(00:00:00) We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology that is a clear prescription for disaster. I mean, if you'd like to commit National Suicide here is a relatively slow and painless way to go about it. (00:00:23) Well known author and astrophysicist Carl Sagan discussing the dangers of a scientifically illiterate population at a recent conference in Washington. I'm Alex Chadwick when George Bush ran for president, he declared that he wanted to be known as the education president the need for a commitment to education is especially clear in the sciences and Mathematics recent test results show American schoolchildren score lower than their counterparts in many countries around the world a study of 2,000 adults showed that only 6% met minimum standards on scientific literacy several studies blame the edge. Occasional system for taking the fun out of learning about science and for teaching methods that stress rote memorization rather than an understanding of Concepts an American Association for the advancement of science study reported quote without the ability to think critically and independently citizens are easy, prey to dogmatists flim-flam artists and purveyors of Simple Solutions to complex problems many scientists and Engineers fear that US schools are not producing enough students well-versed in mathematics and science to allow the United States to compete with other industrial Nations recently a coalition of groups met here in Washington to help formulate an agenda to advance scientific literacy entitled National Initiative for Science and Technology education strategies for change the conference, which was co-sponsored by the American Medical Association brought together scientists Educators, government officials and Industry representatives to help identify. The key problems and offer suggestions for change one of the keynote speakers at the conference was astrophysicists Carl Sagan. Dr. Sagan address the question of what it means if the public understands less than it needs to about science and technology. (00:02:15) I have been asked to describe something of the crisis in understanding of Science in America and its consequences and let me Begin by an anecdote last year. There was a conference of scientists and television broadcasters held at the Tarrytown Conference Center in New Yorker, which is very good thing for those two groups to talk to each other. And I arrived at LaGuardia. They sent a car for me the driver holding up a little card with my name on it. We we met each other as we were walking to the car. He said do you mind if I ask you a question? I said no it don't you get confused with that Science Guy a lot and I owned up that I was that science guy and he was a little embarrassed and he said always said this probably my fault I have this problem. See my name is William F Buckley. That wasn't actually his name but the name like that that is one well-known television. And so we got to talking he was delighted that I was at science guy because he had a lot of science questions. He wanted to ask me and I've written down with the subjects were extrasensory perception channeling UFOs. The Plains of Nazca in in Peru, which are alleged to be landing strips for extraterrestrial aircraft some of which are about that wide few inches wide thickness the lines precognition and on every one of these I was forced to give a disappointing answer to mr. Buckley and as we drove on he got more and more glum and I began to feel you know, what's wrong with me. Well, why do I keep saying negative stuff? Why isn't there any life and in my kind of science? And what about my kind of science does mr. Buckley know anything about it. So I gently started probing and discovered now. I'm going to mention some names of field but I didn't say it just straight out like that. It did very simply my driver. Not only didn't know about but had never heard about plate tectonics. quantum indeterminacy the mitochondrial DNA evidence for the evolution of human evolution spectacular recent results stellar nucleosynthesis and the origin of what were made out of in the hearts of stars and so on and I sort of breach brooch these subjects and he was very interested. We're had these subjects been how is it he had not heard of them. And that indeed is the question he had never heard. He was very bright Ernest ambitious. And as I later discovered in this is why I'm not calling him William F Buckley to save him embarrassment. He was only Moonlighting as a driver. He was an active duty Sergeant in the New York State Police. now It seems to me that all over America. There are smart even gifted people who have never been offered anything about the joys of science or perfectly capable of handling. This material indeed have a kind of passion for it, which is deflected into pseudo science because that's all that's available. There's a kind of gresham's law of of Science in which the bad science drives out the good and bad science is what we constantly see in the media libraries and books advertised by time-life books. Just every aspect of American Commercial life is more devoted to pseudoscience sent to science. We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology that is a clear prescription for disaster. I mean, if you like to commit National Suicide here is a relatively slow and painless way to go about it. And so what I'd like to discuss is how this comes about some Flushing out of the nature of the problem and then I will offer some some personal prescriptions. That science has made major positive contributions to our society to life in the 20th century is I think entirely apparent and certainly for this audience. I need not go through improvements in medical care life expectancy Communications