A LIBERAL EDUCATION IS OFTEN AT ODDS WITH THE RESTRICTIONS PUT ON PUBLIC EDUCATION

I love the essay as a means of expressing ideas and feelings with literary grace.  My favorite essay is by Thomas H. Huxley written in 1868.  It is called “A liberal education and how to get it.”  Huxley reacted against the trend then to educate young students by forcing them to learn classical Latin and Greek, not so much for the ideas of those civilizations, which he applauded, but to learn grammar and parse every sentence in ancient texts.   He drew an analogy to a game of chess. If the careers and lives of our children depended on their ability to play chess, we would spend sums of money for tutors to make them experts. There is, he claimed, a game of life.  It is called science. If you are good at it a knowledge of science can enrich your life, provide new careers, and even save your life.  Remember that in 1868, while there was an industrial revolution in full swing, but the germ theory was still 20 years away. If you are ignorant of it or if you play it poorly, you might lack control over your life and short-change your career.  Huxley singled out the new field of evolution as a key component of this knowledge which every child should learn, because without it they are vulnerable to becoming losers in the game of life.  For Huxley the liberal arts included knowledge of world history, literature, philosophy, culture, the world’s geography, and an understanding of the universe through science.

Almost 150 years later we have few public schools that provide the type of liberal education that Huxley proposed.  A majority of K-12 students in the United States do not learn about evolution or find it labeled as a controversial theory.  Many private schools teach Creationism and those public schools that are in “Bible Belt” states (especially the south and Midwest) avoid the topic of evolution in their biology courses to prevent angry parents from complaining and threatening their employment. What science teaches will collide often with one religion or another.  Christian scientists do not like their students in public school to learn that there is a germ theory of infectious diseases and oppose compulsory vaccination for highly lethal diseases.  Jehovah’s Witnesses will object if their students lean blood typing and how blood transfusions have saved millions of lives.  Those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis will argue that geologists have some error in method in dating ancient rocks, whether they use radioactive decay, numbers of layers in a sedimentary rock formation, ratios of elements, or tree rings.  They will argue that the red shift used by astronomers does not apply to dating a source of light if it gives answers of more than 10,000 years.  Even worse, some teachers are intimidated in how they teach politically controversial positions of science, including climate changes from global warming, regulation of industries to prevent pollution, regulation of the chemicals placed in our foods, regulation of medicines (prescription and over the counter) for carcinogenic and mutagenic effects. Those with money and power can effectively obscure issues yet act in good faith because they unknowingly accept self-deception or wishful thinking as reality.  I wonder what type of science was taught to those legislators who deny evolution, the germ theory, global warming, the need for regulating industrial pollutants, practicing conservation of natural resources, radiation protection, or the importance of family planning.   A liberal education is intended to equip young people with the knowledge to be informed and effective citizens as well as to be constructive critics of society’s failings.  Is it not time we provide it?  

Life Lines 74

WHAT EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT SCIENCE AND OUR LIVES



I thought it would be helpful to prepare a series of Life Lines articles on the sciences that directly applies to issues of importance to us. I do so because science literacy is appallingly low. In a study in Europe, 40 percent of adults did not know that tomatoes contain genes. They thought genes were artificial and introduced into genetically modified foods; natural foods being gene free. This misunderstanding comes about because science is poorly taught, science is not taught, or society in general looks upon science as so specialized as to be irrelevant to their concerns as citizens. This public ignorance of science is just as bad in the United States. I would argue that this phobia against science is dangerous to our health, threatens our survival, and leads to an impoverished view of the universe as well as how we see ourselves. The ten topics I will present are:
• Cancer arises from a single cell and takes decades to produce symptoms
• Radiation causes two types of changes in chromosomes, both no good
• Our minds are a product of our neurons
• Some chemicals produce birth defects by damaging the embryo
• How one things leads to another—the germ theory produced population increases which produced the birth control movement which produced an aging population
• How genetic services enable parents to reject fatalism in their lives
• How science helps the infertile to have children
• Why biological diversity involves more than loss of exotic species
• Climate change has both natural and human contributions
• Global awareness is needed for our stewardship of the earth we live in

I will conclude the series with a number of recommendations about science teaching at the K-12 and undergraduate college level as well as some recommendations about how science can be more effectively presented by our media.

I believe science ignorance is too dangerous for the highly technical world in which we live. When we rely on luck, superstition, prejudice, shallow values, or a trust that our legislators and leaders are knowledgeable we invite a Pandora’s box of troubles. Ignorant and fanatic people can use the tools of science to do great harm. Unfortunately, even people of good will if they have a very limited understanding of science, may contribute to abuse of their own bodies and the world we live in. This is as true of conservatives as it is of liberals, of Republicans or Democrats, or of the rich or the poor. We do not have to be a nation of scientists, but we should know some of the ways science works in the same way most of us know Shakespeare was a playwright, Mozart was a composer, Picasso was a painter, Thomas Jefferson was our President, pizza is an Italian food, Tiger Woods plays golf, and Marilyn Monroe was an actress. We can appreciate the arts and humanities without being creative in any of those fields. If science is properly presented in the context of the liberal arts, it can be assimilated by most of humanity.