keep science alive!

Science is about finding the way to discover the world around us: interpreting the magic of our existence.  This is what children are doing everyday as they are growing up.  Kids in their early years are still learning new things every day.  This is why science is so exciting at an early age; we are able to make sense of our environment.  I believe this is why science is so interesting to kids early on and why they are so involved.
     Later on in life, for example at the middle school age, children are still figuring out their own worlds but this begins to change for them as they become more social and less scientific.  Science is not seen as something new and exciting anymore.  Instead, children are forced to study and read books and complete less experiments.  At a young age, we are all scientists, running experiments of our own: seeing what we can get away with on a daily basis.  Later on, we already know what we are capable of and somewhere along the way we lose sight of that inquisitiveness that we all have as children.  Perhaps its the textbooks, the classroom structure, and the lack of recess and FUN that is included in science when we're younger.
     I think the science writer can and should be motivated to change this problem and reintegrate science in the inner child of every adult.  If we work to keep the fun in science and show older children and teenagers that science can still be fun we can keep them interested.  I remember I had a science teacher that showed us experiments with dry ice and worked with different color flames (everybody likes fire) that made our class excited to go everyday to see what we would see!  We didn't even realize we were learning on the way because we were intrigued and most importantly, we were having fun.  In order to keep science alive we must work to keep the interest.  This includes less work in the classroom and more field work; less lectures and more questions; less passivity and more action.

Can education make us less literate?

            The ASR findings provide us- as writers, scientists, and citizens-with a wealth of information about what the general public feels about the scientific community.  Not only does it shed some light on this image:  it also allows us to envision a way in which we can work together as citizens to improve that image by providing relevant and useful scientific information in a way that anyone can understand.  The article shows that among conservatives, especially those that are considered ‘educated’ on their scale, showed the greatest decline for trust in science over the last few decades, compared to moderates, and liberals.  Speculations that have been derived from these results hint to the idea that, maybe, educated conservatives are less likely to believe something that is outside of their repertoire of beliefs because they are more educated on how to defend their opinions. 

            As a science writer, the best way we can interpret the ASR findings is that there is a clear problem that needs to be addressed with regards to scientific literacy.  It is crucial that we make the general public not only aware of scientific discoveries and theories, but that we instill in our citizens a desire to learn; to question; to trust in science.  If we recognize that certain groups of people are not going to believe in global warming because of their personal beliefs, then we must learn how to help them see that it is a legitimate and imminent concern.  We can do this by serving as a liaison between the scientist and the citizen.  We have the access to – and knowledge of – scientific information that is relevant to the general public and must find a way to make this knowledge comprehensible.  A good science writer should be able to explain the same concept to a neuroscience graduate student and a curious 10-year-old. 

The scientific writer must focus on providing not only information about global warming, but also: the research behind it, global trends in temperature, alternative energy sources, opposing theories and their legitimacy, and etcetera. The story must include a title that is neutral yet controversial and intriguing: “The Scoop on global warming: is it real and should we care?”  This title (rough draft, I know) states what the article is about, shows no bias to a specific side (in order to appeal to a more general audience), and intrigues the reader by playing to the controversial nature of the topic. 

Another important lesson that we can take from the ASR article is the importance of writing about information that is backed up in academia.  One must not be tempted to write about a topic based purely on its ability to generate publicity or stir up controversy.  If we truly wish to increase scientific literacy we, as writers, need to write about scientific information that is not just mainstream issues but also issues that are not being addressed, such as GMO’s.  This would eliminate some of the problems that we see with articles on the same topic that conflict and cause confusion – does coffee help with stress or cause our hearts to explode? - for example.  We must strive to write articles that are informative; provide the reader with further resources and data; create an environment that facilitates an inquisitive mind.    

As a scientist, it is crucial that we must first deal with the problem of reputation among the scientific community.  As clearly shown in the ASR article, there is an issue with the legitimacy and reliability of science because the general public is losing their faith in the field.  In order to restore this faith, scientists must strive to do honest research on information that is relevant to the general public.  If you know people are less willing to trust your data, do things to build a better reputation such as working on your reliability and validity and not reporting results that are irrelevant or misleading.  As a scientist, it is our duty to make your research known.  It is important to make someone understand why your research is pertinent and what implications it has for the average person.  As a scientist you must: make your research relevant, make it relatable, and make people care.  As a scientist, one must not always be so stuck writing in the prose of a scientific paper, but also be able to explain the ideas in a way that your average Joe would be able to read and interpret.  From the ASR paper, we see the decline in trust in science; we must act now in order to rebuild the bridges we have burned – perhaps this time, more stable, and with a bit more transparency in our methods.  In order to build a better reputation for science as a whole, it is important to operate on a basis of honesty and relevancy. 

As citizens, we must also be aware of the influence that we have in creating a world that is more scientifically literate.  One of the main problems here lies in education.  The ASR article highlighted the problems with education among conservatives, but did not touch on the holistic problem of education in this country.  It is important as citizens to take matters into our own hands; we cannot simply rely on writers or scientists to provide us with information.  It is important to ask questions, to do follow up research, to create your own experiments.  Although, this may seem unlikely, at the very least we need to create a society of people that are, once again, inquisitive. 

We must work on recreating the education system to one that will foster creativeness and inspire an inquisitive mind.  We must create a system that encourages children, at an earlier age, to question whatever personal belief system they may have – whether they be derived from family, religion, or personal preferences.  If children are taught at an earlier age to question everything; they are more likely to be able to develop their own opinions at an earlier age: which may decrease some of the issues with educated conservatives in the ASR article.  Perhaps if one is more educated from an earlier age, and taught to be more hesitant about receiving information, perhaps this would carry over to adulthood and one would be more likely to question an article on the effectiveness of tomato juice in curing AIDS.  It is our duty as citizens to establish a better system that will hopefully foster the creative and questioning minds that make it possible for a scientifically literate community to exist: this starts with education.

Overall, it is important that we all- writers, scientists, and citizens- alike, work together in order to inspire the general public alike to be interested in and pursue scientific information.  Scientific writers must work on their ability to provide scientific information that is more relevant and more accessible.  Scientists must work on improving their reputation by carrying out and reporting validated data and results.  Citizens must work on creating a society that desires to learn about science and questions what they read or hear on TV.  It is important that we address these problems that were highlighted in the ASR article, and work together in order to create a nation that is more scientifically literate.

Importance of scientific literacy

     If more people were scientifically literate they would be more comfortable developing opinions on social or political issues.  If you are knowledgeable in an area, you have a better understanding of the issue and what goes into making a decision about the matter.  For example, if one understands what stem cells are and how they are used in research, they can then develop their own opinions on the ethics of using them and whether or not we should pursue the research.  When a person is not knowledgeable about the science behind an issue such as stem cells, they are more likely to develop opinions based on propaganda that they hear. 

                I believe that scientific understanding of important issues allows individuals to become more involved in the decision process.  A more informed citizen is able to make better decisions regarding these issues because they understand the scientific relevance of the issues.  If citizens become more aware of topics such as stem cells, then they can become more involved with the political side.

The first of many

Now I know how to blog!