Amid concerns about the lagging math and science performance of American children, American adults are actually scoring higher than they did 20 years ago on a widely used index of civic scientific literacy, according to a University of Michigan researcher.
In 1988, just 10 percent of U.S. adults had sufficient understanding of basic scientific ideas to be able to read the Tuesday Science section of The New York Times, according to Jon Miller, a researcher at the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR). By 2008, 28 percent of adults scored high enough to understand scientific ideas at that level.
Despite the improvement, the American public has a long way to go, says Miller, who contributed to the latest publication of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Science and the Educated American.
"America's democracy depends on having a larger number of scientifically literate citizens," said Miller, who directs the ISR International Center for the Advancement of Scientific Literacy and has pioneered methods of assessing comparative levels of scientific understanding over time. "Today's political agenda includes debates over global climate change, embryonic stem cells, future energy sources, and the possibility of a viral pandemic. And as the twenty-first century progresses, scientific issues are only likely to become more prominent features of the political landscape."
In fact, America is the only major country that requires almost all its college and university students to complete a full year of science, Miller points out. So the scientific literacy of U.S. adults is relatively high compared to the general adult populations of other developed nations. But given the on-going changes in many fields of science, most adults will learn most of their information about science after they leave formal schooling.
To track changes in scientific literacy over time, Miller developed sets of durable, core questions that assess understanding of basic scientific constructs in several areas. These areas include understanding of simple probability statements, the relationship of atoms, molecules, and electrons, of the universe and solar system, and the life sciences, where public confusion is greatest. With funding from a variety of sources, including the National Science Foundation, he surveyed national samples of the U.S. adult population in 1988, 1999 and 2008 to assess levels of what he calls "civic scientific literacy."
Only 37 percent of American adults accepted the concept of biological evolution in 2008, Miller reports, and the level of acceptance has declined over the last twenty years. Approximately 44 percent of American adults can define DNA correctly, but only 20 percent can define the meaning of a stem cell.
While 85 percent of adults recognize that all plants and animals have DNA, only 27 percent of Americans think that more than half of human genes are identical to those of mice.
"Looking to the future, we must increase the proportion of scientifically literate adults in our society," Miller said. "Scientific literacy is not a cure or an antidote in and of itself. It is, however, a prerequisite for preserving a society that values science and is able to sustain its democratic values and traditions."
University of Michigan: http://www.umich.edu/
This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.
<pedantry> Maybe only 27 percent of Americans think that more than half of human genes are identical to those of mice becuause they're not identical. They're homologous.</pedantry>
Good point Karen, but I doubt it. That assumes a much greater level of understanding.
This is where Jenny McCarthy and Suzanne Summer are listened to as scientists on their bogus unfounded tirades and Scientists can't try and cure diseases because stem cells are evil. The world is 6,000 years old and fossils are a prank, and don't even get me started on climate. I worked at a facility that did animal research and the outcry over it was awful. I told people if you really believe its wrong it goes beyond not wearing fur, you should not use any drug or medical device that ever was tested on animals... good luck with that when you get sick or something deadly. I am going to guess that you may take antibiotics and whatever else, all from animal research.
I think its beyond understanding, its having faith in the rigoruous education scientists have that well we may know something after all these years of school and work and some trust should be given to us to do our job. Nobody questions a doctor when an appendix needs taking out, we trust they know what they are doing. I am not saying blindly trusting but if you want say you need to do the foot work, or implement scientists in positions of control and regulation of these things. And if you don't trust our education then umm maybe the whole educational system is in need of reform and that should be focused on.But I just am annoyed when someone like Jenny McCarthy or whomever is taken seriously without ANY background. I don't think they are many other careers that are this distrusted. (and I mean science as whole, from evolution to climate to medecine to the hadron collider)
I am in the unique position of having been raised and educated in a pro-science environment. My parents were not sciientists, but were atuned to science and its revelations. My teachers were before the time of the education degree, so they all had math, science, arts, etc specific degress, A physics MS teacher taught physics, a math MS taught math and so on. They imparted the energy of the sciences rather than simply preparations for a sketcy amount of test questions on basic science. Evolution was a given and discussed in detail. My father was an Episcopal minister who had an undergrad degree in engineering. He definitely had problems promoting theologisms that contradicted what he knew was scientifically entirely different.
The transition is occuring and we are seeing more citizen-scientists, but not enough is being done to bring children forward at as early an age as I was and within a supportive family environment.