Helping even a large majority of Americans become scientifically literate is an incremental process. For starters, you have to sell the idea that scientific literacy offers tangible benefits.
Reaching that milestone, however, is meaningless, unless you also build an infrastructure enabling easy access to training materials and frequent updates. Even if we agree that digital space is the ideal medium to promote science literacy, there appears to be no off-the-shelf solution to designing and building that infrastructure.
The phrase "science education" is, after all, a complex, multilayered topic, that must fulfill many different functions. For my purposes, professional training in a scientific discipline is not one of those functions. Given that, a preliminary agenda might look like this:
• Education for children and teens
• Education for adults
• Education for educators
• Education as topical overview
• Education as global impact study
• Education as a background reference for the law
And as the impact of globalization continues to be felt, it's clear we also need an understanding of the social sciences. Ideology aside, an administration better versed in non-Western worldviews would never have created the quagmire we now face in the Middle East. Nor would voters conversant with social and cultural anthropology have ever accepted the ridiculous assertion that our troops would be greeted with flowers in Iraq.
Access denied.
Let's start by assessing the tools we already have. Here again, a search engine proves an inefficient way to access and assess digital resources. Fact is, you'll get better results by subscribing to StumbleUpon and choosing "Science" as one of your search options. It led me (with persistence) to a large collection of materials entitled "Harvard Natural Sciences Lecture Demonstrations."
The site offers reassuring proof that forces of nature can be described and demonstrated with relatively simple means. Yet, effective as they are on their own terms, demonstrations like these—or like the simplified map of the human brain presented by The Times of London—are intended merely to exemplify, not teach the scientific thought process. Even if such presentations were enough to promote science literacy on their own, simply finding them taxes the nerve endings of even the most obsessive-compulsive personality.
Idling ideologues.
Now, if we believe that improving science literacy in America begins with children, the path to success is no clearer. Having put a child through the New York City public school system, I know that many of the barriers to success are systemic. At some point in the last 60 years, the focus of American education has shifted from teaching mental discipline to producing edutainment.
The seductive phrase "learning should be fun" has generated a vast complex of methodologies that do everything except teach. That's because the valid premise behind the phrase has been tragically misapplied. The fun in learning comes after the hard work—at the moment you realize you have a new skill at your command. We're not only depriving children of education, we're ensuring they miss out on one of life's most reliable pleasures.
As the pace of scientific discovery continues to raise the literacy bar, it's time for change. We need more efficient ways to instill the values of scientific thinking. Again, the goal is not to create a society of scientists, but one whose self-image is no longer dependent on being too cool, too pious or too "intuitive" to face the social implications of the tools we depend on for our well-being.
Stepping up.
What role digital space can play in the process depends on the willingness of the scientific community and government to:
• Design and create a practical online reference center
• Create a news service to explain the social and political
ramifications of new developments
• Promote science literacy with webinars, video
(including documentaries), text, etc.
It also depends on the willingness of content producers to work collaboratively with scientists. What's needed is not mere "coverage," but substantive discussion.
At this point, even the creation of a "WebMD" for every field of science, would be an improvement. While some of this function is already fulfilled by established magazines like Scientific American, or National Geographic they are, essentially, engaged in journalism, not education.
As I see it, the bottom line for a scientifically literate society is access at any point to reliable materials on every topic, geared to a self-identified level of comprehension. Perhaps the example set by mypyramid.gov for presenting basic concepts in nutrition offers a point of departure. Whether we should create a "myalternativeenergy.gov" or “mygenomemap.gov” to follow in its footsteps, is a question someone else will have to decide.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Science on the Web (4)
A major obstacle to promoting science literacy is the lack of an accepted definition. For my purposes, people are scientifically literate when they can meaningfully evaluate the scientific issues we face as a society as well as the science news they encounter in the popular press. Scientifically literate people are able to grasp the scientific implications of digital news items like:
• Size of Spill in the Gulf of Mexico Is Larger than Thought
• The Stem-Cell Ruling: Scientists Alarmed at "Step Back"
• World's Largest Particle Accelerator Offers Window into Laws of Nature
• Earth-like Planet Discovered 15 Light-Years Away
• Food for Thought: Irradiation is Dangerous
And they can do so regardless of how journalists piece the facts together to "break news." Keep in mind, a journalist's goal is to inform and only secondarily to teach. Journalism focuses on what's newsworthy in the moment. In the first example, the fact that the spill was "larger than thought" tells us more about the care Government takes to monitor and evaluate ecological disasters than it does about the eventual impact of the spill itself.
