 05:21 AM · #
40 years ago I remember being taught at Wellesley by some course or other about the slow plodding evolution of everyman’s commonsense understanding of his daily reality throughout the history of the West, from Homer on. At some point, it was not clear then and is not now to me, daily life commonsense self management of people became opinion checked by evidence. This was the messy blend of any old opinion privately held checked in public, that is, in conversation with high status others, by appeals to evidence. It represented people living between the world of opinion (burn the witches) and evidence (do the experiment). It was a mess. However, political forces in the US, working strategically over the last 40 years, have harnessed and unleashed the bovine religious masses onto public political stages. The result is media, policies, and institutions shifting to support various magical ways of thinking (I use the latter word here in a very limited sense) that are fostered by children growing up in religio-house-holds. Of course in theology departments this is shown, rather convincingly, to have nothing to do with religion and spirituality, but to be the revenge of folk systems of belief and magic on church systems unable to buy loyalty and “members” without watering down the intellectual and emotional journey requisite to near nothing.
Science need not be understood for its existence to continue, however, when the bovine religious masses, with all their un-spirit and magic-think, are unleashed in policy, politics, and media, nations die. The fecund border, edges, places of mixing and challenge lose power and the uniform, self righteous, fearful center holds sway. Commonsense itself in TV, in dad, in schools, in textbooks becomes magic, fearful, defensive-aggressive, and suddenly heathen are seen everywhere and fought. Are we witnessing in this very decade such a civilization-through decline? When I met Newt Gingrich 40 years ago, in his history professor days, standing in parking lots trying to jump start a political career, with my best friend in high school guiding him, Bob Weed, the man’s confidence that HIS values needed national exposure and roles, without him bothering to examine seriously the worth and origins of his own values (it was enough that the enemy—liberals—did not like his values), filled me with a chill that went down my spine. Today on media I see 50 people a day doing the same thing till my spine is in some sort of permanent pain. I grew up with values too, but in Latin and Ancient Greek language classes, reading out of date worthless classics taught by old haggs, I learned that my personal place’s values were neither safe nor virtuous, merely there, and time and history would put them to various tests that would determine whether any of those values I grew up, happenstance-ly, in, were of real worth to the civilizational needs and project of humankind. Newt had more confidence than me—he knew the values he happened to get while growing up in the South were best and needed to become the entire nation’s values.
I think I went to college in order NOT to become that sort of person. Science is in threat not from people not understanding it, but from people refusing the educating project itself—refusing to educate themselves out of whatever locality of thought and belief and act they grew up in. Science is put at risk by mass, majorities of national populations, refusing the very idea of education of self, getting self out of its happenstance place of origin.
— Richard Tabor Greene · Jan 3, 05:51 AM · #
Although I agree that public understanding of science doesn’t necessarily lead to public support of science, I don’t think anyone, especially Mr. Greenberg who has had the ear of the scientific community for several decades now, should be discouraging scientists from taking on a larger role in educating the public about science, especially the scientific process. Unfortunately, there are far too few Carl Sagans, scientists who recognize that they have an obligation to help mitigate public misunderstanding of science — and the miscommunication of science by the media. It is my observation that almost every scientist is content to spend 100% of his or her time in the laboratory doing science, and either lacks interest in interacting with anyone who isn’t part of what is truly an insular community, or feels that it’s simply not his or her job to help non-scientists gain a better understanding of how science works. So, scientists shouldn’t be too surprised when large segments of public believe in the existence of psychic powers, choose to spend their hard earned dollars on alternative medicine, and accept creationism. Sure, these things should be addressed in a classroom, but when our schools produce too many kids who lack the skills necessary to distinguish fact from fiction, then there is a real need for scientists to take the problem seriously. They can start by becoming advocates for science literacy. COPUS seems to be a step in the right direction.
— greenblue · Jan 3, 03:27 PM · #
Mr. Greenberg,
I write as a member of the COPUS Steering Committee.
Thank you for your provocative posting about public understanding of science. Diverse opinions generate critical reflection and are an important part of the constructive process. As a member of the COPUS team, I can say that there are many indicators of the need for initiatives like COPUS. While your observations of several positive indicators demonstrating support for science are well noted, we would argue that of equal importance are national concerns over lagging numbers of students engaged in scientific study, public skepticism or misunderstanding about scientific findings, and a losing battle to conserve and preserve our natural resources. We offer the following comments on your statements about COPUS.
