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.