Colloquium III: Scientific Literacy
Cornelia Dean, a science writer and commentator at the New York Times, moderated the third and final of the three colloquia at Forum 2005, titled "Scientific Literacy." Her panel of experts consisted of Richard K. Lester, the founder and director of the Industrial Performance Center and a professor of nuclear science and engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Leticia Márquez-Magaña, a professor of microbial genetics and molecular biology at San Francisco State University; and Jon D. Miller, director of the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University Medical School, and a professor at The Feinberg School of Medicine at Northwestern.
Their purpose was to share with the audience their opinions and ideas on the future of science education and its importance for the average American.
How Much Science Do Americans Know?
Dean started off by asking the panelists for their individual assessment of the current level of scientific knowledge that Americans have and demonstrate. Miller pointed out that surveys found that one in five Americans are capable of reading a newspaper article or a magazine piece on a scientific subject. Lester agreed with this assessment. But he added that, even though a mere 20 percent seems to be a low number, this level of competency is not restricted to Americans. Europeans, such as the Dutch and Swedes, he said, also have about the same level of scientific understanding. Márquez then added that surveys show scientific interest may be higher among older Americans and lower among young people. She said that where older people tended to rely on their own learning and knowledge to form their opinions, statistics showed that young people, including today's students, tended to lean more heavily on opinion leaders-such as Hollywood stars Angelina Jolie or Brad Pitt and musicians like Sting—for information on scientific matters, rather than their own knowledge.
Cornelia Dean (moderator)
Turning to the matter of science education, Lester said that it was absolutely necessary that in the future a large majority have a wide-ranging knowledge of science. Twenty percent will no longer be enough. Our world is becoming more and more technical and sophisticated, and a good grounding in the sciences will be needed to create new and more advanced technology and to keep the machinery of our world humming.
Dean raised the question of America's place at the top of the scientific research pyramid. Márquez said that one aspect of our American society may be responsible for America's leading position in the world of scientific research and innovation. Surveys, she said, seem to show that research benefits from diversity. It is helpful to have many different subsets of knowledge working together on a problem. It adds depth to the research. But Miller said that in the United States, science is only taught to the intellectually elite. As a result, researchers tended to come from a limited pool of candidates. Márquez pointed out that mentors and team leaders tended to choose candidates and assistants who look, act, and think like them.
Another problem, Miller indicated, is the decline in interest in science among older students. When you ask a sixth or seventh grader what his or her favorite subject is, science appears near the top of the list. But high school students don't list science anywhere near the top. Math has gotten in the way by then, he said, and students turn away from science because of its reliance on math. "Math," he maintained, "is uncool." Márquez reported that in her native Mexico, there is a widespread love of and reverence for math. "Our ancestors, the Aztecs, revered math," she explained.
America's Challenges—and Strengths—in Science
Dean then asked whether, in light of all these negatives, America's decades-long preeminence in the field of scientific research is declining. Lester said "yes." He said that more and more nations around the world are becoming more developed, which means they are engaging in more scientific and technological research. If they learn to develop nuclear weapons, that will not be good; if they learn to use their new-found knowledge to develop and market consumer goods, that will be good for America because it is good for international trade.
(from left) Leticia Marquez-Magana, Richard Lester, Jon D. Miller
Márquez said that to maintain their dominance in scientific research and knowledge, Americans must learn to work in diverse teams. Lester also said that the skills needed to compete in the future will be different from those of the past. Learning by rote and other such "rule-based learning" will be out while non-rule-based skills will be in. Yet, Miller cautioned, the United States would not be so easy to topple. He said that America's institutions of higher education are more competitive and open than many overseas institutions, in which governments frequently control education. This often holds back the work that foreign universities can do and the achievements they make. Here, he said, government and industry frequently work together in the halls of academia—bringing inventions and innovations to market more easily and quickly.
One great danger to the future of American higher education is the kind of thinking that shuts down certain important avenues of research. All the panelists agreed with this assessment. Since the panel agreed on this point, Dean said it was an appropriate place to end the discussion.