It's a frustrating topic. Was the damage underestimated due to incompetence, negligence or human error? Or is it, in fact, impossible to predict the immediate outcome of a gigantic oil spill? In my case, I have to make my cynicism take a back seat to a simple truth: I have no precise idea what standards our government officials should be expected to meet in these situations. So if I want to see myself as a scientifically literate person, I have to know the difference between ignorance and knowledge.
Facts. Context. Perspective.
In other respects, the definition of science literacy is less ambiguous. For example, I've met hundreds of intelligent people for whom the phrase "particle accelerator" means only slightly more than the phrase "adfywebriu sdogweiugb." When funding for such research in the US was cut in 1993, how many members of Congress actually understood the implications? Even if the cries of mismanagement were justified, was hobbling our ability to compete in this scientific arena justified?
You'd have to know a thing or two to decide that question, and that's exactly my point.
Clearly, the issues involved in this and comparable decisions are too important to be packaged as news highlights or left entirely to legislators. Take, for example, the decades-long controversy over a purported link between autism and the standard battery of childhood vaccinations. This link was based on research findings reported in 1998—which, as we now know, were fraudulent. If such fraud had led to legislation outlawing or limiting the use of children's vaccines, the health of the next generation would have been seriously compromised.
Educated skepticism. Knowing acceptance.
In one sense, the anguish caused by the original report will not be in vain if it motivates us to revamp our education system. Science, everyone needs to know, is a product of human beings. Like every other human endeavor, it's subject to the emotional needs of scientists themselves. To be scientifically literate, we need to take science news with a grain of thought. We should ask:
• Have the results been validated by repeating the tests?
• Has the journalist described the findings accurately?
• Is there an opposing point of view?
• What's a reliable source for additional information?
These questions are part of a process—a suspension of belief in favor of verification. In other words, exactly the process most people would apply to buying a used car. In the current environment, where so many first learn of scientific developments in the popular press, informed skepticism is essential.
Yet, what should such skepticism be based on? In an uneducated mind, healthy skepticism quickly flips over into groundless suspicion or even paranoia. That's why Americans need enough "science sense" to separate useful technology from its frivolous or harmful application. If the principle behind lasers can be used to reattach a retina and save my eyesight, should I condemn it because a startlingly irresponsible manufacturer now markets a handheld laser device to wealthy consumers?
So far, so good. But, as usual, listing problems is much easier than implementing solutions. If I turn, in my next post, to a sketchy outline of online science education, it's with the clear understanding that improving science literacy in the United States will take more than better distance learning software. It will require a major cultural shift in our attitudes about "brain" vs. "heart," and belief vs. reason.
• Size of Spill in the Gulf of Mexico Is Larger than Thought
• The Stem-Cell Ruling: Scientists Alarmed at "Step Back"
• World's Largest Particle Accelerator Offers Window into Laws of Nature
• Earth-like Planet Discovered 15 Light-Years Away
• Food for Thought: Irradiation is Dangerous
And they can do so regardless of how journalists piece the facts together to "break news." Keep in mind, a journalist's goal is to inform and only secondarily to teach. Journalism focuses on what's newsworthy in the moment. In the first example, the fact that the spill was "larger than thought" tells us more about the care Government takes to monitor and evaluate ecological disasters than it does about the eventual impact of the spill itself.
It's a frustrating topic. Was the damage underestimated due to incompetence, negligence or human error? Or is it, in fact, impossible to predict the immediate outcome of a gigantic oil spill? In my case, I have to make my cynicism take a back seat to a simple truth: I have no precise idea what standards our government officials should be expected to meet in these situations. So if I want to see myself as a scientifically literate person, I have to know the difference between ignorance and knowledge.
Facts. Context. Perspective.
In other respects, the definition of science literacy is less ambiguous. For example, I've met hundreds of intelligent people for whom the phrase "particle accelerator" means only slightly more than the phrase "adfywebriu sdogweiugb." When funding for such research in the US was cut in 1993, how many members of Congress actually understood the implications? Even if the cries of mismanagement were justified, was hobbling our ability to compete in this scientific arena justified?
You'd have to know a thing or two to decide that question, and that's exactly my point.
