The media are partly to blame for Americans' lack of scientific literacy.
Monday, March 19, 2007
See Part I of this miniseries on science literacy, posted on February 21, 2007.
Now it's the media's turn to star in my ongoing miniseries about why people in the United States and elsewhere seem to know so little about science.
As I reported in Part I, recent findings by Michigan State University's Jon D. Miller suggest that 72 percent of Americans can't read a newspaper article about science and understand it. This is far better than the findings in a similar study from 1988, which claimed that 90 percent of Americans were scientifically illiterate. We can be very pleased about this progress, although this still leaves some 216 million people who apparently struggle with concepts such as DNA and climate change--one can surmise from Miller's findings. In a few days, Part III of this miniseries will address scientists' role in this astonishing level of scientific illiteracy.
We live in the best of times and the worst of times for science journalism. Some of the finest science writing ever penned (or typed) is splashing across the pages of magazines, newspapers, and books. It's written by outstanding writers such as Richard Preston, Carl Zimmer, Michael Specter, and John Horgan. Like Roger Angell and others who elevated sports writing to a high-art form, certain science writers are capturing the awe, the fears, and the possibilities of our era of near-revolutionary advances that are either here now or will be coming soon in science and technology.
But before I get accused of sucking up to my friends and colleagues, let's talk in very general terms about how science journalism might be contributing to science ignorance. I can only scratch the surface here, but I'll provide a couple of quick thoughts.
First, science writing has a steep learning curve. It takes time to understand the basics of this "beat," and too often nonscientists making their way through the ranks at media outlets dip into science and science business reporting before moving on to some other topic. This is a nice way of saying that some science reporting is predictable, dry, and just plain bad.
Beyond this, the media too frequently report science in one of two ways: "Cancer cure around the corner" or "They're killing our babies" stories. Both screaming headlines may attract readers and viewers, but I think that overall, they add to the eye-glazing effect: the public has heard these stories so many times that they lack credibility. There's a "crying wolf" impact, and when real breakthroughs occur, they are drowned out by the hype. Industry and, increasingly, universities and medical centers out to sell intellectual property or their services also contribute to the crying-wolf phenomenon.
When a reporter is inundated daily with claims of fabulous products and discoveries that will revolutionize health care and make us skinny and beautiful and disease-free and give us great sex, it's difficult for even writers trained as scientists to sort it all out. Worse, the ranks of skeptics and referees--my name for the hopefully objective experts who can comment on new discoveries in order to provide perspective--are increasingly involved in promoting their own businesses, universities, or other entities.
Another issue is the media's own boredom with science stories--the "Africa effect" that I learned about as a correspondent in Africa. This is when publications say, "Hey, we already did a story on Africa this month." The same thing happens with science: "Hey, we did a story on cloning last May. Why should we do one again?"
Most editors and writers are nonscientists and are themselves impacted by the media's cycle of hype and fear mongering, which creates a situation in which editors think they have heard it all and that there is seldom anything really new or interesting to report. I have had several interesting discussions with my friend and editor Chris Anderson, editor in chief of Wired, about this. He believes that many biotech and life-sciences stories are all variations on themes that we have heard again and again, and that life sciences in fact moves so slowly and incrementally that it defies the popular press's need to have headlines that inform and attract readers.
I don't entirely disagree with Chris, but I believe that he is missing something here: that life-sciences reporting should cover the incremental changes in areas such as longevity, stem cells, and the like, just as journalists cover the ongoing intricacies of Washington politics and foreign policy. The inner workings (the personalities, politics, mechanics of the science) beyond the golly-gee-whiz factor are fascinating if the writing is good for the 74 million Americans who can read and understand a science article. The idea that science writing should always be about breathless breakthroughs seems outdated and unhelpful.
Of course, education is the key here, and there are a number of schools that offer courses and programs in science journalism. Science journalism is suffering from the same crisis that the rest of journalism is: it spends too little money chasing complex stories, and there are too many cases of hype stories and passive recitations of industry and university press releases. But the effort must be made, in my view, to help as many citizens as possible understand science and technology that does or will deeply impact them and their children.
Call me hopelessly ideological, but the good news in Miller's work is the increase in science literacy. Against all odds, perhaps the media can help reduce the illiteracy rate from 72 percent to 71 percent. (This is assuming that Miller's work is valid--an assumption that perhaps should be scrutinized by a reporter.) Or maybe there is just a threshold of how many people want to know, and even if every article is a blend of William Shakespeare, H. L. Mencken, and Oliver Sacks, we still won't break through.
