Turning Good News into Bad News
by MikeGeneLiza Gross has an article in the May 2006 issue of PloS Biology entitled "Scientific Illiteracy and the Partisan Takeover of Biology." The primary source of the article is Jon D. Miller, who directs the Center for Biomedical Communications at Northwestern University Medical School. Miller is someone who "has devoted his 30-year career to studying public understanding of science and technology and its implications for a healthy democracy."
Since the essay was published in a scientific journal, the target audience is the scientific community. Gross's article spills a large amount of ink on the issue of scientific illiteracy in America. Yet the article provides a stunning example of turning good news into bad news.
First there is this observation:
Since 1979, he says, the proportion of scientifically literate adults has doubled"”to a paltry 17%. The rest are not savvy enough to understand the science section of The New York Times or other science media pitched at a similar level.
Did you see that? Scientific literacy has doubled since Jimmy Carter was president. Yes, 17% is a paltry number, but it is much better that 8.5%. Furthermore, such complaining is typically associated with tunnel vision. Yes, scientific literacy rates are paltry, but the same could be said about math literacy rates, geography literacy rates, spelling and grammar literacy rates, economic literacy rates, and history literacy rates. There is no reason to single out science education as if it alone is a victim of some mysterious insidious force.
This is then followed by this bit of news:
As disgracefully low as the rate of adult scientific literacy in the United States may be, Miller found even lower rates in Canada, Europe, and Japan"”a result he attributes primarily to lower university enrollments.
In other words, the scientific literacy among adults is even more paltry in the rest of the world!
So what do we have? Scientific literacy in America has doubled in the last generation and is higher than that of Canada, Europe, and Japan. Yet the theme of Gross's article is all "doom-n-gloom." I'll look more closely at Gross's article in the next installment.
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:50 pm
Is this one of those articles that equates "science" with "evolution?" (Kind of like the NCSE does?) Or is actually talking about ALL science education?
Comment by macht — April 22, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Hi Macht,
I've linked to the article. Yes, it focuses primarily on evolution and adds in the stem cell debate for balance. Apparently, the rest of science education is okay.
As for the NCSE, there is a prominant sidebar article about Eugenie Scott. Scott makes a very interesting point that undercuts some of the anti-ID rhetoric I have heard over the years.
Comment by MikeGene — April 22, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 2:07 pm
It's okay to just come right out and say it: "macht, you're stupid."
And, along those lines, what do you mean by "Scott makes a very interesting point that undercuts some of the anti-ID rhetoric I have heard over the years."
Comment by macht — April 22, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
April 22nd, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Hi macht,
Over the years, I have seen many critics engage in a form of historical revisionism than envisions a purely secular past that has just recently been threatened by an influx of relgious ideology and desire for a theocracy. But Scott just admitted that much of the classroom controversy is traced back to President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act, enacted in 2002. In other words, bureacrats have tried to centralize and standardize a diverse educational system and are predictable stepping on the toes of the people who pay for all this. Scott helps to confirm that the ID classroom debate is a REACTION, rather than a proactive attempt to install a theocracy.
Comment by MikeGene — April 22, 2006 @ 2:31 pm