Every scientist should rightly denounce the pervasive scientific illiteracy in American society. Yet, genuine scientific literacy comes from a changed perspective of thought and not from scientific facts tucked away in one's mind. Yes, many Americans remain ignorant of basic facts like the cause of the seasons. But alongside the falsehood that the Earth is closer to the sun during the northern hemisphere summer is the falsehood that Columbus was the first European to sail to the Americas, among others.

Scientific illiteracy is not a sum of misconceptions but a failure to think critically and a lack of appreciation for the explanatory power of science—not only potentially, with respect to problems that are yet to be solved, but also retrospectively. The society defined by high technology that we know today is no coincidence.

It's no surprise that scientific illiteracy abounds, given that science education in this country regrettably consists almost entirely of memorizing facts. I will without reservation say that throughout the course of my scientific education I have gotten a good background on the pre-existing scientific knowledge we have to work with. But scientists are forward-looking. Someone who can recite a multitude of scientific facts, yet does not participate in generating new knowledge, cannot rightly call himself a scientist. And even more, I don't think storing up facts is a worthwhile endeavor. Yes, every field has a collection of knowledge required to successfully participate—the cost of entry, if you will—but it can get excessive, especially when applied to the non-specialist.

For example, in high school I had to memorize the steps of cellular respiration in some level of detail. Did that make me more scientifically literate? I don't think so. What stuck with me was not the memorized pathway, but the idea that a cyclic process is what rips apart carbon atoms in a way that releases chemical energy for the cell. That's science literacy. I had my view of the cell expanded with the new knowledge that carefully coordinated cellular processes are responsible for processing the massive amount of raw material we consume.

But there's certainly a difference between trying to increase the science literacy of the lay public and setting the standards for what facts scientists should be able to recall on demand. I don't believe pathways are among the facts every biologist ought to know, but that's a separate argument that I'm happy to have in the comments.

My biggest gripe comes from the fact that my college, and many others, if not all, cater to the general student population with non-major courses that make this error of priorities that I'm describing. I have a friend who is majoring in art history. All Davidson students need to take a lab science course to graduate, and she is taking a chemistry course angled toward (appropriately) art and architecture. Full disclosure, I have never taken the course and therefore cannot speak directly of its contents. However, I'm bewildered by the fact that their assignments consist of the likes of converting grams to moles. How exactly is that improving science literacy? In the name of fairness I will add that the class also examined a case study in suspected forgery. That teaches not only general methods of chemistry but also standards of evidence and scientific skepticism, which should be principal goals of general science education.

Knowing for its own sake is enough for me, and science is so beautiful and inspiring that not to know it is deeply sad. But underneath this lies a serious issue. The scientific illiteracy of the public is widely exploited, by psychics and conjurers, TV "doctors" and practitioners of alternative medicine, preachers and politicians. What's more, it works just as well—or better, even—when the exploiter too is scientifically illiterate. We should not be surprised by this, given that we graduate young people from both high school and college who have no understanding of double-blind clinical trials or basic standards of evidence. If these serious omissions were remedied, we would not have the epidemics of denial toward the truth of evolution and our best understanding of the Earth's changing climate that we in fact do.

This is a very serious problem, not only for the American ego but also for our society's future. The goal of American science literacy is something that all American scientists need to take ownership of and try to fix. I offer here some broad and humble suggestions that could frame the discussion of science literacy.

1. Science for everyone. I have to take history, language, philosophy, and PE. You should have to take science. High schools often require four years of English, but only two or three years of science. Given the important of science in our society, there's no excuse for that being the case.

2. Engaging science for everyone. Real science isn't learning facts. Real science is about designing experiments to answer new questions. Students should be empowered with the freedom to answer their own questions through scientific investigation. It doesn't even have to be expensive. Let students go outside and census the plant and animal life. Let them play with a basic chemistry set. No more of this nonsensical, mindless recipe-following. Science classes shouldn't train students to be automatons who follow instructions and cough up the answers the teacher wants. We are kidding ourselves when we say that memorizing facts is sufficient for checking off the "science" box.

3. Teach scientific skepticism. Part of being a scientist is maintaining a skepticism that can be released only by meeting an established standard of evidence. I was never formally taught how scientists evaluate claims, which is a shame. Luckily I picked it up on my own through my own intrinsic interest in science. It is the failure to teach this key idea—scientific skepticism—that has set our society up to fall prey to the trappings of evolution and climate denial. The term "skeptic" is inappropriately applied to those who deny evolution or climate change. A skeptic evaluates truth claims by examining the evidence, not by standing in party rank to the right of the isle.

4. Instill wonder toward nature. Science shouldn't be about scanning a textbook for keywords to answer a comprehension question. Science teachers: have your students spend a half-hour observing the night sky, especially during a meteor shower. Devote a class period to watching David Attenborough or going to a wildlife park in person. Bring in students or professors from local universities to interact with your class. Adults who lack this wonder do so only because it has been extinguished. Show me one kid who isn't curious about the stars, or zoo animals, or electricity.

5. We need inspirational teachers. I owe my stumbling into the world of science to a very small number of inspirational teachers, without whom I daresay I would not be here writing this. I think the greatest obstacle to this is the lamentable fact that, in American society at least, teaching is not widely considered to be an admirable profession. Teaching has thus been rendered an unattractive profession to those most qualified.

6. Don't forget that we are working against culture. Stop pretending that our culture isn't anti-scientific, or we will never be able to do something about it. Ask Americans to name a scientist, and 47% will say Albert Einstein. A startling 23% cannot name a scientist at all. Only 4% are able to provide the name of a living scientist when specifically asked to do so1. Imagine if there were corresponding figures for politics. What if when asked to name a living politician, only 4% of Americans were able to give an answer? If science and technology are changing the world, why is the public so ignorant of it? The task of changing culture is a daunting one, but it can be done one individual at a time. It only takes one scientifically literate and inspired generation to create a culture-wide shift.

Reference:

1. Dean, C. "Groups Call for Scientists to Engage the Body Politic." The New York Times. August 8, 2011.