Transportation contraceptives. Should I consider it an enormous boom my okay nine percent of the of the global population. But so what the there's a limited carrying capacity on the planet and it's reasonable that the technically more advanced civilizations or to lead the way in reaching a steady state population. um At the same time it is also very clear and everyone understands that science has produced through whatever combination of scientists and politicians working on the problem a set of very grave threats to the nation and the human species nuclear weapons are the best known ancillary aspects of nuclear weapons development and nuclear technologies such as radioactive waste, but now finally serious attention is being devoted to a set of other astonishing threats to the global environment from the most benign kinds of Technology. I'm thinking for example about depletion of the ozone layer through chlorofluorocarbons, which were invented in order to be inert to have negative consequences very clever Engineers figured out how to do it to devise some materials which were non toxic non corroding non-abrasive didn't smell bad perfect used as refrigerants and as there are soul propellants and as insulators an amazing technological development, except they forgot something namely that precisely because of the inertness of these materials, it survives all the chemistry down here in the troposphere and the general circulation of the Earth's atmosphere carried it up to the ozone layer ozone extremely reactive and each one of these CFC molecules presides over the destruction of enormous number of ozone molecules is not just one to one. It's a catalytic process and the ozone which if we were brought down into this room would be only three millimeters thick is an extremely thin extremely vulnerable Shield against ultraviolet light from the sun. The increase of which is a set of serious propagating consequences the most serious of which are the preferential destruction of the microbes that are at the base of the food chain at the top of which sit we this is serious stuff likewise. our entire industrial civilization works at least until lately off fossil fuels coal oil gas and everytime you burn such a material you produce carbon dioxide the carbon dioxide increases the greenhouse effect surface temperature of the earth is now Rising the consequences in terms of drought. High temperature sea level rising are predicted to be extremely serious and extremely expensive and the development of nuclear weapons. Also, I think no one would argue that there was something wrong with developing nuclear weapons in the face of the possibility that Adolf Hitler would have nuclear weapons. And even today the most the most Humane of the nuclear scientists in the United States and the Soviet Union who developed nuclear weapons for those respective countries say that they think they would have done it again or case of Russians are spoken. Do they think the I'd say should have done it again if the only information available where that information That Nazi Germany was working on the weapon. And yet with all these good intentions, the net result is that we are facing extremely serious threats to the global civilization. We have now by being so immensely clever provided ourselves and that means our political Leaders with the means to destroy the global civilization. Who would not be a little concerned about what scientists are doing in the face of that? It is perfectly reasonable for people to be a little worried about science. Now, of course this unease goes back long before chlorofluorocarbons and radioactive waste and nuclear weapons in Mary Wollstonecraft. Shelley's famous. Novel Frankenstein. You can see just the same concerns back with the sort of English Mill technology. It was apparent even then and you could even see it back in in the Faust story. This goes back to the Renaissance the concern that people might be too smart for their own good. That science needs some modifying (00:13:40) influence. So (00:13:45) that being the case it seems to me that that it is healthy for citizens to be concerned about science. The trouble is that none of these issues not a one of them can be solved without Science and Technology, whatever role science and technology has played in bringing them about mitigating obviating solving these problems cannot occur without science and technology and I also Deeply believe that there are many untapped Arenas of human good at Science and Technology can can help provide. (00:14:26) So (00:14:30) it is essential for managing the human future. That politicians and the public alike, especially in a nominal democracy understand what these issues are about. now I'd like to go to a slightly more General issue and that is the nature of scientific thinking. (00:14:53) Science (00:14:54) is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge. And this way of thinking involves recognizing that there is an external world out there, of course which interacts with human beings and the way it is is not necessarily what we want to be true. It has its own integrity and independent existence. In science arguments from Authority are worthless unlike many other areas of human endeavor. In science wishful thinking doesn't count in science. Everybody has to check what everybody else does in science quantitative thinking is a kind of sieve which extracts the true hypotheses the ones in consonance with the external World from a wide range of hypotheses that don't work. Science involves a no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, no matter how heretical they are and at the same time. The most rigorous skeptical scrutiny of new ideas as well as of received wisdom. It's a very delicate balance to do both