Scientifically Illiterate vs. Politically Clueless

Abstract

Following the Soviet launch of Sputnik, Congress responded to the perceived technology gap in the United States by passing the National Defense Education Act that funded new science, math, and foreign language programs in American schools. As one college president argued in the 1960s: colleges and universities were now "bastions of our defense, as essential as . . . supersonic bombers." Today, however, cries of technology gaps are viewed skeptically by a nation more concerned with battling the federal deficit than with fighting communism. After four decades of unquestioned federal support for science under the broad justification of superpower competition, the scientific community now finds its long-term benefits evaluated against short-term goals. As observed bv a nrevious director of the National Science Foun-, dation, "the days CI? throwing money over the wall are over." So far, the response of the scientific communitv to the change in funding climate has been largelv one of denial. Following our deconstructionist instincts, we choylse to blame the publG's'lack of appreciation for our work on their "scientific illiteracv." Presumably, if these ~e o~l e had only been will-. .ing to tough out more courses in phys~cs, chemistry, and math, the return on the public investment in basic research would be obvious bevond the requirement of ex~lanation.T o help defend ourselves against future funding shortfails, we have indignantly come forward with a litany of examples for how science has improved our society. While hailing our successes, we artfully dodge questions about why we have not found solutions to such seemingly simple yet intractable problems as waste disposal, natural hazards, and disease control. In doing so, we gloss over the scientific process and create the impression that our results are answers that are good for all time.But science is not about providing answers to society's problems. Rather science provides a way to address systematically problems on the basis of an understanding of the natural world. Each conclusion is merelv the best hv~othesis to fit the available data. When the , L debate has strong economic, n a t i o k l security, or health implications, the problems become long equations with many variables, only a few of which may be scientific or technical in nature. High-level nuclear waste, for example, will not be buried under Manhattan, no matter how suitable the geology. As scientists, we are called upon to find the best solution that fits within political, social, and economic boundary conditions. As the boundary conditions inevitably change, scientists appear to disagree, the media reports on the controversy, and the public watches in frustration. Uncomfortable with moral implications and value iudements, we remain outside the mainstream of the decision-makine and allow a " " policy-makers to set the course while we criticize from afar. The arguments we constructed for the scientificallv illiterate now sound self-serving, and we find ourselves amone the followers of change ;ather than...

Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: Pathways, players, and partnerships

“…Third, achieving the balance between credibility and salience is not a trivial undertaking, as decision-makers frequently have high expectations as to how soon decisionspecific information can be made available. Meanwhile, many scientists want to err on the side of caution and uncertainty by first vetting their findings in the peer review process (Van der Vink, 1997;Blockstein, 2002;Cash et al, 2002b). Fourth, scientists and practitioners can have very different notions of what constitutes 'legitimate' knowledge.…”

Team‐teaching a current events‐based biology course for nonmajors

“…Teaching required the lecturers to consider the “big picture” in their field and be informed on recent applications and advances not in the subspecialty of their research. Lecturers learned to explain, in a clear and interesting manner, the importance, relevance, and potential of their field to a lay audience, an increasingly important skill for all scientists and biologists in particular2, 3. Lecturers developed their materials and class plans de novo with the course coordinator acting as a mentor.…”

“…The general populace requires a solid understanding of science to make informed decisions regarding the applications, policy‐based limitations, and directions of research. Nonscientists direct scientific funding and policy as government and corporate leaders, and thus have a large impact on future research1–3. Furthermore, we all are consumers of the products and technologies created through research; all of us, regardless of field of study, require a basic understanding of the advances that shape our lives and our planet.…”

“…It is especially challenging to keep the advanced students interested without confusing the students with less recent exposure. Finally, as observed by Gregory van der Vink “courses for nonmajors are frequently viewed as distractions”3 in which the basic level of instruction precludes interesting discussion and the opportunity to explore one's field in depth. Together, these motives frequently lead the faculty to avoid nonmajors teaching assignments.…”

Bridge over a philosophical divide

“…Each new generation of scientists debates the role that science should play in society (van der Vink, 1997;Myers, 1999;Ehrlich, 2003). This debate is often reduced to a passionate conflict between two apparently irreconcilable philosophical views.…”