Comments
Buckwheat469 on 03/19/2007 at 4:34 PM
29
The main reason why we have 70+ percent of scientifically illiterate people in the US, in my opinion, is not directly because of the media, we can always find another avenue if we aren't getting the right information, but it's more a matter of education from a young age. Children are like sponges to information and if you provide scientific experiments, questions that challenge their perception of the world, and truthful answers to why things happen, then maybe they won't be so illiterate in the future. Heck, people still believe that Columbus discovered America, when he discovered Cuba first because the history books don't teach any differently until past the 5th grade. Once a kid is ingrained with the wrong information it is very difficult to make them understand the truth.
Take, for instance, deeply religious people. They center their lives so much around religion and the teachings of their respective bibles that they build barriers against anything that might contradict the writings, even if the evidence has been proven. Don't get me wrong, I believe religion is good in that it guides people to do the right thing, but to disregard the evidence and the truth is to segregate yourself from the beauty of the natural universe.
How do we teach children to have open minds and read these scientific articles with a critical eye? This actually needs to happen in Elementary Education. The idea is to provide several different paths for information. Take for instance the Columbus example, if the students are provided with the history book version, then the novel version (written in non-fiction books), then a movie documentary version which is accurate and not dumbed down, then the kids will form their own perception of what the truth really is. This of course needs to happen when a kid is old enough to understand the reality of life, such as heroism, murder, lie, slavery, or whatever is the case.
A downside to not teaching in an unbiased manner is that we get people who are afraid to understand new ideas. One instance of a person is someone I know. This person is absolutely afraid of the universe. If I am looking at NASA's World Wind program at the SDSS sky she will become anxious and hide from the reality that we are smaller than an electron compared to the universe. She is fearful of the fact that at any moment the truth will hit us with a comet from the sky. Is this her fault? Well, no, it's more a matter that she wasn't taught the truth about the universe and now she won't have anything to do with it.
So, when you discuss the 70% of the population that doesn't understand science, also talk about the percent that is fearful, the ones that are defiant, and the ones that are too old to care because the science is too new to understand. Now the percentage is probably down to 20% of the population that doesn't understand the words on the paper.
gabrielg01 on 03/19/2007 at 10:04 PM
270
They don't understand what is going on, and therefore even if they choose to believe in science, they do it through the same mental process as one believes in religion. They do it through a leap of faith.
Their rationalization may go something like this: "...well, all these scientists and engineers and other smart*ss people 'believe' in science, therefore they might be onto something. I don't really grasp what is going on, but I'll just believe them, because they are smart"
So, people who think like this, suspend their critical thinking, bend to social pressure, and bow to authority. If they say that evolution is true, but they arrived at this belief through a religious-like process, then we are not really making much progress, are we?
It is also said that most European laymen believe in evolution, unlike most American laymen. But if you scratch the surface, and start to ask those Europeans some questions, you'll notice that they don't understand evolution. They just believe in it.
And then of course, religion provides definite, and comforting answers: "don't worry, God will take care of you". Science on the opposite - it leaves you hanging, and it tells you how insignificant and pathetic you are. It doesn't take a genius to figure out which religion people are going to choose. People are babies. They long for warmth and comfort, even at the expense of rational thinking.
We should have cloned Carl Sagan like a thousand times. He could really reach out to so many people. Imagine a thousand Carl Sagans "preaching the gospel of science". Peace!:))
fiberman on 03/20/2007 at 4:11 AM
38
This is proof of the superiority of science - did you ever hear of a group of scientists committing mass suicide because of something they hypothesized? Of course not, scientists know that nothing is absolute and everything is subject to greater investigation.
But science is something that most people don't understand, and it genrally lacks the dogmatic beliefs of religion - except perhaps the whores who work for the drug companies while collecting checks at NIH - so they can't have a concrete belief to lean on.
But did anybody other than I find it funny/curious that the NY Times magazine ran two articles in successive Sundays this month covering "why people believe in God" followed by " scientists believe that 96% of the universe is unobservable dark matter" ?!
Me. I grew up watching Sputnik and reading Walter Sullivan in the times. Now I'm a writer on technology and still occasionally reread Sullivan's books for inspiration.
And I leave you with this thought:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law) English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - )
Leo on 03/22/2007 at 10:49 PM
1
So how does the tv remote change channels? Well, it's magic. How does the car move forward when I press the accelerator? It's magic. How does astrology work? It's magic. How does religion work?
If you're not curious, you'll believe anything. And if you're not curious, you won't find science interesting, because science purports to answer our questions. But if you don't have questions...
I don't have the answer to why more people aren't curious about the world they were born into.
baracus on 03/20/2007 at 6:02 PM
1
"It is also said that most European laymen believe in evolution, unlike most American laymen. But if you scratch the surface, and start to ask those Europeans some questions, you'll notice that they don't understand evolution. They just believe in it."