of those seemingly contradictory things openness and skepticism at the same time. It's one of the secrets of science. I maintain that that kind of thinking is desperately needed for all sorts of national and Global problems. Not just in science and engineering in structuring Social systems in economics in every essential area. It is important to be skeptical of received wisdom to be open to new ideas to utilize quantitative thinking where appropriate to check conclusions. Even those drawn by the highest political leaders. And it is I also suspect precisely that unruly unpredictable aspect of scientific thinking which makes political leaders of little uncertain a little unhappy a little cautious about too much science. And you can see that in for example science advice to the president. The president's science advisory committee was Eliminated in the Nixon administration because the scientists believed is one of several reasons one of several cases because the scientists believe that whether a supersonic transport would work was the issue not whether a supersonic transport was politically desirable. A very similar case occurred more recently on on the Star Wars issue. And while there's a lot that can be said about Star Wars and I should probably mention that I personally think it is the civilian. Protection of the civilian population notion of mr. Reagan is not only immensely foolish impossible to be achieved ruinously expensive, but also it is likely to increase not decrease the chances of nuclear war, but that aside I just want to spend a second on the issue of Of what happened to science advice as far as Star Wars is concerned. You would think a proposal that would wind up if implemented spending one, two, three trillion dollars. One, two, three trillion dollars the national debt. The one that everybody in Washington is worried about you would think that that would be subject to some degree of scrutiny. When the president gave his announcement on March 23 1983 of Star Wars. The following people had not heard of it except during the previous three days. The Secretary of State the Secretary of Defense the president's National Security advisor. The president's science advisor the director of the arms control and disarmament agency and various lesser officials. The secretary defense was in Spain at the time and when he heard about it, his response has been handed down to posterity. It was quote. It's not a bomb is it? so if the president were well versed in science, if the president had a great deal of background in skeptical thinking if you had made calls to a variety of scientists not one or two who had sold them a bill of goods then we might say well maybe he didn't need the entire apparatus of the government for advice. This is a clear example and there are many of them in which very expensive issues issues Central to the National Security issues Central to the well-being of the nation in the world. Are entered into with no competent discussion on areas that involve science and technology other areas as well. So as not to just pick on a poor beleaguered and retired president. Let me mention another example. This is the elf Aquitaine hoax in France that took in the president of the French Republic. She's got last night. This was a wonderful machine. You put it in an aircraft you then flew at 10,000 feet or something and it showed you where the untapped petroleum and mineral resources were He didn't you a little map like a fax machine and the paper came out and then you knew where you should invest National money, but not just National money good personal investment and lots of high French officials turned out to be investing. The only trouble was that the inventor of the machine would not let anybody look in it is proprietary. It's capitalism can't look in it and the lust for money was so large that whatever residual skepticism that they had been taught in school dissipated and large amounts of money personal and National went into that before it was found out to be a pure hoax. There was nothing in this machine, which was in actual Conformity with what was under the ground below. Skeptical thinking scientific attitudes are I believe Central for managing the kind of complex society. We live in not just for presidents. Jefferson stressed that the only way democracy could work. Is to have an educated electorate if the electorate did not know what questions to ask if the electorate was not skeptical of candidates. Then the electorate would be Bamboozled. I maintain that there is a scientific way of thinking which protects the public against bamboozlement that doesn't mean that even scientists use this way of thinking all the time scientists get bamboozled by politicians all the time usually by Promises of luncheon at the White House or something like that. Without a tradition of skeptical thinking I think citizens are babes in the woods waiting to be taken by the next political con man, or the next advertising executive who comes along and presses their buttons and that of course is why political Kahneman and advertising executives are not anxious for there to be skeptical thinking this is another area another reason why I believe there is resistance to teaching scientific thinking the facts of science fine. You want to memorize the periodic table. That's just terrific but let's not go too closely into what sort of scientific views were strongly supported by church and state and turned out to be nonsense. That's a little embarrassing. Let's not look too closely at that. Now let me go to another issue that's sort of the Practical issue. The one that is most widely discussed of why it's bad to have a nation of scientific and Technical illiterates. And that's the question of economic competitiveness. We