[Paleopsych] NYT: Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much
checker at panix.com
Sat Sep 10 02:02:24 UTC 2005
Scientific Savvy? In U.S., Not Much
[International comparisons, please! The U.S., I think, will fall close to the
regression line on I.Q. It's way above it in per capita income. It would be fun
to regress per capita income against both I.Q. and scientific literacy. My bet
it that the addition to the coefficient of correlation will be very slight.]
By CORNELIA DEAN
CHICAGO - When Jon D. Miller looks out across America, which he can
almost do from his 18th-floor office at Northwestern University
Medical School in Chicago, he sees a landscape of haves and have-nots
- in terms not of money, but of knowledge.
Dr. Miller, 63, a political scientist who directs the Center for
Biomedical Communications at the medical school, studies how much
Americans know about science and what they think about it. His
findings are not encouraging.
While scientific literacy has doubled over the past two decades, only
20 to 25 percent of Americans are "scientifically savvy and alert," he
said in an interview. Most of the rest "don't have a clue." At a time
when science permeates debates on everything from global warming to
stem cell research, he said, people's inability to understand basic
scientific concepts undermines their ability to take part in the
Over the last three decades, Dr. Miller has regularly surveyed his
fellow citizens for clients as diverse as the National Science
Foundation, European government agencies and the Lance Armstrong
Foundation. People who track Americans' attitudes toward science
routinely cite his deep knowledge and long track record.
"I think we should pay attention to him," said Eugenie Scott, director
of the National Center for Science Education, who cites Dr. Miller's
work in her efforts to advance the cause of evolution in the
classroom. "We ignore public understanding of science at our peril."
Rolf F. Lehming, who directs the science foundation's surveys on
understanding of science, calls him "absolutely authoritative."
Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge.
American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other
than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA
as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is.
One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth,
an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.
At one time, this kind of ignorance may not have meant much for the
nation's public life. Dr. Miller, who has delved into 18th-century
records of New England town meetings, said that back then, it was
enough "if you knew where the bridge should be built, if you knew
where the fence should be built."
"Even if you could not read and write, and most New England residents
could not read or write," he went on, "you could still be a pretty
No more. "Acid rain, nuclear power, infectious diseases - the world is
a little different," he said.
It was the nuclear power issue that first got him interested in public
knowledge of science, when he was a graduate student in the 1960's.
"The issue then was nuclear power," he said. "I used to play tennis
with some engineers who were very pro-nuclear, and I was dating a
person who was very anti-nuclear. I started doing some reading and
discovered that if you don't know a little science it was hard to
follow these debates. A lot of journalism would not make sense to
Devising good tests to measure scientific knowledge is not simple.
Questions about values and attitudes can be asked again and again over
the years because they will be understood the same way by everyone who
hears them; for example, Dr. Miller's surveys regularly ask people
whether they agree that science and technology make life change too
fast (for years, about half of Americans have answered yes) or whether
Americans depend too much on science and not enough on faith (ditto).
But assessing actual knowledge, over time, "is something of an art,"
he said. He varies his questions, as topics come and go in the news,
but devises the surveys so overall results can be compared from survey
to survey, just as SAT scores can be compared even though questions on
the test change.
For example, he said, in the era of nuclear tests he asked people
whether they knew about strontium 90, a component of fallout. Today,
he asks about topics like the workings of DNA in the cell because "if
you don't know what a cell is, you can't make sense of stem cell
Dr. Miller, who was raised in Portsmouth, Ohio, when it was a dying
steel town, attributes much of the nation's collective scientific
ignorance to poor education, particularly in high schools. Many
colleges require every student to take some science, but most
Americans do not graduate from college. And science education in high
school can be spotty, he said.
"Our best university graduates are world-class by any definition," he
said. "But the second half of our high school population - it's an
embarrassment. We have left behind a lot of people."
He had firsthand experience with local school issues in the 1980's,
when he was a young father living in DeKalb, Ill., and teaching at
Northern Illinois University. The local school board was considering
closing his children's school, and he attended some board meetings to
get an idea of members' reasoning. It turned out they were spending
far more time on issues like the cost of football tickets than they
were on the budget and other classroom matters. "It was shocking," he
So he and some like-minded people ran successfully for the board and,
once in office, tried to raise taxes to provide more money for the
classroom. They initiated three referendums; all failed. Eventually,
he gave up, and his family moved away.
"This country cannot finance good school systems on property taxes,"
he said. "We don't get the best people for teaching because we pay so
little. For people in the sciences particularly, if you have some
skill, the job market is so good that teaching is not competitive."
Dr. Miller was recruited to Northwestern Medical School in 1999 by
administrators who knew of his work and wanted him to study attitudes
and knowledge of science in light of the huge changes expected from
the genomic revolution.
He also has financing - and wears a yellow plastic bracelet - from the
Lance Armstrong Foundation, for a project to research people's
knowledge of clinical trials. Many research organizations want to know
what encourages people to participate in a trial and what discourages
them. But Dr. Miller said, "It's more interesting to ask if they know
what a clinical trial is, do they know what a placebo is."
The National Science Foundation is recasting its survey operations, so
Dr. Miller is continuing surveys for other clients. One involves
following people over time, tracing their knowledge and beliefs about
science from childhood to adulthood, to track the way advantages and
disadvantages in education are compounded over time and to test his
theory that people don't wait until they are adults to start forming
opinions about the world.
Lately, people who advocate the teaching of evolution have been citing
Dr. Miller's ideas on what factors are correlated with adherence to
creationism and rejection of Darwinian theories. In general, he says,
these fundamentalist views are most common among people who are not
well educated and who "work in jobs that are evaporating fast with
competition around the world."
But not everyone is happy when he says things like that. Every time he
goes on the radio to talk about his findings, he said, "I get people
sending me cards saying they will pray for me a lot."
More information about the paleopsych