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.






