Scientific literacy...and lack thereof

HOUSTON, TX-- Author Chris Mooney was on campus yesterday, speaking at Rice's Baker Institute about his latest book (with coauthor Sheril Kirshenbaum), "Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future."

I have read many of Mooney's articles in popular magazines such as Wired, Slate, and Seed, and I share his interest in how science influences public policy, so went by and listened to what he had to say (click here to watch a webcast of his talk).

Mooney began his talk with a variety of embarrassing examples of questions about basic science that the average American apparently can't answer, such as:

How old is the Earth?

(46% of Americans believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old)

How long does it take for the Earth to orbit the sun?

(only half of American adults know that it takes exactly one year...that's how a year is defined)

There are a plethora of other examples, and Mooney gave some of them. He did not, however, spend much time talking about what scientific literacy actually is.

In their book, which I picked up after the talk and have sense been eagerly thumbing through, Mooney and Kirshenbaum are more explicit about what they mean by scientific literacy (and lack thereof). After citing many of the same examples, culminating in the results of a survey that concluded that (gulp), "80 percent of Americans can't read the New York Times science section" the authors go on to point out how such assessments are not an accurate way to determine how well the public really understands science.

As evidence for this, Mooney asserted that one's political opinions are often a better predictor of one's view on scientific issues such as global warming, as suggested by the following survey result:

Educated Democrats, according to Mooney, are more likely to accept global warming as scientifically valid, whereas educated Republicans are LESS likely to do so (Mooney's previous book, I should point out, is entitled, The Republican War on Science).

They then, in the book, propose a new definition for scientific literacy, focused less on scientific knowledge and more on appreciating the "importance of science to politics, policy, and our collective future."

The remainder of the book, and the remainder of Mooney's talk, elaborated on the causes and consequences of scientific illiteracy, according to their definition of it.
Much of his talk focused on what Mooney considers to be the major "gaps" between scientists (and, along with them, scientific knowledge) and the public.

The gaps he listed are between scientists and (1) politicians, (2) journalists, (3) entertainers, and (4) religion.

Mooney pointed out that these gaps have traditionally been filled by educators and journalists, but that the latter (specifically "science writers" or "science journalists") are a dying breed. He suggested, somewhat to the chagrin of the audience, that educators alone are not able to bridge all four gaps, and that the burden therefore must fall on scientists to reach across the divide and help to contribute to a better informed populace.

Mooney concluded by making a case for the importance of teaching scientists how to effectively communicate as part of their education, and also the importance of public outreach by all scientists.

Citing a terrifying statistic-- that only 7% of Americans under the age of 35 with a Ph.D. can expect to land a tenure-track position-- he argued that more science jobs should be created, and not just in the traditional, academic arena. He made a case for the creation of non-profit jobs, such as a "Science Corps" that would be similar to the existing "Jobs Corps." He also championed a re-branding of scientists from the "geek or freak" stereotype to that of a hero and role model.

I thoroughly enjoyed Mooney's talk, and agree with him on many points (certainly that last one). In particular, I agree that communication skills must become part of the skill set that scientists acquire during their formal education. In fact we are developing a new science communication course here at Rice that will soon be a requirement for all Ecology and Evolutionary Biology seniors.

Public outreach is another of my favorite causes, but how to do so in the most effective way possible remains, in my opinion, an open question. Blogs (like this one) are one way, but I agree with Mooney that there is more misinformation on the internet than good information, making blogs an imperfect, or at least incomplete, solution.

The only thing I disagree with, in part, is the new definition of scientific literacy proposed by Mooney and Kirshenbaum in their book. While I agree that being able to cite so-called scientific "facts" should not alone be synonymous with scientific literacy, I do believe that a certain level of baseline knowledge is necessary.

Nevertheless, at the rate science is advancing, we are (thankfully) beyond the point where any single individual can have an advanced understanding of all fields of science. Instead, I believe the emphasis should be placed on understanding the process of science, how is works, and who is doing it.

Yes, Joe Public should be able to tell you that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old and that it orbits the sun every 365 days, but he should also be able to tell you that Darwin's "theory" of evolution by natural selection is supported by just about as much data as Newton's "theory" of gravity.

