Subject: Science, III

From: Kerry Miller <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 16:23:07 GMT

Researchers Alarmed By Reports Of Public's Lack Of Scientific Knowledge
by Karen Young Kreeger

A recent survey by the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH)
in New York confirms what scientists across the United States have
been fearing for some time: Despite their professed interest and
confidence in science, Americans' understanding of the natural and
physical world remains disturbingly low.
 Researchers say that it is imperative to the future of the nation that this
situation be reversed. "However you cut it, you become alarmed." says
Bonnie Kalberer, director of the National Institutes of Health's office
of science education. "Every day, people are having to deal more and
more with scientific, technical, and mathematical issues. And, if they're
not prepared for that, one could say your whole democratic system is in
jeopardy."
 To counter what they perceive as a dangerous level of ignorance,
scientists interviewed for this article say, they must mobilize
themselves to make people smarter about science, especially young
people, who will be responsible for shaping society in the next century.
One of these scientists, Paul Saltman, a professor of biology at the
University of California, San Diego, who is involved in training San
Diego-area teachers in science, says: "My position is one of fighting. I
can't sit still for this."
 "The whole notion," says Saltman, "becomes: `How do we start to
create an environment for it to be cool and for it to be fun to know
science?' We have to take into account this knowledge [about scientific
ignorance] and do something about it."

========
The AMNH study -- entitled "Science and Nature Survey" and released
in late April -- consisted of telephone interviews with 1,255 adults
from across the United States. Respondents were asked a series of
multiple-choice and true-false questions to gauge how they feel about
science and to measure the level of their understanding in disciplines,
such as evolution, that coincide with the museum's mission. According
to museum officials, figures for age, sex, race, education, and number
of adults per household were weighted where necessary -- using data
from the latest U.S. Census -- to bring them into line with their actual
proportions in the overall population. The study points out, among other
things, the following statistics, which the survey designers find
particularly dismaying:

* 46 percent of respondents do not believe that humans
     evolved from earlier species of animals;

* 65 percent don't know how many planets there are in the
     solar system;

* 87 percent cannot identify the cause of the hole in the
     ozone layer.

 Other recent surveys concur with these findings.
 Science & Engineering Indicators (National Science
 Board,  NSB 93-1) revealed, for example, that:

* 41 percent of respondents do not believe that "Human
     beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier
     species of animals";

* 41 percent do not know that DNA regulates inherited
     characteristics for all plants and animals;

* 92 percent cannot correctly identify the causes of acid
     rain.

Although no observer contacted denies that such revelations are
distressing, Mary Woolley, president of Alexandria, Va.-based
Research!America -- a nonprofit medical-research advocacy
organization--says capitalizing on the public's high opinion of science
should be paramount. "The attitudes are positive, the interest is there,"
says Woolley, "but we're not exploiting it in a manner that will really
pay off for us.  "Scientists tend to be invisible in their neighborhoods as
scientists. We need to get out there. Scientists have the opportunity to
describe to the public how it is that their dollar goes to something that
we already know they value."

========
Paradoxical Findings
In a statement, Ellen V. Futter museum president, said the results of the
recent museum survey show that the public has "an acute recognition of
the importance of science and a healthy respect for the potential
negative consequences and abuse of scientific research."
 However, the science literacy portion of the AMNH study found that
the public has an almost "paradoxical" -- as Futter put it -- view of some
subjects, demonstrating misconceptions about some things and a
relatively clear understanding of others.
 "We were surprised with some of the contrasts, such as how so many
people knew that continents gradually move over millions of years. But
more than one-third believed that humans and dinosaurs lived at the
same time," says David Grimaldi, curator of entomology at AMNH and
codeveloper of its survey. Specifically, 35 percent said that the earliest
humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs and 78 percent said they
believed that the statement that continents gradually change their
positions was true.
 Findings from the AMNH study are expected to be used primarily for
designing museum programs, but researchers and educators anticipate
they will also be helpful to people outside AMNH. Futter said the
survey results will be used for a range of activities, "from conceiving
and designing new exhibits to developing innovative educational
programs for application within and without our walls, to informing the
public about the results of the often cutting-edge research of our
scientific staff."
 Grimaldi adds: "We don't see the survey as setting an agenda for our
research, but it reveals what the populace expects or is concerned about
in science." For example, he says, there was stronger support for and
interest in environmental issues than expected (22 percent; see chart on
page 1), so he anticipates more rigorous informal science education
programs on such subjects as biodiversity as a result.
 Research!America's Woolley adds that information from the AMNH
survey will be useful in fashioning her organization's fledgling
educational outreach program -- to be conducted in partnership with
AMNH -- in New York City.
...
 According to the Science
Indicators, only one out of every 10 adults considered himself or
herself well-informed about new scientific discoveries or the use of
new inventions and technologies. The AMNH study found similar
attitudes among its interviewees: 51 percent agreed with the statement
"I understand less and less of what scientists are doing today." At the
same time, however, 68 percent agreed with the statement "Science will
solve many of the world's problems."
 "The point of all of this is that science is perceived as remote from and
inaccessible to nonscientists. Science is not for experts only," said
Futter.
 A survey sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, North
Carolina State University, and Colorado State University (T.J. Hoban,
P.A. Kendall, #91-EXCA-3-0155, 1993) found another dichotomy: 86
percent of the respondents agreed with the statement "Most problems
can be solved by applying more and better technology," whereas 58
percent agreed with the statement "Science and technology have made
the world a riskier place to live."
 Thomas J. Hoban, an associate professor of sociology and
anthropology at North Carolina State University in Raleigh and
coauthor of the USDA study, characterizes this seemingly conflicting
result as the public's "love-hate" relationship with science. "The public
recognizes many of the benefits that science and technology have given
us, but at the same time they are very fearful of environmental and
health impacts of new technologies and related ethical issues," he says.
 Some researchers, however, say that in contrast to the relatively large
body of work on people's attitudes and understanding, too little effort
has been spent on ascertaining what people know about the scientific
method. Bruce Fuchs, an assistant professor of pharmacology at the
Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, who is on a two-year
appointment with NIH's office of science education policy, says, "One
thing that does concern me -- and I don't see this survey getting at this -
- is that I think people really need to understand the process of science
rather than some of these facts." He adds that this kind of knowledge is
important so people can put what they read about scientific
controversies "into some perspective."
...

Reprinted without permission from "The Scientist," Vol:8, #13,27/6/94
Science, III