5
OPINION
Thursday, July 6, 2017
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
A
lmost every day, we wake up,
roll over in our beds and turn
off our alarm*. Sometimes
that is in a digital clock*, but knowing
our generation, it is most likely a
cellphone*. After tapping the screen*,
we hop out of bed and turn on the
light*. We may run to the restroom,
and turn on the faucet* for a glass
of water. After that, we might
brush our teeth with a toothbrush*
and wash our face with a bar of
soap*. We enter the kitchen and
take the cup of coffee from the
coffeemaker*. After tossing some
oatmeal in the microwave*, we hop
onto the internet* to read or catch
up on work. After running out the
door, we hop on the bus* or in our
car* to start the day.
Simply in this morning routine,
science research consumed our
schedule. Every asterisk next to
an object or concept included
copious
amounts
of
scientific
understanding
and
countless
hours of development to create
the technology. Our generation
has been consumed by the use of
cellphones, almost as permanent
attachments of our psyche. The
Starbucks machines making that
latte you’re drinking? Science and
mathematics went into developing
it.
That
fancy
watch
you’re
wearing? Science and mathematics
developed it. Even while we are
constantly surrounded by scientific
innovation, I notice that we
overlook the importance of science
research and development in our
everyday lives. And I am not simply
writing because I am in a university
setting, but as an individual who
observes many Americans who
don’t even recognize the scientific
research that they benefit from
every second of their lifetimes.
The lack of awareness from
many Americans on how rooted
scientific
research
is
to
the
American psyche demonstrates
the growing issue of our scientific
literacy. Science education is not
only faltering in schools but also in
the general public. This is creating
a large part of the consumer
industry that lacks regard for the
hard work and complex science
that went behind developing the
iPhone or the car he or she drives.
There are two issues to look at with
regards to science literacy: science
in secondary education and science
in the general public.
High school science education is
heavily criticized in many states. A
staggering 2016 assessment found
that 64 percent of high school
graduates failed to meet college-
readiness benchmarks in science,
in a country where the benchmarks
are even lower than many other
countries. With poor support to
science education, it should be
no surprise that of the 17,000
postsecondary U.S. and Puerto
Rican students, about 40 percent
of those who began studying in
science disciplines at the beginning
of college eventually achieved a
degree in that field. Even worse,
among women and minorities,
that
number
is
20
percent.
Science education clearly has a
perseverance problem. People are
leaving science, perhaps because
it is difficult, but mostly, I believe,
because it has public relations
issues. Large swaths of scientific
community don’t know how to
communicate their research to the
average American citizen.
As an article published in the
Washington Post states, “when
Americans gets surveyed about
science, we learn that they don’t
know a lot about it — and then
we proceed to lament how dumb
they are.” Though this might be
typical, the scientific perseverance
and public relations problems
might be due to two reasons.
Firstly, secondary school science
is often taught in a lecture-styled,
memorize-based classroom, where
trial-and-error, research-designed
curricula
is
not
emphasized.
Secondly, the scientific literature
and
academic
community
is
removed from the vast majority
of the general public, creating a
massive difference in the opinions
of scientists and the public —
adding only the growing distrust
of the science community in the
general public.
In our nation’s high school
classrooms, there has been a
greater shift to develop curriculum
that doesn’t simply require students
to memorize the emergent truths
that we have come to agree upon
as a scientific community. Often, it
involves allowing students to build
their own models and design their
experiments,
developing
their
own understanding and coming
to the same conclusions as the
scientists. Scientists don’t simply
sit and simply memorize; therefore
students shouldn’t either. This
style of active learning, however,
is not being implemented in many
schools across the nation . Too
often, you hear students saying, “I
am not a science/math person,” yet
these techniques can encourage
creativity and produce a more
engaging subject. In addition,
working with students in this
manner makes them more active
citizens, appreciating how the
scientific community and research
is integral to the American identity.
A 2014 American Association for
the Advancement of Science study
confirmed many of the issues of the
public’s science literacy. According
to the survey, which looked at the
opinions of both scientists and
the general public, the percent
difference of opinion on major
scientific
issues
is
practically
night and day. While 37 percent
of U.S citizens surveyed said it
was safe to eat GMOs, 88 percent
of the scientific community says
GMOs are harmless. Similarly,
89 percent of scientists believe it
is morally OK to use animals in
research, while only 47 percent of
public agree. Even scarier is that 98
percent of scientists regard human
evolution to exist, while only 65
percent of the public agrees. These
are just a few of the significant
differences between the science
community and the non-science
community. This divide, in my
view, has created the massive
lack of scientific appreciation in
our country, furthering the issues
in education. So how does the
scientific community engage with
the public? An answer may lie in
politics and social outreach.
