EIP First Draft Alex Senneville

Why are some people so adamant that global warming is a myth? Perhaps they were not

taught about global warming in school and hold that belief today. Maybe they do not want global

warming to exist and so they shroud themselves in a lie to make themselves feel better about the

situation. Perhaps they fear the consequences of their past actions and do not want to take blame

for things they have done in the past and so they lie to themselves and say that it is not real or

even that it is a hoax. No matter the excuse it is a real-world example of scientific illiteracy.

Scientific illiteracy is a massive problem throughout the entire world. It allows people to

derail the progress of scientific advancement either because they fear science or do not

understand it. Scientific illiteracy is the opposite of scientific literacy as the name suggests, but

what is scientific literacy? Simply put scientific literacy is the basic understanding of scientific

concepts and ideas that allow for an individual to take part in formal discussion over the topic of

science and its impact on the world (Blake, 2017). This definition seems complicated to some

but it really boils down to “Do you understand science?” which is not a hard question to answer.

This question must be asked by every individual which makes it challenge to ascertain who is

and who is not scientifically literate. The easiest way to see if someone is scientifically literate or

not is to ask basic generalizations about scientific concepts. For example, ask someone if the

Earth is flat, if they say “yes” they are scientifically illiterate, if they say “no” then you cannot be

certain if they are or are not scientifically illiterate. This is the main folly of scientific literacy, it

depends on numerous questions and answers that contribute to someone’s personal scientific

literacy. The same can be said of someone’s reading proficiency. A person is considered literate

if they can read and write but there are levels of reading proficiency. Someone is, for lack of a

better word, more literate if they can read at a college level compared to someone who can only
read at an 8th grade level. Both individuals are technically literate but one can read more

advanced texts than the other. Scientific literacy functions the same way.

Since scientific literacy is judged based on more of a scale than on black and white

absolutes it is important to understand that no demographic or occupation is inherently more

scientifically literate than another, at least not by definition. But why is this important? It seems

that scientific literacy is not very important since if someone wants to believe that the Earth is

flat thean it doesn’t affect anybody but them, right? That would be true if it weren’t for voting. Commented [1]: _Rejected suggestion_

The way that almost every democracy is set up relies on the people of that republic to vote for

numerous things. The most important being the president, but constituents also vote for local

elected officials as well as state officials, not to mention the numerous house bills that the public

can vote on as well. The way that people think, feel and sometimes even where they live can all

affect voting patterns and scientific literacy is a big part of that. The data is clear as to who is

scientifically literate. As a trend those who are more exposed and more interested in science and

technology are more scientifically literate (Miller, 2016). Take an area such as Mississippi which

has the lowest scored science performance for the 8th grade according to the Nations Report Card

(Card, 2015). The state voted primarily Republican for the 2012 presidential election (Maps,

2016). Now take a state like New Hampshire who scored amongst the highest state in 8th grade

science performance (Card, 2015). New Hampshire voted primarily democrat for the 2012

election (Maps, 2016). These correlations between scientific performance and voter trends are

nothing to sneeze at. They paint the picture for how voters tend to vote based on their level of

scientific and academic performance. However, tThese trends are nothing new. however, Commented [2]: _Accepted suggestion_
Commented [3]: _Accepted suggestion_
Ssociologists and political analysts have known for years, but the importance of these trends in a
Commented [4]: _Accepted suggestion_

world that relies on science more than ever is the key.

 Does this data mean that everyone who is scientifically literate votes democrat? No, not

and it should be said that this is just one data sample and outliers are always something to keep

in mind while looking at statistical data. The importance of these trends is to show that scientific

literacy has a substantial role in how voters tend to vote. In a fair and equal democracy such as

how the United States strives to be, there needsing to be active and informed voters. Based on Commented [5]: _Accepted suggestion_
Commented [6]: _Accepted suggestion_
personal accounts people that I know tend to vote for very simple reasons, either they have voted
Commented [7]: either suggests only two reasons

a certain way since they could vote and they stick to that party no matter what. Others vote a

certain way because their parents vote a certain way, and others still vote because of who they Commented [8]: maybe use some instead of others
because others is repetitive
think the most persuasive or suave candidate is. These are all terrible ways to pick a

representative. A voter needs to be aware of the issues that their representative will be voting for,

how they will be voting for them, and how that affects the constituent. Being scientifically

literate can be the first step to creating informed and active voters.