live in a world in which an economic Unity is clearly being manufactured and which people anywhere in the world can have their manufactured products in competition with people from anywhere else in the world. And so there is a kind of natural selection for technical competence and efficiency and to the extent that that this is a free market that armies do not impose Goods at other than market prices National Economic survival depends on doing well But not just not just in external competition. For example, entry level jobs are going wanting in domestic manufacturers in the United States because of a lack of the most Elementary mathematical or scientific information for example the furniture industry. Furniture making companies many of them are in danger of collapsing not because there are no customers not because their products are not well made but because there are no workers at the entry level who can do the simple arithmetic necessary to be a carpenter or a joiner. Another example you drive a truck for an Express Mail company. You got to know more than how to drive a truck. You have to be able to interrogate the home office on computer. You have to know a little bit. If not how to program at least how to operate that computer. There are many other examples. the functioning of the ordinary American economy nevermind high-tech technology of the future depends on a greater degree of scientific and Technical education in our kids are getting Then there's the issue of the development of new industry. There are a dozen major industries from steel to manufacturing television sets would say in which the United States was once the world leader but no longer. And in the development of new globally competitive Technologies not States is not doing very well. If you look at patent applications, what do you find? You find that the total number of patents filed at the US patent office is increasing in what looks to be a very healthy manner. Then you asked to separate out the number of patents applied for by US citizens from the number of patents applied for by citizens of other nations. And you find that the entire upward sweep of the patents is due to people who are citizens of other countries and that the Native American. This is a new use of the phrase Native American the Native American patent applications are somewhere between moribund and decreasing. it is a commonplace that in graduate schools, especially in engineering science also, but especially in engineering it is very common to find more than half the students as foreign Nationals and and of The Americans many of them are first or second generation as as we said before now on the one hand. we can say that this is an opportunity for the United States to do a service to the rest of the world are higher Educational Systems are excellent and and it is very good after a few centuries of things going the other way for us to differentially assist the economic development of other countries, but there are many Americans who are not happy with that. Also, it is very clear that many of the new jobs in the American economy are in the so-called service economy. And involve less intellectual rigor and much less science in mathematics and the jobs. They are replacing. There are many recent surveys of how American youngsters do and standardized tests compared to youngsters of other nations was involved in trying to publicize a entirely within the United States Time study of how kids are doing done by the circle National report card educational testing service at Princeton here. American youngsters today are no better than they were when those exams were first offered in the late 60s and they were Dreadful in the only bright note is that Black and Hispanic kids by that Criterion are doing better. But compared to other countries it is very striking. There was a recent exercise by the International Association for the evaluation of educational achievement. It compared. Students Science and Mathematics achievements in 17 countries. I'll tell you what. Those are the countries are in a minute. U.s. 5th graders ranked eighth that is middle of the pack among 15 responding Nations. U.s. 9th graders tied with 9th graders in Thailand and Singapore for 14th Place out of 17. These are just average run-of-the-mill students. What about students who are in specialized science courses curriculum specialized science high schools. advanced placement exam advanced placement course students. How are they doing? Among 13 countries responding and here are the countries Australia English-speaking Canada, England, Finland Hong Kong Hungary Italy, Japan, Norway Poland Singapore Sweden and the United States. us students placed last in biology 11th and chemistry and 9th and physics The u.s. Coordinators of the study of talked about a progressive decline in science as you go higher up the educational ladder in the United States compared to other nations and my impression is that this is not just true in science is certainly true in mathematics. It's to in lots of other things. The estimates fluctuate in the definition of illiteracy is is variable but recent estimates Bob around 25% or more of the number of American adults who are functionally illiterate. Functionally literate means you can't fill out a job application. take take how American High School kids do in geography. There's been some recent concern expressed about this ISO one report in which kids in Texas high schools were shown big Mercator projection map of the world, but none of the countries had the names on it and they were then asked to identify where various countries were. Less than half could find their own country the United States. Something like 30 or 40 percent that the Soviet Union was in Central