Recently, during my geology class, our professor gave the class three propositions of how we could dispose of nuclear waste. Our three options were put them in an ocean, put them into space, or put them in subduction zones and wait for them to eventually sink under the surface. Needless to say, all three are both impractical and impossible. I'm not about to go into the specifics on why they're all bad ideas, but the class seemed to get a kick out of it.
What was a bit more disturbing, however, was when our professor told us that they were all propositions made by congressmen to address the issue of nuclear waste. Thankfully, all of these ideas were quickly shot down due to their probably low success rate, but it was still disturbing to think that some of the people who run the country can have such a lack of basic scientific knowledge. And this got me thinking on an issue that often seems to strike a chord with me: scientific illiteracy.
It shouldn't be a surprise to any of us that scientific illiteracy is pretty profound in Capitol Hill. But what's equally as staggering is the amount of opposition to science that exists in the general public. However, the blame doesn't necessarily lie with the stubbornness of popular superstitions or opposing political agendas. The real problem lies in the inability for scientists to effectively communicate with the people. Contrary to how we usually view the job of a scientist, research and experiments are only half the work. The other half, which is the most important, is public interaction.
For most, this inability to communicate is the greatest weakness of the modern scientist. Scholars and educators like Neil degrease Tyson and Bill Nye are strong advocates of science education and public science literacy and are, themselves, very active in the crusade to spread social awareness. Probably the most famous of them, being the late Carl Sagan, who revolutionized the science-society relationship with his docu-series, Cosmos in the early 80s.
Since then, scientific figures like Neil degrease Tyson and Bill Nye followed directly in Sagan's footsteps to bring science to the people and and next coming generation.
But what's the issue facing communication in the scientific community? And why is it so important to have. In an interview with Roger Bingham, director of The Science Network, Tyson argued that the biggest challenge facing scientists today is the inability to translate their work in a way that the public understands.
More so, Tyson believes that its the arrogant persona out off by some prominent figures in the scientific community, such as Richard Dawkins, and their lack insensibility when it comes to the various inhibitors that some people possess that keeps them from understanding and recognizing the scientific principles that they're trying to convey. In Dawkins' case, as an evolutionary biologist, it's the superstitions of religious fundamentalists.
However, this idea can broadly relate to anyone in any field. Tyson proposes that scientists should present their findings to people in a far more coherent way and study the mentality of their audience as to avoid further distancing themselves from both understanding and likability. As to why it is so imperative that we encourage scientific understanding for the public, it's because everything that we do rests solely on the advancements of science. Scientific ingenuity, itself, is what brought this country of the agrarian backwoods to becoming a world power.
Going back to the idea of scientific illiteracy on Capitol Hill, scientific understanding is imperative when dealing with major issues like climate change. The relationship between the government and the people is symbiotic, as both depend on the other to have a decent understanding of science in order to make a legislative decision based on fact and not superstition or misunderstanding.
If we are to ensure these things, it is essential that not only should the people become more receptive and open to science, but that the scientists themselves make more of an effort to reach out to the people directly.
