The Myth of Science Literacy

In 1995 Morris Shamos, a professor emeritus of Physics and a past president of the New York Academy of Sciences, wrote a book called “The Myth of Scientific Literacy”. In it he examined the success educators have had over the past century in promoting scientific literacy (almost none), and the romantic and unrealistic myth that if only we spent enough money we could make every American scientifically literate, He also examined the question of how much scientific literacy we really need in our population.

Of course he has had to take a lot of criticism from the vested interests -- science educators, textbook publishers and the educational bureaucracy -- who don’t like to be reminded that despite all the money they spend, and despite the steady succession of educational fads and “new curriculum”, their results to date have been unimpressive. But as I suggested in an earlier post, it’s a myth that teachers really teach content anyway – good teachers impart a passion for their subjects and inspire self-confidence in their students, and then the students largely learn the content on their own.

Studies suggest that only something like 3-5% of Americans are scientifically literate, meaning that they really understand how the scientific process works. That means that most families include no one who is scientifically literate, and only about half the juries in the nation include at least one scientifically literate member (probably less, since lawyers tend to exclude such people if they can). It also means that politicians and their staffs are generally not scientifically literate, even as they make critical policy decisions that should be affected by scientific research. That probably explains the unfathomable stance some politicians have taken on matters such as global warming, stem cell research, food additives, genetically modified foods, and the like.

As I prepare to mentor my granddaughter in science, I find his arguments persuasive – at the middle school level it is far more important to teach how scientists reason, form theories, test those theories, reason from inference, etc, etc, than to cram the students with factoids they will forget within a year or two. It is far more important to teach an appreciation of science than to teach specific content. It is far more important to fan the student’s passion and wonder in science, and keep alive their interest in such knowledge, than to cram them with science vocabulary without a commensurate understanding of the scientific process.

In an increasingly technological world, it’s hard to see how we can keep functioning if such a small proportion of the population understands what is going on around them. On the other hand, civilizations have flourished on our world for thousands of years now with mostly clueless populations, so perhaps this really is nothing new.