Which questions and how many Europeans did you ask?
I think that there are some differences from country to country. Traditionally more religious countries like Poland would - as I guessed - provide your theory better than more secular countries like the UK.
gabrielg01 on 03/20/2007 at 6:40 PM
270
It would be great if someone could conduct a study, and find out to what extent are people knowledgeable about evolution (or on a broader level, about scientific literacy). It would be neat to see such data along different lines: level of education, social class, sex, race, religion, age etc.
On the other hand, "the leap of faith" is perfectly understandable. One cannot become an expert in all disciplines, therefore when you arrive at limits of your own personal understanding, you just have to give it to the experts. I may be good in biology, but when it comes to the details of quantum mechanics I definitely have to take a "leap of faith".
bassmang5 on 03/21/2007 at 11:17 AM
6
fiberman on 03/22/2007 at 1:45 AM
38
Do I need to explain the irony?
stvdwtt on 03/19/2007 at 10:21 PM
2
VCRAGAIN on 03/21/2007 at 8:31 AM
32
but - unfortunately science has it's snobs and self grandising 'experts' who really are as much to blame for this phenomena as anybody - look what happens when a maverick introduces ideas that dont toe the line of the Royal Society's of the world !! - I think humility is the most beautiful and desirable human characteristic for which there is NO substitute !
I believe small children should be introduced to the world of learning as a huge room, with multiple doors to be opened, thru each of which is an adventure in learning and more doors - etc etc - we are NEVER done with the learning - tell them that from a very young age, tell them 'this is what we understand about that so far' , and encourage them in the idea that they too can help with this mighty task.
mnikkel55 on 03/20/2007 at 10:30 AM
4
deirdrebeth on 03/20/2007 at 11:09 AM
25
I know next to nothing about petroleum geology, but when I read an article that's talking about pushing CO2 down into "dead" wells in order to release some of the trapped oil I understand the basic chemistry that might make this work.
fiberman on 03/20/2007 at 2:04 PM
38
I learned that the basis of science was curiosity, dissatisfaction with the current knowledge, and that experimental failure was success because something was proven by elimination. I was willing to look at anything with an open, but critical, mind.
I consider scientific literacy as being able to distinguish between fact and fiction, theory and dogma, science and superstition.
How do you measure this? I don't think you can consider this premise we are discussing relevant, as the basis for saying scientific literacy changed is not defined. Is it because people know the Earth revolves around the Sun not vice versa? The Earth is 4.5 billion years old (give or take a few billion) or 6000? That living creatures change according to environmental conditions and random mutations?
In America, the majority of the people claim to believe the Bible is literally true. If that's so, the majority cannot be scientifically literate; they accept some ancient mythology written by priests looking to control the masses a millenium or more ago that precludes scientific understanding.
People are more technically competent, but only in using the products - damned few know how a car, computer, phone, camera, TV, airplane, etc. works.
I suggest a long term project where we ask the same 100 questions over time:
Where is the Earth in the Solar System?
What is electricity?
Why does something fall when you drop it?
How does a program get sent to a radio (or conversations to a cell phone)?
What makes the power to make a gasoline engine car go?
How close is the nearest star?
Why do radio signals take so long to come to Earth from NASA probes around Saturn?
etc.
How about it MIT? How about a project to measure scientific literacy? Ask us to help create 100 questions, put them ona web site and ask people to answer them, Correllate with age, education and profession. Run it for decades and see how it changes.
You up for it?
philgoetz on 03/20/2007 at 2:12 PM
1
12 percent are 65 or over. That's already 38 percent whom we might not expect to understand the average science article.
Of the remaining 62 percent, half have an IQ less than 98, and probably can't be educated to understand science articles. And half are women, and, for whatever reason, perhaps half of all women either just don't care about science, or are afraid to admit it if they do.
So the population of Americans that we can reasonably expect to read, pay attention to, and understand a science article, is 23%.
donjenks35 on 03/20/2007 at 5:53 PM
1
Do you really believe all 16 year old teenagers are incapable of understanding science - why bother teaching them as they will snap into it the day they graduate high school? Have you ever been in a high school science lab and seen the excitement on some of the student's faces? I would guess not.
As for all those old timers, we might as well revisit that old movie Logan's Run and just start killing ourselves before we get old. I feel foolish for listening to any of my older college professors, they must surely have been confused when they were teaching me statistics, engineering, physiscs and calculus. How was I so stupid to listen to them.
The other amazing assumption is that half of the women of the world don't care - might as well keep them fat, pregnant and happy at home cooking. I certainly regret letting Marie Curie out of the kitchen; except when I need a root canal.
