Science for the Few

          In 1969 Professor George Miller, former president, addressed the American Psychological Association, saying that the greatest challenge to the next generation of scientists is, “to consider how to best give science away.” Now forty-four years later what have we accomplished? Unfortunately science, specifically scientific means and scientific knowledge, is becoming increasingly difficult to access because of its increasing privatization. Privatization, in this sense, is scientific knowledge information being owned by an individual, group, or corporation. Access to this material is usually only given with consent of those whom own the content, often through monetary mechanisms. Science should always be “given away,” and when withheld is denying the common good.  

          “Safe and effective” was plastered on every newspaper, television, and face on April 12^th, 1955 when Jonas Salk’s polio vaccine was declared a success. The next step for Salk was mass vaccination for 440,000 children in the United States, Canada, and Finland. Jonas Salk, contrary to what is popular today, did not patent the vaccine. A patent is a form of intellectual property which consists of the government granting exclusive rights to the inventor in exchange for public disclosure¹. The incentive for the inventor is in the economic exchange. Forbes magazine estimated that Jonas Salk forfeited nearly 7 billion dollars when he distributed his vaccine worldwide². Without a patent, countries were able to maintain a low cost for the vaccine allowing individuals from all economic classes to have access to the vaccine. Jonas Salk’s choice was to the benefit of the common good.

          Patents were intended to benefit the common good through the distribution of discovery and invention. Unfortunately patents have come at the expense of millions of lives. Lisset Ferreira, of Fordham Law Review, argued that allowing individuals or organizations to have exclusive rights gives pharmaceutical companies control of that market in which no other companies can compete³. Competition allows for a decrease in price and therefore available to a larger population. The notion of affordable science can be seen in developing third world countries that have little to no access to HIV/AIDS drug treatments. We must ask is science for the common good or for the good of those who can afford it? How can we deny people treatment for the gain of the corporation? These questions challenge what we understand science to be. I show yet again that social factors are deeply intertwined in science.   

          Science writers should not be responsible for “giving away” science. The job of the science writer is to translate. Scientists have an obligation to the common good to “give away” science. Jonas Salk was not the prime benefactor from the polio vaccine but world population was. If by January 13, 2014 Indian physicians do not find another case of polio the nation will be declared polio⁴. Salk’s ability to see past his self interest calmed the international fear. Contrary to Salk, corporations, such as Pfizer, control those who will be able to utilize science and medical breakthroughs, through patents that limit competition and reproduction. Simply, those who can afford their life will likely survive. Science is not for the few, it is for the common good. 

 1.http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/patents_faq.html#protection

2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/08/09/how-much-money-did-jonas-salk-potentially-forfeit-by-not-patenting-the-polio-vaccine/

3. http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3874&context=flr&sei-redir=1&

4.http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/01/13/what-two-years-without-polio-mean-for-india/

Reigniting Curiosity through Science Writing

         Scientific progression does not occur through the regurgitation of facts but through creative problem solving. For example, Jonas Salk, creator of the Polio vaccine, was forced to creatively conceive of solutions to the dreaded disease outside of the traditional science box. The beauty of a child’s mind is how free it is to believe in the impossible, to think outside of any box.  Why, then, when students reach middle school, has their thinking been transformed into facts and memorization? Why is a once boundless world confined to what is “conceivable”? What happened to curiosity?

          School is the difference. Rather than encouraging and facilitating creativity, school instead quashes it. One way schools do this is through increasing amounts of standardization. Standardization is a uniform measuring system in which all participants can be compared to. The most popular standardization is in testing. The Keystones are an eleventh grade standardized test in Pennsylvania, the purpose of which is to assess proficiency in a wide range of subjects, including science. The state uses examination as a way to understand which individual high schools are reaching the desired level of proficiency. While tests are the most common, standardization of teaching methods is becoming increasingly popular. Teachers are now becoming required to teach in a specific way, in order for the students to receive as much information as possible, many times for the standardized tests. Inclusion of creativity is now a risk to their career rather than a way to enlighten students.

          Standardization implies that there is one way to teach a child and one way for a child to learn. This is simply untrue. Testing is the easiest method for the state to evaluate student education, but this does not mean it is the best. Test taking is only one type of educational recall. Students who do not excel on tests may better express their knowledge and thought through creative methods such as writing or artistic expression. The average classroom is structured as a lecture in which students passively receive information. But research repeatedly illustrates that we learn best through active participation and guided learning. Classes on diversity of learners have become a staple for students pursuing a degree in education. Why then is this rejected? There can be one group of students that reaches optimal learning ability when a concept is taught using only one method. Another group of students might instead need to be able to physically piece together the different parts. When we realize that there is nothing standard about educating students we can then move forward in designing a program that can be adapted not only to the group but to the individual.

          Science writers cannot make the public love science. Science writers can make science accessible. The goal is to make science writing as diverse as the population it seeks to educate. This means knowing the limits on the science writing medium. Writing will not reach everyone, especially those who learn better with visual, auditory, or kinesthetic mediums. This requires science writers to think outside of the box to find ways to integrate their message through other sources. One of the best examples is Planet Earth, narrated by David Attenborough. Scientists and science writers’ worked together to develop a medium that addressed not only visual but auditory learners as well. Science writing in the traditional sense will continue to only address the literate population. When we extend beyond pencil to paper we can regain those we lost to the failing education system and reignite the inquisition and curiosity they once knew.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

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.