editorially speaking Scientific Literacy Revisited Questions relating to scientific literacy have surfaced periodically and have been discussed here in the past. Recently these issues have reappeared in association with a chemistry curriculum projectChemistry in Contextdesigned for nonscience majors.' An overarching goal of this project is the enchancement of scientific literacy. An examination of this project provides some insights into the collective thinking of a group of interested chemistry faculty on the subject of scientific literacy a s it is expressed in chemistly. Chemical literacy includes a working knowledge of important vocabulary and of the concepts and ideas of chemistry. A chemically literate person should certainly know about the natureofsciencc,i:e., the importanceofa~;dence, the function of hypotheses, and the kinds of verification of processes in which chemists engage. Chemical literacy recognizes that science is primarily a human endeavor. Pmmess in science is susce~tihleto the full spectrum of conve&ional human frailties. f'he rigomus training of scientists on the im~ortanceof absolute truth and honesty in the acquisition and communication of their results, which is critical to the progress of scientific disciplines, does not guarantee that fraud, whether explicit or accidental, is absent. Scientists have a difficult.enough time with the vagaries of (an unknown) nature without having to worry about deceit of their compatriots. Thus, scientists acquire a healthy skepticism that is often reflected in their need to validate information they obtain, whether it be data from their own work or the results communicated by other scientists. Scientists seek validation in the literature and through lahoratoq observations. To the uninitiated, a discussion between scientists could appear to be a continual questioning-like dialog that at times might even seem remorseless and carping. But that is the nature of scientific inquiry. The scientifically literate person can separate science from technology as both subjects interact with society. Literate persons understand, or can deduce, in a variety of contexts, that science is not technology, that technology cannot long exist without science, and that "things" most often go wrong as a result of the misapplication of either 'Report presented at the Fourth Chemical Congress of North America in New York City (August 1991).
science or technology. Things go wrong because the people involved-who are oftennot scientists or engineers--do not appreciate the limits of science or technology or attempt to do something fnndamentally frivolous like building an airplane that will fly to Europe in five hours rather than eight hours. Many things are possible, but not all need doing. A scientifically literate person can understand the basis for the process of riskhenefit analysis and can also apply the elements of that analysis to societal (and other) issues. Thus, for example, in an era concerned with clean air, what are the benefits of the use of nuclear energy to produce electricitv? What are the risks? Is it ~ossibleto em~lov nuclear bwerin a way that will reduce ihc risks associntrd with its ~vides~rcad use? 110 the benefits derived from the relatively cheip access to electricity generated through nuclear reactors that do not pollute the atmosphere outweigh the risks? If the answer to this question is "yes" or even a "marginal yes", can we insure a technology designed to minimize the risks associated with nuclear energy? The results of such analyses may change with time as new science produces new technologies that tilt the balance of arguments. Scientifically literate persons can understand that situations change and should be capable of "switching sides" when they do. Scientificallyliterate persons can appreciate the importance of scale. Progress in science is driven by quantification, and many important arguments depend on an appreciation of scale or the magnitude of numbers. Thus, most people would understand the adverse effects of excessive amounts of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere, but many could not appreciate arguments that depend upon relative concentrations, e.g., the emission of one gram of carbon monoxide as it affects a background concentration of 2.0 parts per billion. Inspection of these general criteria of scientific literacy suggest that all cannot he taught using the same methods and that the method of evaluation of what is taught ., must change with the topic. I.'orexample,anappreciation ofscnle cannot be tauxht, or the learningevaluated, usingmethods that would be approprlatc for helping students huild their vwabular.~.Teachen; whoattem~tto teach toward thceoals of scientific literacy certainly need to engage in ins&tional methods that are markedly different from those currently in vogue in chemical education. JJL
Volume 68 Number 9 September 1991
713
