American Scientist

Everyone thinks that public understanding of science in the United States should be better than it is. In 1997, when Americans were asked survey questions involving such elementary concepts as the molecule and the revolution of the Earth around the sun, they achieved a mean score of only 55, a figure essentially unchanged on the same survey since 1988.

We automatically think that this poor performance should concern us—why should anybody be ignorant of such elementary concepts? And yet thinking a little about why it should be important may be useful.

The most obvious reason for concern, I suppose, is that basic scientific understanding is important in the technological world we live in. It is thought to be necessary for individuals if they are to make a reasonable living and, more broadly, if American industries are to compete effectively with those abroad. But what kind of scientific literacy is important for either of these? The basic concepts measured by survey questions may have little to do with the kinds of knowledge that are needed for competitiveness in the technological world. Basic literacy and numeracy take precedence over more sophisticated scientific understanding in the priorities of education.

Basic scientific understanding may be required for simple good citizenship in a technological world. Ignorance may—and often does—mean that the citizen cannot make good judgments about technological issues. It is also true that many other kinds of knowledge are involved in these issues. An understanding of economics, of political science, of history, of cultural differences and of numerous other fields may be important in reaching good environmental-policy decisions, to take one example. As scientists we naturally think that science should take precedence—but those in other fields think exactly the same way about their specialties.

Scientists are naturally concerned that ignorance of scientific concepts and processes lessens public support for research funding. Without the stimulus of a perceived serious threat such as existed during the Cold War, poor public understanding might make it harder to support funding for research and development. In fact, federal funds for basic research in total have risen, albeit slowly, since 1989, and federal support for academic basic research actually increased slightly faster (3.1 percent per year, after inflation) in the post-Cold War period than in 1970–89 (2.6 percent per year). Total federal research and development funds have decreased, mostly as the result of reductions in defense funding. Whether any of these changes relate to public understanding of science is far from clear.

Of course, it may be enough to say simply that living in this technological age requires at least an elementary understanding of science. One thing is clear: Americans do not now possess a level of scientific literacy that is adequate to that aspiration.

Sigma Xi is working to help ameliorate the sad state of science understanding. Through the Media Resource Service the Society helps enhance the accuracy of science coverage in the news media by connecting reporters with scientists. We are developing programs in science education. But we can do more. Many public-policy issues lie at the intersection of the natural sciences and other branches of knowledge—the social sciences and the humanities. The Society is well situated to encourage interdisciplinary cooperation with the social sciences. Moreover, the Sigma Xi Center will be physically near the National Humanities Center, facilitating joint projects. At both the chapter and Society levels, we can bring scholars together to work on issues that cross traditional lines to creae an interdisciplinary background for informed public debate.

John H. Moore
President, Sigma Xi