America, which probably comes from believing the president of the United States. How can they make Intelligent Decisions? About global Affairs when they don't know where anybody is. If they can't read if they can't count if they can't think I'm not talking as much about Texas kids right now is broader set of questions. It is astonishing that we have let things go so far without becoming extremely worried about it. And so I'm delighted that this this conference is devoted to the subject that there are other reports and newspaper articles, but how could it have gotten so far without all sorts of alarm bells ringing? In a recent study the average Japanese eighteen-year-old scored better in mathematics on standardized tests then 99% of his American colleagues. Reminds me of Dwight Eisenhower's amazement when he discovered that 50% of Americans were below average in intelligence. We hear from school kids. That science is too hard. Why isn't it too hard for kids and all those other countries? Why wasn't it too hard a few decades ago in this country as the subject matter gotten hard? I don't think so. I think in fact the number of tremendously exciting discoveries in science. It has happened in the last few decades should help attract. More students to it. I I think you have to be made of wood not to be excited about some of the recent discoveries in science. I find this what I'm about to say now is wholly anecdote. I don't claim it has any statistical validity, but I keep having this impression. Occasionally every few years. I teach a kindergarten or first grade class just for the heck of it these years last two years have done it because I have a kindergarten and first grade daughter, but I've done it in other years as well. I have the sense of a class full of young scientists. of kids eager not embarrassed about asking dumb questions. And what's more asking the most fundamental questions without realizing that they're that they're extremely profound and not being satisfied with half answers. I find the human material starts out. Excellent. We are all scientists after all. It's what else are we good at? We don't run faster than the other animals. We don't dig better swim better fly better. I'm talking about Cree technology. We only think better and build better. So of course gets are good at that. Of course, they like it. Of course they take to it like a fish to water. but then something happens occasionally, I teach a high school class just to see what high school kids are like it's very different all sorts of concern about asking a dumb question all sorts of willingness to accept an inadequate answer without a follow-up question all sorts of sidelong glances at other kids in the class to see what the social response to the question will be something happens between first grade in high school and it's not just puberty something turns these kids off and I'd like to suggest category of possible answer a four five six seven year old asks a question. Good question. Maybe why is grass green? Why is the moon round? Why is the sky dark at night? Why do we have toes 44 very deep questions. You pursue any one of them you get into the heart of extremely important fundamental science a lot of adults parents and teachers both. I find give a category of answer which goes something like this don't ask dumb questions or what could you expect grass to be blue? What do you want? The moon is going to be square? That is the kid understands the fundamental question. The adult does not. The kid raises the question that could get slapped down. I don't mean literally but some sense metaphorically by the grown-up. Does it a few times and then recognizes the correlation. This is a category of question, which makes grown-ups upset. I better not ask it. And we've lost another scientist think of the range of possible answers that are available to a parent or teacher. First of all, the best situation would be if the parent or teacher understood something of the answer and could provide it. Let's assume that's not the case. Some of these questions are still I mean, why is grass green? Okay. It's because the chlorophyll but why is chlorophyll? Reflect green light when that's the part of the spectrum where the sun is putting out most of its energy. Why does why do plants reject the energy where it mostly is available is still an unsolved question, but here are some options of the adult. What a good question. I don't know the answer. Let's try to look it up in a book. Here's another one. What a good question. Maybe Nobody Knows the answer to that may be when you grow up. You'll be the first person to understand why whatever it is. There's a wide range of possible answers. But every one of them involves the adult admitting an absence of emissions, why adults should feel required to pretend to emissions before a five-year-old. I can I can't for the life of me understand what's wrong with admitting that you don't know. I think that this is part of what happens at is a critical age where the kids start asking that he'd questions and grown-ups do not encourage them. Despite this I find that there is a huge residuum of interest in science in the general public. Mr. Buckley. I would include in that in that category. He just didn't know which what it was he was interested in. in the experience of doing the Cosmos television series This repeatedly came came home to us. It's now been seen in over 60 countries by a third of a billion people straddling ideological ethnic religious boundaries at this moment. It's being shown in Bangladesh and Peru probably other countries have to know those two at this moment. It's transcultural people all over the world somehow resonate to a discussion about science which starts at an elementary level