EDITORS PAGE
Science and the Public
T
he low level of public knowledge of science is becoming a growing issue, certainly among scientists and increasingly among educators and policymakers. Concern is growing about "scientific illiteracy" and its negative impact on the competitiveness of the U.S. work force, the viability of the scientific enterprise, and even the workings of the democratic process. In this connection, a new survey conducted by Louis Harris and Associates for the American Museum of Natural History is of considerable interest. Based on phone interviews of 1,255 adults earlier this year, it probes the public's attitudes about, and knowledge of, science. The results are thought-provoking. Some of them reveal high public interest and appreciation of science. Others indicate rather spotty knowledge of the specifics of science. Yet others demonstrate quite sophisticated attitudes about science's role in society. Of the survey's respondents, 76% state they enjoy learning about science for its own sake. More than half (53%) read science magazines at least occasionally. A high 88% claim to watch television science programs on occasion. Slightly more than half (51%) agree they understand less and less about what scientists are doing. But 47% disagree. The 68% who agree science will solve many of the world's problems outnumber the 29% who don't, by a wide margin. And the 37% who agree that science poses major risks to humanity are substantially outnumbered by the 59% who disagree. The test of scientific literacy incorporated in the survey was apparently a pretty tough one. Only 1% of respondents got 80% or more of it right. Of the more disappointing responses, only 10% correctly chose the chicken as the closest living relative of Tyrannosaurus rex. And 35% of respondents think that dinosaurs and early man lived at the same time. Only 13% chose the increase of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as the cause of the ozone hole. However, this response is an example of the care with which the survey's results must be interpreted. Another 56% voted for an "all of the above" category that consisted of the increase in CFCs, the greenhouse effect, and the burning of tropical rain forests. So it can be argued that a much more respectable 69% are aware that CFCs are involved in increasing the size of the ozone hole. On the more encouraging side, 83% of respondents know that a "law of science" is "the best explanation we have to date." Only 6% think it is something that is completely true and accurate. This is a difference that scientists themselves sometimes forget. A high 78% know that continents drift. The same percentage know AIDS is caused by a virus. Sixty-three percent know that 30% of Earth is land. And 62% know that scientists believe that humans are most closely related to apes. But only 45% believe that humans evolved from earlier species of animals. In many ways, society today is based on science. But in a democracy, society is also based on a lot of other things, for instance, law. It is interesting to speculate on how well the public would do in a test of its legal literacy. The messages for the science community from the new survey are many. One is that academics need to become much more involved in improving the science content of public education at every level, including at their own institutions. Another is that in the public policy arena, scientists would be well advised to resist the temptation to lecture, as opposed to communicate with, the great unwashed. The public may be inadequately tutored in science. But that does not make it dumb. And it responds much better to dialogue than to instruction. Michael Heylin Editor
Views expressed on this page are those of the author only and not necessarily those of ACS
MAY 23,1994 C&EN
5
