How do we become better science writers?

          Science is constantly challenging what we know about out place in the world, and once we settle into one theory another comes along. How does anyone trust science is continually in motion? According to the ASR study, “Conservatives,” particularly those whom are educated, seem to fall into the same category as I, a general distrust of science. Attending a liberal arts college and being as science major I feel as though I am in the minority. The complacent attitude of the students to merely accept what authority says as truth alarms me. We must challenge the 21^st century content society and ask what it means to be a scientist-citizen.

          What does it mean to be a scientist? In my definition a scientist is someone who seeks to satisfy their curiosity, decipher the unknown, challenge their way of thinking, and contend what we think we already know through use of the scientific method. My definition is inclusive allowing anyone to have access to information rather than elite, “ruling” population. If a farmer utilizes the scientific method to improve his or her crop production, I would argue they are a scientist. We take the citizen out of the scientist and the scientist out of the citizen we manufacture a hierarchy of one being more important than the other. When we allow one group to control the knowledge without question we are denying ourselves the truth. To be a better science writer we must dismantle this hierarchy.

          Contrary to common belief, neither scientists nor the very fields they are a part of are removed from social/cultural influences. Quite the opposite science and society are inextricably linked. The ASR article ostracized “conservatives” as a group of people who due to their religious or political beliefs distrust science. There is reason to be distrustful. I argue that skepticism is fundamental to science and that being too trusting of this politicized scientific system can in fact have negative consequences. An example is the representation of the egg and the sperm. Historically, the egg has been described as a passive vessel in the reproductive process, while the sperm actively seems reproduction. This directly compared to the cultural idea that women were to be submissive and men were dominant. I suggest as science writers we critically analyze the entire experimentation process and recognize… If science is not removed from but part of society (and I will show this in the next paragraph), then it follows that to ultimately and fundamentally change science we must also change society.

          As science writers we should strive to be inclusive and recognize the differences between people without losing sight of the scientific method. Science cannot and should not be removed from the society that benefits from its progress. The ASR article teaches us that we should improve our writing through restructuring and breaking down the hierarchy. Citizens are scientists and scientists are citizens. Lastly, we learn that science is not a separate entity but a highly integrated part of our society. Being a better science writer requires recognizing and analyzing what science means to the people.

Is scientific literacy necessary for a robust democracy?

          Most people use the term democracy to define a type of government. I reject that definition. Instead I argue that when we use the term democracy, we should not focus solely on types of government but on measures of society as a whole. Simply put, a democracy is a society that maximizes individual and group ability to determine a course in life.  

          Government is a determinant in the course of science, primarily through funding organizations, such as the National Institute of Health. Politicians hold public forums and debates on scientific policy in attempts to educate the society on their platform. There are two assumptions that are falsely created the first is that the general population is scientifically literate. When I use the term scientifically literate I mean that an individual has the scientific knowledge and thought to make informed decisions. The second assumption is that politicians want the public to be scientifically literate.

          First we must ask who benefits from scientific literacy, for it is no coincidence that countries all over the world have low scientific literacy.  I would go as far as to say such a system of ignorance is a perfect design for maintaining power. Historically, religious leaders, such as the Pope or priests, were the only members of society who were literate. This not only denied people crucial knowledge and ways of thought but helped those in power (like the Pope) to maintain control over the populace. To an extent, I contend this exists in modern American society.  A facet of American society is inequality not only in class but in gender and race, amongst others. Inequality allows for those in power to remain in power, which furthers inequality. It is easy to perpetuate this type of system that empowers an elite class to control information. As long as people are denied scientific literacy, democracy is denied.

          Scientific literacy is necessary for a robust democracy. Knowledge and thought, key aspects of scientific literacy, are a fundamental part of decision making. However, that knowledge and thought must be shared equally, not gated off and restricted from most. When people are denied ways of thought and knowledge they allow others to direct their decisions, perpetuating an undemocratic system and ultimately an undemocratic society. In contemporary American society, studies have shown that while scientific literacy rates have improved since 1988, the majority of young adults are scientifically illiterate. A longitudinal study performed by Jon Miller concluded that only 44% of young adults are scientifically literate (Miller, 29).

          The importance of scientific literacy is both collective and individual. An individual, for example, can rely on their own understanding and knowledge, rather than simply trusting those in positions of power who are considered “more” knowledgeable, like scientists, politicians, parents, or teachers.  Individuals can ban together to better pursue equality, liberty, and autonomy. When an individual is scientifically illiterate, they are ultimately allowing others to choose or direct their life course for them. If we measure democracy as the ability for an individual to make informed decisions and for that ability to be spread equally than if follows that scientific literacy is of the upmost importance to any robust democracy.