involves. State-of-the-art special effects involve some music makes contact with philosophical issues at the Sydney Australia Zoo. I was stopped by a woman from Malaysia who told me how how important it was for her and her children. We got 10,000 letters from people in the United States in the first few months that it was Jones 1980 the vast majority of which were I can understand. I actually understood what you were saying. I understood science. I thought I was so dumb that I couldn't possibly understand science, but I did understand it. Maybe I'm not so dumb. I'm going to try going back to school lots of people. Were deeply encouraged and a sense of disappointment in themselves was transcended by understanding a few scientific arguments. And I know lots of kids now and in college and graduate school written to me to say that Cosmos was a transforming experience now, I don't claim that this is because Cosmos is something that no one else could have produced. I claim that it's because Cosmos was the only thing like this available and there's a vast range of other. Of other approaches in various media that could play a significant role in making science accessible one frightening fun because fundamentally it is fun. As far as the school's go there's a set of things which are very clear teachers salaries are abysmally low the respect given to teachers is nothing like what it was back in my time which corresponds to when the principal disciplinary problem with getting out of line and chewing gum. There's a serious question of the competence of grade school and high school teachers who teach science to large number of them have their fundamental background in something else including physical education. money for Laboratories science is not about digesting something written in a book science is about self-discovery making the discovery yourself. Even if it's been made a thousand times before to make those discoveries. You need to have a laboratory laboratory equipment is not very expensive. A lot of it isn't a lot of is just kitchen physics kitchen chemistry, but it does require a budget and at that point it requires a degree of competence that merely keeping a week ahead of the students in the class textbook does not Money can help solve some of these problems in the schools, especially at the earliest grades. Now I want to talk about scientists scientists have not been pulling their way in solving the problems of science illiteracy in America. There is a subset of the scientific Community goes way back goes back to Pythagoras who feel that the public is not ready for learning science that to speak plainly. They believe the public is too stupid and if if scientists presented to the public the public won't understand unless it is so diluted as not to be science anymore. Now, I maintain this is wholly wrong. And what's more it's very strange for scientist who depend on Public Funding for their own research to be reluctant to explain to to the public what what it is that they do. Also, if you love something deeply don't you want to explain it tell other people about it? So I find And I stress this is only a minority of the scientific community that has this View and them number of scientists willing to speak to the public is monotonically increasing but nevertheless scientists are not doing all they should and when scientists have the idea that they won't they need to speak to the public the public cannot understand the public senses it and there is a response of shielding itself from The Challenge or disliking science. Now, let me say something about the media. The media is immensely powerful it is if we wanted quick. Quick fixes to strong but a quick immersion in something about science. The media is the way to get it done if you could Virtually, every newspaper in America has a daily astrology column how many have even a weekly science column? Say nothing of a daily science called. Isn't there a degree of public responsibility in American newspapers? That's that's missing. If you speak to newspaper Executives say it's too hard people people don't understand. I have here. today's Wall Street (00:46:22) Journal (00:46:29) you will notice graphs. You notice many figures. I'll read some things that are here. Index under index. It says djia and this is DJ equity and it says S&P 500 and says NASDAQ comp and it says one Dan ft 30 that it says Tokyo Nikkei. That runs on the left-hand column then running across the top close-knit change percent. Jundj 12 Mo High 12 molo 12 mode Ginge from 12:30, 1:00, and then please no explanatory footnotes Sink or swim? And yet imagine growing up in a household in which dad reads this every day. It's lying around. You don't get the sense that it's wholly beyond your ability. You might pick it up. I consider this extremely dull compared to science but the kid might pick it up and and look at he might ask a question dad. What is that? And it's even possible Dad or Mom doesn't know what everything here means, but could give the kids some guys. Here is today's Washington Post. the sports section NBA standings And then it lists four divisions, Miami is said to be in the Midwest. Then it says W that says L and this is proof. Then it says GB then last ten streak home away conf. Any explanatory footnotes sink or swim? This is a lot harder than science presented in any reasonable way. Look at this. Acres of Statistics people voluntarily read this stuff. It's not beyond their ability. There is no reason why science could not be presented in Daily newspapers in the rest of the media in ways that are accessible to the average person who can read box scores and stock market reports. six months ago I went to the most famous toy store in New York City To get my daughter a microscope. for her birthday