More on the need for science education

Ran across this story from The Scientist (free registration required) about the results of a an essay contest sponsored by the American Society for Human Genetics (ASHG). The contest elicited high-school students' understanding of human genetics. The results are dispiriting, to say the least. Here's an outtake:

"When people who cannot have children and want their own from their own blood, meaning having their genes, what will stop them from putting some cells into a cow to get their child?"

"Genetics create a perfect being. Change the genes. Make that child perfect. There's no better solution to an impending health care crisis. A perfect child means that health care can be focused on an aging generation of people. What we can have is a sea of people who all look brilliant, who are all smart and who all have perfect eyes, nose and lips. It's a perfect society, what more could we want?"

Here's the original article from Genetics, for more information about the ASHG contest.

Consider this, too: these are the responses of students who were willing to participate in an essay contest about genetics. What must be the level of understanding among those who wouldn't bother? Clearly, CLEARLY, we need to do a better job of K-12 science education.

If there's a silver lining here, it might be that ethical questions could serve as a "way in" to discussion of the science, especially for students who may have little interest in science per se. In both the examples above, students' grasp of the science is lacking, but there are clues that suggest they have some sense that there's a moral element involved.

Pew: State of the Media released

Pew's 2008 State of the Media has been released, and while I haven't had time to read much of the report yet, Framing Science has a fascinating and sad breakdown of cable news topic coverage that adds a new element to the discussion Sue and I have been having about illustrating and popularizing science.

Collectively, the broad range of domestic issues including the environment, education, transportation, development, religion, domestic terrorism, health care, race -- everything but immigration -- made up 13% of the time on cable (compared with 26% on network evening news). The three topics of celebrity, crime and disasters, in contrast, accounted for 24% of cable's time.

To put that into perspective, if one were to have watched five hours of cable news, one would have seen about:

* 35 minutes about campaigns and elections
* 36 minutes about the debate over U.S. foreign policy
* 26 minutes or more of crime
* 12 minutes of accidents and disasters
* 10 minutes of celebrity and entertainment

On the other hand, one would have seen:

* 1 minute and 25 seconds about the environment
* 1 minute and 22 seconds about education
* 1 minute about science and technology
* 3 minutes and 34 seconds about the economy
* 3 minutes and 46 seconds about health and health care

While my initial reaction is "well, who cares about illustrating the story when the signal is getting lost in the noise", my second reaction is to wonder if again, we're seeing a lack of content because the media types don't know how to report it. Is it a matter of lack of education, lack of visuals, lack of knowledge, or (what I fear) lack of interest?
-Kelly

illustrating science

io9 explains how the top scientific discovery of 2007 was nearly overlooked by the mass media (and thus general public) because no one could figure out how to simplify it:

For a long time, It seemed as a medical discovery that Science called "one of the greatest of 2007" might never get covered by the mainstream media because it was just too complicated. But then an enterprising journalist and artist with the Philadelphia Inquirer boldly went where no reporters dared go. Writer Tom Avril and artist Cynthia Greer figured out how to simplify this complicated discovery into a completely-accurate cartoon (above).

A researcher named Steven Reiner at University of Pennsylvania proved that the human body fights disease with two kinds of immune cells (called T-cells): some that fight the invading microbes, and some that exist just to keep a record of how to fight those microbes in the future. Those "memory" cells are what this researcher revealed, and their mysteries are still being unlocked.

Very interesting. But I have to wonder - what do we miss because people can't figure out a snazzy graphic to go with the report or story? I know when I write blog posts, I scrounge for appropriate art, sometimes creating my own and always grateful when a site like io9 takes care of it for me. Why? We're visual creatures, and I think that the art makes a story more interesting, and in the case of science, can make a complicated concept easier to understand. (I would have never passed geometry without the coloured 3D shapes we had to play with.)

Combined with wondering what we miss, I wonder at how much things have to be dumbed down in general for American mass market media consumption, and if anyone has compared science reporting in different countries to see how they vary. Do countries which have a higher level of general scientific literacy in their population have the same media reporting habits, or is their media more rigorous? Or more importantly, should we be worried that the mainstream media feels it can't even try to cover science without cutesy art?

Art in bioethics is, itself, a somewhat tricky subject. How, precisely, do you illustrate neuroethics? Informed consent? Agency? If you're talking about fMRIs, I can certainly point you to some interesting graphics - likewise for IVF, fertility, abortion. It's the abstracts where we run into potential problems, the concepts that cannot be so easily summed up in a photograph of a pregnant belly.

Are important, but less visually easy (or stunning, a la the photo of the mouse with an ear on its back) stories in bioethics being passed over because of their lack of easy illustration? And is there anything that can really be done about it?
-Kelly

Interested in Feminist Engineering?

Feminist engineering professor seeks motivated, pioneering graduate student candidate.

Alice Pawley is an assistant professor at Purdue University who is interested in recruiting graduate students to study engineering with some feminist theory thrown in. She is also soliciting suggestions on how to increase outreach to potential candidates and how to structure a program to be appealing to students considering graduate studies.

If you have suggestions, go swing by. And feel free to pass this info on to engineering students who might be interested in interdisciplinary studies and/or feminism and engineering. It is so exciting to see new programs like these in development!

[Editor's Note: Two really nifty feminist engineering blogs: She's Such a Geek! and Thus Spake Zuska.]

Having Cake is Different From Eating Cake

The National Academy of Sciences has just released a new book, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, to explain the differences between religion and science, and to clarify the currently muddled discussion on matters entangled in the current conflict.

NYT reports:

...it is intended specifically for the lay public and because it devotes much of its space to explaining the differences between science and religion, and asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God.

...The 70-page book, “Science, Evolution and Creationism,” says, among other things, that “attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.” And it offers statements from several eminent biologists and members of the clergy to support the view.

In the past year, there has been a significant push-back by prominent atheists and skeptics against dogma-based attacks on science, but this new publication will be key in defusing the artificially constructed conflict between two completely different human endeavors. Hopefully, this year will mark the emergence of a new movement to continue this effort.

Science Debate 2008

The Women's Bioethics Project, as well as bioethicists Thomas H. Murray (Hastings Center), Arthur L. Caplan (University of Pennsylvania), and Harold Shapiro (Princeton University), have joined Science Debate 2008, a coalition of scientists and concerned citizens, to call for a presidential public debate on science and technology policy.

The grassroots initiative states:

Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.

To date, most of the coalition supporters are men. Let’s be sure that women’s voices and concerns don’t get lost in this debate. You can sign the petition yourself here.

Everyone, Do the Protein Synthesis Dance!

Laurie passed this gem of a 1970s science explanation video on to me, and really, the only thing I can say in response is, "and people wonder why my generation is so strange - look who was raising us!"



-Kelly
[cross-posted to the AJOBlog]