Though many have come to
criticize Malcolm Gladwell for
broad claims and conclusions, I do
believe he is doing a great service
by bringing science awareness to the
public. The same can be said for Bill
Nye, Oliver Sacks, Stephen Hawking,
Brian Greene, Neil deGrasse Tyson
and a few more. Organizations
such as 314 Action, which looks to
support scientists in public office
and spread scientific literacy, are
crucial to changing the dialogue on
science education and appreciation.
These individuals and organizations
are entirely necessary to address
the PR problem science has and
humanize the area. Science is a part
of American identity, and individuals
and organizations are doing the
necessary actions so that the next
time you look at your cellphone,
you
appreciate
the
countless
hours developing the technology
and science behind its various
components.
—David Kamper can be reached
at dgkamper@umich.edu.
ABCs of science
T
olerance has often been
thought of as a positive
attribute to society and
a necessary constituent for the
promotion of civil rights. However,
if equality and the improvement
of civil rights is the end goal, the
function of tolerance in society
does not achieve such results.
Though tolerance is indeed a
preferred end to intolerance, it does
not bring about equality or justice
to a society; in fact, it highlights
the vulnerabilities of a a group of
people to another and perpetuates
societal oppression. For policies to
solve the full spectrum of modern
social injustice, a firm initiative
must be taken in place of tolerance,
against injustice and inequality.
Perhaps one of the reasons society
is inclined to look at tolerance as
a solution to hatred and bigotry is
because we often have seen harsh
examples of intolerance, usually
through infamous events or political
regimes. Nazi Germany in World
War II, the present day totalitarian
Republic of North Korea and the
recent surge of racist, homophobic
and religious hate crimes in the
United States are all examples.
These are indeed heinous examples,
but it does not imply that tolerance
promotes
a
more
equal
and
harmonious society. Tolerance, in
fact, allows for society to be more
divided and implies that minority
groups who are oppressed should
simply be left alone and “tolerated.”
Social problems today demand a firm
course of action confronting the root
issues of injustice.
For many years in the United
States a variety of religions have
coexisted. Religious freedom has
been a powerful force since the
founding of the country. Though
a majority consists of a variety of
Christian groups, Judaism and
Islam are a close second. Has
the reason for the coexistence
of religions been the result of
tolerance? Have the Christians
merely tolerated the Muslims,
and vice versa? Today in this
country, witnessed to multiple and
rising existing tensions between
the two religions. Usually, these
tensions
originated
through
radical extremists on both sides
and politicians stirring up fear and
bigotry. To practice the exercise
of tolerance now would imply a
silent hatred that has not yet been
acted on. For religious groups to
coexist yet not acknowledge the
building tensions between the
groups exasperates the animosity.
In place of a silent tolerance, each
group should propose to support
each other in light of a common
goal of a free and accepting society.
By no means does this hint that the
different beliefs should merge, but
instead, that they should recognize
one another with respect for those
beliefs and not be silent in their
support.
Racism has exhibited an even
greater display of how tolerance
alone has created divisions and
mistrust. Perhaps this a more
obvious example. To say that
people of other ethnic groups and
races are only tolerated would have
a serious negative connotation.
Again,
practicing
community
with one another is a part of the
resistance. However, community
and acceptance also means that
unless there is a decided action
to involve ourselves in the fight
against the marginalization of
racial
minority
groups,
there
is a complicit obstruction of
justice. Tolerance, in this case,
is
complacency
and
refusing
to engage for a just and unified
society.
The LGBTQ community can
relate to what tolerance means
for them in a very personal way.
The stares of bystanders when a
same-sex couple hold hands or
the distancing of friends in silent
disagreement display ways that
tolerance is used. The mistrust
that is created by this silent
disapproval divides society as
well as creating distance between
sexual orientations.
Whether it is racism or religious
discrimination or homophobia,
intolerance is how we often have
labeled the obstacle of equality
and justice for all in society. The
question is not whether tolerance is
better in comparison to intolerance,
but rather, does tolerance promote
justice? Clearly, tolerance without
action is just as guilty in its part
of creating a divided society. Each
community needs to know that
they are not simply tolerated by
the majority, but rather that their
uniqueness adds an irreplaceable
quality to society. It is essential
that their marginalization leads
to protest and resistance from the
society they are a part of, and the
justice due to them is sought by
those in power.
— Lena Dreves can be reached
at ldreves@umich.edu.
LENA DREVES| COLUMN
DAVID KAMPER| COLUMN
The problem of tolerance