Principally, COPUS participants would hardly characterize their joint efforts as a “public relations bombast” for science. On the contrary, in keeping with its grassroots mission, COPUS is not involved in expensive PR strategies and marketing campaigns. We operate on a very modest budget and are buoyed by a community of stakeholders from universities, scientific societies, science centers and museums, advocacy groups, media, educators, government agencies, businesses, and industry – all volunteering resources and promoting community through a peer network centered around the COPUS website at www.copusproject.org that aims to share resources and ideas to support a greater public understanding of the nature of science and its value to society.
COPUS participants are first and foremost motivated by their excitement, passion, and enthusiasm about science, not an anxiety. All COPUS participants – now numbering 158 organizations – share a common goal of supporting and celebrating science, providing opportunities to re-engage the public in science, and to make science more accessible to everyone.
Demonstrations of this enthusiasm can be found in the monthly COPUS newsletter, the COPUS Clarion, and in the Program and Event Directory; both are accessed via the COPUS website and show the exciting and innovative ways that COPUS participants are connecting with each other and reaching public audiences.
In addition to promoting a greater appreciation of science among the general public, a key objective of COPUS is to build bridges among its participants, creating new forums for communication and developing new partnerships. Within the diverse membership are government agencies, organizations of academic scientists, artists and musicians, formal educators, museums – all of whom think about and communicate science to the public, but often do so in very different ways. Why not bring these different groups together, COPUS asks, to share information, expertise, and best practices, improving the quality and content of scientific information reaching the general public?
COPUS recognizes that there is no substitute for formal science education. Science educators are, therefore, essential participants. Entire universities and academic departments, teachers associations, and local schools have eagerly joined the network. COPUS is promoting and sharing tools to improve science education, including the Understanding Science website (www.understandingscience.org) set to launch later this year, where educators can go for strategies and resources to incorporate and reinforce the nature of science throughout their science teaching. Additionally, the Program and Event Directory on the COPUS website includes a search tool where teachers can locate activities and resources across the U.S. that are suited for school children.
You quoted a statement from the National Science Board that strongly resonates with COPUS participants, “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.” Consequently, COPUS has organized Year of Science 2009 to celebrate the scientific process in a year where many seminal events in science have anniversaries, including the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”; the 200th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, who was responsible for founding the National Academy of Sciences; and the 400th anniversary of Kepler’s laws of planetary motion and of Galileo’s first use of a telescope to study the skies.
We have chosen “How We Know What We Know,” referring to reliable methods for gaining an understanding of the physical world, as the theme of this nationwide, year-long event in 2009 to celebrate the nature and process of science, by which any scientific discovery, great or small, is achieved. The Year of Science 2009 website can be found at www.copusproject.org/yearofscience2009 and includes many examples and suggestions on how to participate.
Some might consider us dreamers, but we’re pragmatic dreamers at that. We are not shying away from big ideas and the expectation that members of the COPUS network can accomplish a great deal by working together and with the public.
For the COPUS Steering Committee
Richard O’Grady
Executive Director, American Institute of Biological Sciences
Washington, DC
— Richard O'Grady · Jan 4, 10:44 AM · #
How delightful to find such a detailed response as Richard O’Grady provided to Dan’s rant about the public understanding of science! Clearly COPUS has multiple functions that address needs to educate future scientists, as well as to inform the adult public about what scientists do, as well as how and why. The part that many people “get” is that the scientific process generates information and products that are beneficial to them, and helps to solve problems that would not otherwise be addressed. Many are willing to support that process. But they do not necessarily “get” how important it can be for them to be able to critically evaluate the advice given by their physician (or pastor, or other trusted “authority”). I’m looking forward to the COPUS/AIBS “Year of Science 2009” events, and would like to be involved in some way.
— Joe Erwin · Jan 7, 08:16 AM · #
Joe, please see http://www.copusproject.org/ for ways to participate and whom to contact.
— Richard O'Grady · Jan 9, 08:40 AM · #