Clearly, the issues involved in this and comparable decisions are too important to be packaged as news highlights or left entirely to legislators. Take, for example, the decades-long controversy over a purported link between autism and the standard battery of childhood vaccinations. This link was based on research findings reported in 1998—which, as we now know, were fraudulent. If such fraud had led to legislation outlawing or limiting the use of children's vaccines, the health of the next generation would have been seriously compromised.
Educated skepticism. Knowing acceptance.
In one sense, the anguish caused by the original report will not be in vain if it motivates us to revamp our education system. Science, everyone needs to know, is a product of human beings. Like every other human endeavor, it's subject to the emotional needs of scientists themselves. To be scientifically literate, we need to take science news with a grain of thought. We should ask:
• Have the results been validated by repeating the tests?
• Has the journalist described the findings accurately?
• Is there an opposing point of view?
• What's a reliable source for additional information?
These questions are part of a process—a suspension of belief in favor of verification. In other words, exactly the process most people would apply to buying a used car. In the current environment, where so many first learn of scientific developments in the popular press, informed skepticism is essential.
Yet, what should such skepticism be based on? In an uneducated mind, healthy skepticism quickly flips over into groundless suspicion or even paranoia. That's why Americans need enough "science sense" to separate useful technology from its frivolous or harmful application. If the principle behind lasers can be used to reattach a retina and save my eyesight, should I condemn it because a startlingly irresponsible manufacturer now markets a handheld laser device to wealthy consumers?
So far, so good. But, as usual, listing problems is much easier than implementing solutions. If I turn, in my next post, to a sketchy outline of online science education, it's with the clear understanding that improving science literacy in the United States will take more than better distance learning software. It will require a major cultural shift in our attitudes about "brain" vs. "heart," and belief vs. reason.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Science on the Web (3)
Before I reconfigure the cyclotron, I realize I should have a closer look at how science literacy is being addressed in digital space. Or rather, what existing sites, regardless of their formal intent, are promoting the cause indirectly.
Certainly one stop along this exploratory path must be lazyenvironmentalist.com, the digital wing of Josh Dorfman's one-man campaign to make environmental issues accessible to a wide audience. That is, a wide audience of people who already realize that our planet's finite resources need careful management.
Taking as its premise that people will only do the right thing if it's cheap, convenient and not too labor intensive, the site features how-to information, feature articles on environmental success stories and expert video from internationally recognized members of the scientific community.
That it also contains scraps of hagiographic nonsense about Dorfman himself reveals that, even at this late date, there's still a club-like atmosphere hovering around some of the most important topics we face as a people. As I can't help noticing, lazyenvironmentalist.com is also a fan-site pitched to people who "Like" environmentalism.
At the same time, however, maybe it's simply a matter of human nature. We strengthen our understanding of complex topics by creating community around them. Whether that's Dorfman's intuitive conclusion or savvy calculation, it's impact on the relative accessibility of scientific concepts can't be taken lightly.
Presenting expert opinion expertly.
In addition to promoting Dorfman's own patented approach to environmentalism, the site also curates content from leading experts. As of 5-7-11, this includes a particularly effective video from the BBC, featuring Swedish medical doctor Hans Rosling, that offers a promising model of science education. It's a presentation on the impact of scientific discoveries on global health over the last 200 years.
As I see it, Rosling's achievement lies in combining education, advocacy, history and, vitally important, a digestible introduction to understanding and evaluating statistical data. That he does so without wearing a lab coat is an un-hoped-for bonus.
Best of all, this big picture view offers hope, particularly by demonstrating the importance of keeping statistics in perspective and of understanding that perspective itself is a flexible, dynamic tool. And in its seamless integration of live action and animated graphics, it speaks fluent digital-ese to an extent the average point-and-click home page can't match.
That in itself is no small matter. If science literacy is to be promoted successfully in digital space, the approach taken must grow directly out of the multidimensional nature of the medium itself.
Refreshingly down to earth.
What's more, this particular video contains none of the Watch Mr. Wizard condescension that even infected Carl Sagan's otherwise exemplary Cosmos series.
At this point in the history of ideas, the last thing we need is another generation brought up to believe their only possible response to scientific concepts is eye-popping wonder. To move forward, we must bring science, as a cultural icon, into the realm of every day, practical experience.
And that is, in fact, a message lazyenvironmentalist.com conveys, by positioning science not as a school subject, but as a thought process we can use to navigate the world more effectively. Of course, no one would assert that, say, particle physics or genome mapping can help you get a better deal on your mortgage. But the outcome of research into these topics affects everything from the iPad you're drooling over to the medications you or a loved one’s heart valves depend on.