Global Warming Debate

HOUSTON, TX-- Wednesday evening I attended a public debate here at Rice on global climate change between two very qualified climate scientists.

On one side of the debate was Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. His opponent was Dr. Gerald North Distinguished Professor in the Departments of Atmospheric Sciences and Oceanography at Texas A&M University.

When I mentioned to some friends that there would be a debate on global climate change between a professor from Texas A&M and another from MIT, many expected that the professor from A&M would be arguing "against" global warming. In fact, it was the opposite.

Lindzen began with a lecture on why he believed that the current and future patterns of global climate change have been exaggerated and that the data have been "tilted" to sway public opinion. Interestingly, he conceded that the earth is indeed warming and that man's activities have contributed to this trend.

Nevertheless, he concluded that this is "trivial" and "meaningless in terms of alarm." Unfortunately, his presentation was extremely disorganized and his slides did nothing to help the audience follow his arguments, which tended to ramble in various directions.

North gave a more polished lecture, in which he summarized what he called the "Pillars" of anthropogenic (i.e. human-caused) climate change. These are that (1) carbon dioxide has gone up exponentially in the recent past; (2) temperatures have gone up linearly (i.e. at a roughly constant rate); (3) we are stuck with warming even if we are able to restore balance to the atmosphere; and (4) that there are important feedbacks associated with climate change.

Much of the discussion that followed focused on this last part, namely what North referred to as the "Feedback World." In short, the models predict that increases in carbon dioxide and temperature actually cause there to be even more carbon dioxide and higher temperatures, resulting in a feedback effect that will continue to get more extreme.

Not so, said Lindzen. His interpretation of data from satellites suggests that the feedback effect, if any, will be negative. Meaning that increases in carbon dioxide and temprature should result in a decrease of both.

The debate that followed was unfortunately very one-sided, with Dr. Lindzen dominating all of the questions and giving Dr. North--who was more polite but seemed reluctant to stand his ground on any of his major points--little opportunity to give his perspective.

Lindzen was also quite dismissive of many concerns by members of the audience, such as the plight of polar bears which are thought to be threatened by the decrease in polar ice which they depend on.

Lindzen dismissed the threat to polar bears as, "made up out of pure cloth."

Nevertheless, the debate was interesting because it made it quite clear that the real debate among climate scientists--which is often portrayed in the media as being about whether or not global warming is happening and whether humans are contributing--is more about the details of what the models and the data predict. Both experts agreed that the earth is warming and that humans are at least partly responsible.

The problem for the media, I guess, is that such academic disagreements on complicated topics generally make for dull stories.

Photo by Arne Naevra

Unlocking the molecular secrets of echolocation

Bats navigate through the air using sophisticated echolocation, allowing them to "see" at night as well as deep inside the darkest caverns. In a similar way, dolphins use a form of sonar that complements their vision, allowing them to perceive the underwater world in a way that is difficult for us to imagine.

Because bats and dolphins are distantly related mammals, they evolved their amazing sensory perceptions independently. To put it another way, the common ancestor of bats and mammals (whatever it was) did not have any type of echolocation or sonar, so this amazing ability evolved twice in the lineages that led up to bats and dolphins, converging independently on a similar mechanism.

Although this pattern, known as convergent or parallel evolution, has been recognized and well documented, a new study study using DNA sequences from bats and dolphins found that the similarities go even deeper.

Reporting in the journal Current Biology, Yang Liu and colleagues found molecular evidence that one of the genes that bats and dolphins use for echolocation has undergone similar mutations and are now more similar to each other than they are to other mammals.

The gene--called Prestin--codes for a protein that plays a role in the outer hair cells within the mammal auditory system. The researchers believe that the gene has been modified in a similar way in bats and dolphins to make them more sensitive--allowing them to use sound waves to navigate.

The authors also showed that the similarity in DNA sequence could not be due to chance but is a direct result of natural selection. Although mutations are essentially random, some mutations cause changes is the protein made by a gene while other mutations do not. The DNA sequence examined by Liu and colleagues contained significantly fewer changes that had an effect on the protein coded by the gene than would be expected by chance. This means that natural selection has removed the mutations that caused changes but left the "silent" mutations that caused no changes.