I couldn't find a microscope. We're no microscopes in the entire store. There were many things that were 5,000 dollar toys. There were no microscopes. In fact, there was no science, whatever except for one brand of telescope. But I did find a vast display. of mad scientist gets that's what they call themselves mad scientist kids and they described the advertise themselves in the following terms glowing glop. To gross dissect an alien yank out alien organs dripping and glowing alien blood. Make disgusting monsters then sizzle the flesh off their bones. These Abominations are what American children interested in science find waiting for them in the most prestigious toy stores. What would your response be if you're interested in science and you found this is what they have for Science, and it's about sizzling flesh off aliens. When you have a sense that there's something so of a little upsetting about science. Maybe you should go into some other area of work. I complained about this and happy to say that there is now. a microscope available at the same store The mad scientist image is replete in children's television on Saturday and Sunday. If you ever look at those cartoon programs, there's always some very clever socially, holy inept scientist who doesn't understand whatever it is doesn't understand if you shrink everybody in the world down to two inches high in order to save energy that this might somehow abrogate their individual rights. Oh, I never thought of that. That's one one program. I saw there is a Sunday cereal called dr. Science. Dr. Sciences motto is quote. Never trust a scientist close quote. He he poo poos pseudoscience and is always proved to be wrong. The pseudoscience is right the UFOs do come from Venus. And where did he come off to be skeptical? Let's think about science on ordinary adult television. Occasionally you see something called a science report for a while. Some of the Network's had guys who are called science reporters. What in fact did they report more than 90% medicine and Technology the amount of science was essentially zero every year. Nobel prizes are announced in in the Sciences. Have you ever heard an understandable description about why what anybody got his Nobel Prize for on television? I never have it's always for studies that may someday cure cancer. they can never get into it because there were the audience will be bored and turn to another Channel. I believe that systematic presentation of the excitement of science, especially new discoveries of science could fit perfectly into television talk shows news commentary newspaper syndicated columns Fireside presidential chats. If we had the right kind of President ordinary dinner conversation, why is science so rarely talked about in ordinary conversation in our or put another way, how can we expect kids growing up in households where the adults are the role models to be interested in science if they never hear anybody talking about it at all. It's very hard and especially when they express some interest if that interest is Slap them then it's very tough. I believe science is our Birthright. It's characteristically human. It's one of the few characteristically human institutions that we have science is a joy. We want to learn about the world. We understand its practical benefits and children who recognize that they have to live in the future and that science is a great deal to say about what that future is like of course are interested in science. science also Approaches the deepest questions humans have ever asked especially the questions of Origins origins of everything. From Individual personal Origins to the human species to life to the Earth to the solar system to the Milky Way galaxy to the origin of matter the question of the origin of the universe as a whole every one of these topics. Has had fundamental insights provided in recent years by science. I claim everybody is interested in those subjects and that's easily demonstrated every culture on the planet has a set of creation myths which are an attempt to deal with these issues in a pre-scientific pre technological time. People are waiting to be told about science not just for its Joys which are manifold but for its practical power to influence the future in a world, which is becoming increasingly perilous. I believe that the way to safely negotiate these perils is to acknowledge our ignorance. Courageously and honestly and in the long tradition of science to debate the alternatives. Excellent performance in science is more essential to our national security than half a dozen strategic weapon systems. The present mediocre performance of American youngsters in Science and Mathematics and Engineering should sounded urgent alarm. Thank you very much. (00:56:17) Cornell University astrophysicist Carl Sagan on what it means for the public to misunderstand Science and Technology. Dr. Sagan was speaking at a conference here in Washington co-sponsored by the AMA entitled National Initiative for Science and Technology education strategies for change our engineer for this broadcast was Dennis nilsen. Johnno. Go Nick is our producer in Washington. I'm Alex Chadwick support for this program is provided by this and other NPR member stations and the NPR news and information fund contributors include the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation GTE where the power is on for telecommunications lighting and precision materials W CP n Cleveland Public Radio fund for news excellence and The Geraldine R Dodge foundation for reporting on biological resource issues. This program is a production of national public radio. The views expressed are not necessarily those of NPR the underwriters or the broadcast station. This is NPR National Public Radio.