Jeez, I sure do appreciate you clearing this up for me - you must be a smart, mid 20 year old male. Given that you are literate in science, I assume you understand the scientific method and can see the flaws in your assumptions.
Or maybe you just have a superiority complex and think you are better than most people who don't fit in your little circle. I recommend you open your eyes and come out of your cave.
gabrielg01 on 03/20/2007 at 6:46 PM
270
On the other hand, it is true that so many women are plain disinterested in science, in spite of being smarter than men.
MikeySparks on 03/22/2007 at 10:51 AM
5
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060908_brainy_men.html
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_050228_summers.html
For more proof check out the following sites...
http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/
http://www.womenarebetterthanmen.com/
MikeySparks on 03/22/2007 at 10:43 AM
5
Buckwheat469 on 03/20/2007 at 7:08 PM
29
I prefer to be humble if I attempt to claim a higher intelligence on someone because I realized that all people are smarter than me at something and just because I know more at a number of topics doesn't make my IQ more.
fiberman on 03/20/2007 at 9:29 PM
38
VCRAGAIN on 03/21/2007 at 8:35 AM
32
kmehakka on 03/21/2007 at 7:49 AM
1
Seems like somehow the American society doesn't encourage people to be curios (except when it comes to celebrities' social life), understanding the world and building on civilization. Why is that? There must be something wrong in the schooling system if citizens can't even read news papers.
I think Americans should try to discover reasons for this and do something about it. While waiting for that, Americans' worldwide reputation is not getting any better.
VCRAGAIN on 03/21/2007 at 8:49 AM
32
value in the lessons - she was used to much more
'meat' in her previous school in England and knew way more on almost every subject than her peers here !!
I didnt want to say any of this myself, since any time I mention it, I get the 'well why dont you go back' feeling - however just want to say - Educators here are NOT doing the best job they could !!
hoever one thing that drives this I believe is the size of this country - which makes people born here feel that it takes enoigh time to figure oput what's going on within the US without worrying about the rest of the world - PLUS the constantly driven home 'this is the greatest country in the world' which makes the population believe that nobody else out there knows anything or is worth their attention - this is why the world in general is falling about laughing at Bush !!!
bassmang5 on 03/21/2007 at 11:27 AM
6
dmm on 03/21/2007 at 10:01 PM
128
dmm on 03/21/2007 at 10:29 PM
128
A prime example is their attitude toward people who take Christianity seriously. Apparently there aren't many left in Europe, so Europeans are surprised when they see this in the U.S. Being good atheists, they naturally assume we must be stupid. (How else to explain it?) But guess what? China has more Christians than the U.S. Are Chinese stupid too? About half of Koreans are Christian. Are Koreans also stupid? But the most amazing fact is this: only a few generations ago, nearly all Europeans were Christians. So how did the modern brilliant Europeans manage to descend from such stupid ancestors? Doesn't that contradict evolution?
gabrielg01 on 03/22/2007 at 12:04 AM
270
Who are the representative Americans?...The educated and mostly liberal northeasterners? The Bible-humping deep south? The midwestern farming and blue collar communities? The Californians? The people of Hawaii or Alaska? Do you know that often a conservative from the northeast is in fact a lot more liberal than the so called liberals from the south? How would you define a typical American?
And who are the typical Europeans? The 3rd generation Muslims still living in the ghettos of Paris? The Orthodox Christian Greeks?...or perhaps the fanatically Catholic Polish peasants? The order obsessed Germans?(who by the way, still secretly think of themselves as 'superior' to others). The absurdly proud French?...You know, from the American vantage point, Europe looks like a bunch of whackos. Only the Scandinavians make the cut as 'normal'.
So let's not talk about "Americans" or "Europeans" anymore. Just narrow it down to a more specific subgroup.
Slash Magurk on 03/22/2007 at 7:21 PM
1
The point is this: You can make the case that not enough Americans know enough about science, and that this is a bad thing. I agree with this. But I think you could make the case about any field of interest (philosophy for example).
The reality is that your average American is going to watch the ten o'clock news and they will probably not come across anything too scientifically compelling. The next day they will go to work, come home, and do the same thing. Some Americans read Stephen Hawking, some read Nietzsche, some don't read and would rather watch the O'Reilly Factor.
I wish there could be some statistics on what percentage of Americans haven't heard of Immanuel Kant. The resulting statistic would show that a great many have not and this would send shivers up the spines of Kant-lovers.
fiberman on 03/24/2007 at 6:27 PM
38
BTW, Vandy had all incoming freshmen in 1963 read C.P. Snow's "Two Cultures." I gave copies to my kids when they reached high school. Everybody should read it.
xxxxx on 03/24/2007 at 1:56 PM
1