In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

165 CHAPTER 10 The Public Why Does Broad-Based Scientific Literacy Matter? Astronomer Carl Sagan once wrote, “Everybody starts out as a scientist. Every child has the scientist’s sense of wonder and awe.”1 Yet we as a nation have not always nurtured and sustained that sense of awe. The result is a culture in which even educated people sometimes brag about their inability to understand basic scientific principles . With science and technology determining the prospects for improving our social health and welfare, all members of society ought to appreciate science’s role in their lives. Indeed, one of the goals of a democratic society should be to ensure that its citizens are fully aware of the world in which they live. In a discussion of scientific illiteracy and democracy, George Dvorsky, president of the Toronto Transhumanist Association (a nonprofit that advocates the ethical use of technology to improve human health and capabilities), characterized the problem as follows: “Most of those who live in the West, particularly North Americans, are guilty of an anti-intellectual bias. Scientists are supposed to be nerds, right? And who wants to be a nerd? This sentiment , combined with a general suspicion of science and the predominance of aggressive technological and pseudoscientific memes, has resulted in much of the scientific illiteracy that now pervades our society.”2 But what makes a person scientifically literate? Clearly, we do not all need to be able to understand Stephen Hawking’s latest research in cosmology. At the other end of the spectrum, surely we can expect that all citizens know the earth is not the center of the universe. Many states, scientific societies, and associations—such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the National Research Council—have developed benchmarks for assessing science literacy.3 These guidelines often focus on ways of thinking and problem-solving consistent with the scientific process, rather than mastery of specific scientific facts. Unfortunately , studies conducted by the NSF show that roughly 70 percent of American adults do not understand the scientific process, while many believe in pseudoscience, such as astrology.4 These and other aberrations pose a serious challenge for the nation. It will never be able to attain its full potential if its citizens are not able to understand the environment in which they live. Science and the Public There are many reasons to be concerned about the public ’s understanding of scientific issues. For example, these views can have a measurable influence on the assignment of federal research dollars, on the amount of federal support devoted to specific types of research, and the contents of the K–12 science and mathematics curriculum. The public is a critical partner with the federal government and the scientific community in the conduct and support of scientific research. Members of the public can exert enormous influence on the formulation of new policies and regulations. Indeed , public citizen and advocacy groups routinely affect the proposal of new legislation, its wording, how lawmakers vote on it, and even how agency regulations are used to enforce it. Patient advocacy groups’ effectiveness 166 | BEYOND SPUTNIK in winning increased funding for breast cancer and AIDS research forcefully illustrates the power that these groups can exert over science and science policy. In the United States, members of Congress, as the public ’s representatives, must approve all federal expenditures for scientific research. Since legislators depend on their constituents for reelection, congressional views on science are often shaped by, and reflective of, popular views on the subject. While most members of Congress do not come from strong scientific backgrounds, they tend to support science because of their conviction that it is important to the national interest. Some members, such as those on the House Science and Technology Committee, become well informed about science policy through their committee assignment. Others are forced to rely on their limited knowledge of the issues. They may be inclined to base their decisions on personal attitudes, convictions, and beliefs , even when those convictions might be opposed by some significant percentage of their constituency, or may find it necessary to pay close attention to the views of voters back home.5 These two types of congressional voting behavior have been referred to as attitudinal —voting based on one’s own beliefs—and representative—members voting based on constituent views. These have also been referred to as “the two faces of democratic accountability .”6 Representative voting is common on controversial matters that provoke significant...

Share