Ignorance is marginality.
Even if your religious beliefs tell you scientific thinking is a godless delusion, it permeates too much of everyday life to be ignored. In 2011, you can't afford to be ignorant of the background thinking governing so many decisions made by local, regional and national government.
Now, two of the most obvious ways to move from ignorance to a passing familiarity with scientific concepts, are to keep up with science news and to take time out for old-fashioned learning. You know the kind I mean: when you actually push yourself to expand your mental horizons through—gasp—work. Like it or not, there's no Spuds McKenzie school of scientific literacy. But that doesn't mean the task need be horribly burdensome.
That is, unless the digital outlets for science news and science education turn out to be poorly organized and badly in need of a marketing strategy that could bring available resources to light. In my next post, I'll begin an admittedly unscientific survey of what's out there in both categories.
Certainly one stop along this exploratory path must be lazyenvironmentalist.com, the digital wing of Josh Dorfman's one-man campaign to make environmental issues accessible to a wide audience. That is, a wide audience of people who already realize that our planet's finite resources need careful management.
Taking as its premise that people will only do the right thing if it's cheap, convenient and not too labor intensive, the site features how-to information, feature articles on environmental success stories and expert video from internationally recognized members of the scientific community.
That it also contains scraps of hagiographic nonsense about Dorfman himself reveals that, even at this late date, there's still a club-like atmosphere hovering around some of the most important topics we face as a people. As I can't help noticing, lazyenvironmentalist.com is also a fan-site pitched to people who "Like" environmentalism.
At the same time, however, maybe it's simply a matter of human nature. We strengthen our understanding of complex topics by creating community around them. Whether that's Dorfman's intuitive conclusion or savvy calculation, it's impact on the relative accessibility of scientific concepts can't be taken lightly.
Presenting expert opinion expertly.
In addition to promoting Dorfman's own patented approach to environmentalism, the site also curates content from leading experts. As of 5-7-11, this includes a particularly effective video from the BBC, featuring Swedish medical doctor Hans Rosling, that offers a promising model of science education. It's a presentation on the impact of scientific discoveries on global health over the last 200 years.
As I see it, Rosling's achievement lies in combining education, advocacy, history and, vitally important, a digestible introduction to understanding and evaluating statistical data. That he does so without wearing a lab coat is an un-hoped-for bonus.
Best of all, this big picture view offers hope, particularly by demonstrating the importance of keeping statistics in perspective and of understanding that perspective itself is a flexible, dynamic tool. And in its seamless integration of live action and animated graphics, it speaks fluent digital-ese to an extent the average point-and-click home page can't match.
That in itself is no small matter. If science literacy is to be promoted successfully in digital space, the approach taken must grow directly out of the multidimensional nature of the medium itself.
Refreshingly down to earth.
What's more, this particular video contains none of the Watch Mr. Wizard condescension that even infected Carl Sagan's otherwise exemplary Cosmos series.
At this point in the history of ideas, the last thing we need is another generation brought up to believe their only possible response to scientific concepts is eye-popping wonder. To move forward, we must bring science, as a cultural icon, into the realm of every day, practical experience.
And that is, in fact, a message lazyenvironmentalist.com conveys, by positioning science not as a school subject, but as a thought process we can use to navigate the world more effectively. Of course, no one would assert that, say, particle physics or genome mapping can help you get a better deal on your mortgage. But the outcome of research into these topics affects everything from the iPad you're drooling over to the medications you or a loved one’s heart valves depend on.
Ignorance is marginality.
Even if your religious beliefs tell you scientific thinking is a godless delusion, it permeates too much of everyday life to be ignored. In 2011, you can't afford to be ignorant of the background thinking governing so many decisions made by local, regional and national government.
Now, two of the most obvious ways to move from ignorance to a passing familiarity with scientific concepts, are to keep up with science news and to take time out for old-fashioned learning. You know the kind I mean: when you actually push yourself to expand your mental horizons through—gasp—work. Like it or not, there's no Spuds McKenzie school of scientific literacy. But that doesn't mean the task need be horribly burdensome.
That is, unless the digital outlets for science news and science education turn out to be poorly organized and badly in need of a marketing strategy that could bring available resources to light. In my next post, I'll begin an admittedly unscientific survey of what's out there in both categories.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