Photos from Wikipedia

Darwin movie released today

There is a new movie out today about Charles Darwin. Defiantly entitled Creation, the film is said to chronicle the later year's of the naturalist's life as he developed his theory of evolution by natural selection and as he struggled over whether--and when--to publish it.

Click here to watch the trailer.

The film stars Paul Bettany (The DaVinci Code, A Beautiful Mind) as Darwin and Academy Award winner Jennifer Connelly (Blood Diamond, A Beautiful Mind) as Charles' wife, Emma.

Wired.com has an article that includes an interview with director Jon Amiel, in which he explains why his film is decidedly not simply an educational "biopic", but details Darwin's personal life, including struggles over his theories with his pious wife and his sorrows over the death of his children.

I have not yet seen it but will certainly share my thoughts about it once I do.

Image from http://www.creationthemovie.com/photos

Are women more "ape-like" than men?

HOUSTON, TX-- You may have heard that we humans share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees. A recent study seems to suggest that this may be more true for women than for men.

The study by Jennifer Hughes and colleagues investigated genes on the Y chromosome in chimpanzees, which until now had been largely overlooked by recent genome sequencing efforts. They discovered that, when compared with the human Y chromosome (which only males have), the genes on human and chimp Y chromosomes are less than 70% identical.

While this may at first glance seem to suggest that human females are more closely related to chimps than are human men, this is not the case. Because human males and females are both members of the same species, their evolution is not independent of each other. Although certain parts of the genome-- such as the Y chromosome in males--can evolve independently in one sex than in the other, there are limits to how different they can become.

In fact every single gene has its own unique evolutionary history, and the evolution of any particular species can be thought of as a product of the evolution of each of its constituent genes.

The study by Hughes et al. reminds us how misleading it could be to treat the evolution of a single gene or even an entire chromosome as a proxy for the evolution of the species from which it was obtained.

It also reminds us, perhaps, that men aren't necessarily as ape-like as we sometimes seem.

Chimpanzee photo from Wikipedia

Should we let Pandas go extinct?

HOUSTON, TX-- Naturalist and photographer Chris Packham made headlines recently when he suggested that it might be more productive to allow critically endangered species like the Giant Panda to go extinct and focus instead on preserving intact habitats.

Not surprisingly, his comments have drawn criticism from panda-lovers worldwide, but they have also highlighted a fundamental debate in the field of conservation biology. At issue is whether conservation efforts should be focused on individual species, like pandas and polar bears, or whether entire, intact habitats should be the priority.

The single-species approach is effective, the argument goes, because people are more likely to be sympathetic towards the plight of species that they love-- and who doesn't love pandas? The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was designed around the assumption that focusing on individual species like the panda will have broader impacts on other species that occur in the same habitat.

But an issue that is often overlooked is the fundamental difference between conserving a species in the wild versus simply keeping it alive in captivity. Remove an organism from its natural environment and you lose virtually all information about its ecology-- its interactions with the living and non-living environment.

Ideally we would preserve examples of each species in living collections (zoos) and non-living collections (museums) while simultaneously preserving populations in their natural habitats. As the latter part of this "perfect world" scenario becomes less and less feasible, we as a global society will be faced with some very tough decisions.

On a positive note, however, Jane Goodall (of chimpanzee fame) recently published a book entitled, "Hope for Animals and their World" in which she recounts numerous conservation success stories.

Its a good thing, because if Pandas go extinct, the WWF will need to find a new logo and URL (http://www.panda.org).

Panda photograph from Wikipedia

Ants can count!

Most ants use chemical cues known as pheromones to find their way home, like leaving a trail of cookie crumbs. But what happens when they live in an environment where pheromones get blown away, like in the shifting sands of the desert?

An elegant study by Harald Wolf and Matthias Whittlinger suggests that some ants in the Sahara solve this dilemma by counting the number of steps they take on their way out, then taking the same number of steps on their way home.

Click here to watch a great video animation about this study by master science journalist Robert Krulwich.

Photo copyright Science magazine