Science permeates everything that we as citizens do in the United States. It affects our

food, our water, our technology and how we use all of this in conjunction with our lives. It

encompasses so much of our daily lives that many people don’t even realize it. We have in our

pockets at all times a computer that is more powerful than the computers used to send people to Commented [9]: _Accepted suggestion_

the moon and we complain because it is too slow. Science is making so many innovations and

advancements that it is hard to keep up without actively having a role in these advancements or

reading about them every day. That is not a realistic expectation of the American people. It is

important nonetheless to understand the very real impacts that science makes on our society. Part

of this is knowing how science and science based political policies will affect the person voting

instead of creating arbitrary rules for voting. The United States needs to be more responsible in

educating the public of science and its effects on the country.

 There is a massive problem with this idea however, it requires for people to change. For

this to work, people and the government must change the way they look at voting entirely. That Commented [10]: _Rejected suggestion_

is the hardest part when it comes to making a reform like this. The people of the United States

need to want to make this change. Even if I detailed a conceptually perfect plan for creating more

active and more informed voters it would never work without the cooperation of the American

people. In fact, creating active voters is a problem that the United States is already facing. Only

around 40 percent of registered voters aged 18 to 29 voted in the 2016 presidential elections.

That is a terrible sign considering in 2008 the same demographic had a voter turnout rate of

almost 50 percent (Mcdonald, 2016). Voter apathy is a hard problem to combat since making

voting legally required would infringe on a person’s right to abstain from voting. The good news

is that as the data suggests the older someone is the more likely they are to vote as indicated by

higher turnout rates. But this is still a massive problem.

Scientific literacy is not the most pressing issue in America and I am not advocating for it

to be. There are far more important issues to take care of first, but it is a very important topic that

needs to be discussed publicly. The best way to create public exposure to any topic is to portray

it in the media. I wanted to look at how scientific literacy was portrayed in large, credible news

outlets. The first thing that I noticed when doing so was the lack of exposure that this topic

received. The news was not focusing much on scientific literacy which was the first bad sign.

The second came when I did find an article written by the BBC under the title “On the merits of

Scientific Literacy” written by Alice Bell(Bell, 2012). It looks promising until you start reading

and realize that Bell is not a scientist or anyone who knows the intricoes of scientific literacy but

is instead a journalist. Bell gives an apt description of scientific literacy and its potential effects

on the public. This is all good until you realize that no real expert opinion was given. It was more
of an opinion piece. Ordinarily this would not be so bad, but it fails to give any scientific view or Commented [11]: _Accepted suggestion_

outside opinion by an expert in the field and, is written by someone who openly claims to not Commented [12]: _Accepted suggestion_

really know what the concept is and was written six years ago. This is not a good sign. I am all

for freedom of the press and opinion pieces in general but the only credible news source that I

can find seemed to have written the article and then forgot the topic existed with no real updates

on the matter.

Voters are the most important part of the democratic system of government. Without

them officials are not elected and the whole system collapses. With a dim portrayal in the media

it is hard for scientific literacy to become a major talking point amongst voters yet it is

imperative for creating educated voters. The way that the average American voter views science

is crucial to the way that they vote, and with science becoming more and more influential over

our lives now is a better time than ever to educate people on science. Luckily the scientific

community has already been doing so with outreach programs for kids and science based

summer camps to get children excited or at least interested in science. This is not a permanent

solution however, more needs to be done to educate as many voters as possible but it is a good

start.

Although scientific literacy may seem like a small speck of things to reform in the United

States its impact on how we vote and what we vote for is crucial. It can be the tipping point for

many areas that are unaware of the scientific world and it creates more educated voters that

hopefully will vote based on how the candidate will affect them. This has been a core issue for

years but the increase in the way that science affects the average American has made it a more

pressing issue.
References:

Bell , Alice. “On the Merits of Science Literacy.” BBC News, BBC, 4 July 2012,

www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-18709587.

Blake , Caitrin. “Professional Resources.” Concordia Nebraska Online, Concordia

University of Nebraska , 20 Apr. 2017, online.cune.edu/defining-scientific-literacy/.

The Nations Report Card. “State Profile.” The Nation's Report Card, 2015,

www.nationsreportcard.gov/profiles/stateprofile?chort=2&sub=SCI&sj=&sfj=NP&st=MN&year

=2015R3.

Miller, Jon D. Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States in 2016. Institute for Social

Research, 2016, Civic Scientific Literacy in the United States in 2016,

home.isr.umich.edu/files/2016/10/NASA-CSL-in-2016-Report.pdf.

Maps, Political. “2016.” Political Maps, 2016, politicalmaps.org/category/year/2016/.

Mcdonald, Michael P. “Voter Turnout Demographics.” United States Elections Project,

2016, www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics.