 Global Connections
with David Suzuki
Science education an ongoing process
Am I wasting my time? Good question. I spent the first half of my life working as a scientist. But, as I came to recognise the vast and complicated array of social and ethical issues emerging from new scientific and technological advances, I decided to step back, examine these issues from a broader perspective and help bring them to the public's attention.
My belief was that these issues were set to profoundly change humanity's role in the world and our relationships with each other. I believed that, by informing people about issues such as cloning, organ transplants, genetic engineering, and environmental pollution as they arose, it would not only increase people's understanding of these specific issues, but also whet their appetites to learn more about science in general and how it affects their lives. In the end, they would have better information from which to make choices and decisions.
It's a pretty basic assumption, but one that proved difficult to test and measure because so many variables are involved. However, a new analysis of 200 studies from 40 countries presented recently at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science has found that, regardless of someone's age, nationality or education, the more they know about science, the more favourably they will view science in general.
That's a good start, but we still have a long way to go bring about a broader education of science issues to the public. I often find myself being interviewed by members of the media and realising that they haven't got a clue what I'm talking about. It can be frustrating, but I can't really blame individual journalists. Reporters are asked to have some level of knowledge about everything - a very difficult task indeed. Plus, in an effort to reduce costs, most newsrooms do not have reporters on staff who specialise in science issues.
Compounding the problem is the fact that scientists don't receive much training in communicating their work and what it means to the average person. Many scientists are also afraid to simplify or 'dumb down' their messages for a lay audience for fear that some of the nuances of their work may be lost or that their peers may disapprove. Plus, while there may be a shortage of scientists with good communications skills, there's no shortage of well-financed people with vested interests in certain areas who have the time and money to ensure their message is heard - regardless of its scientific accuracy.
An unfortunate result of this is a general confusion about scientific issues such as climate change or stem cell research. The public ends up getting so many mixed messages that people don't know what to believe. When that happens, trust and respect for science in general declines.
Of course, this is not to say that we should take the results of every new study as gospel - quite the opposite. In fact, having a good understanding of science in general will help people realise that the discipline proceeds incrementally and that it measures only small bits of the world at a time. There are inherent weaknesses with such a system, but it can be a very powerful tool. In fact, science and technology are arguably the most powerful forces shaping society today.
That's why science education, broad dissemination of scientific findings, and thoughtful analyses of the issues that arise from science and technology are so important. In order for us to make the best decisions about our future, we need to have access to the best available information.
It's good to know that I haven't been wasting my time. But it's also a bit daunting to consider how much work we still have to do.
|
