Are we science-savvy enough to make informed decisions?

— -- For decades, educators and employers have worried that too few Americans are preparing for careers in science. But there's evidence to support a new, broader concern in this election year: Ordinary Americans may not know enough about science to make informed decisions on key questions.

Seventy-six percent of Americans say presidential candidates should make improving science education a national priority, according to a national Harris Interactive survey of 1,304 adults in November and December. Results were released this spring.

But only 26% believe that they themselves have a good understanding of science. And 44% couldn't identify a single scientist, living or dead, whom they'd consider a role model for the nation's young people.

These results are disturbing, science education experts say, because scientists aren't the only ones who must distinguish solid scientific methods from bogus ones. Some important scientific questions are being debated this year, including food safety, imported-product safety and the effect of biofuels.

Finding trustworthy sources

Whether a person is planning a child's diet or staking out a position on global warming, insights from science are indispensable, experts say, but only if someone knows which findings to trust.

"People will respond to demagoguery if they don't believe they have sufficient knowledge and sufficient confidence in their ability to weigh arguments and assess what's behind them," says Walter Massey, a board member of Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry, which commissioned the survey.

"The danger is that we move increasingly toward being a society where the most important decisions are ultimately made by fewer and fewer people."

Even figuring out which organizations to trust for guidance requires some basic knowledge of what constitutes good research methodology, Massey says.

Non-scientists can use Internet resources to get a handle on technical subjects as long as they exercise "healthy skepticism," says Donald Kennedy, former editor in chief of Science.

His tip: Consider credentials. Research that has an economic stake in particular outcomes isn't as trustworthy as research that is independent and published in peer-reviewed journals. Such journals, in which studies submitted for publication are judged by an independent panel of experts, include Science, Nature and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Good places to start researching technical subjects are websites of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences (aaas.org) and the National Academy of Sciences (nasonline.org), Kennedy says. Working with science-based knowledge "is a game that can be played by anybody with a serious interest in discovery," he says.

Americans are making progress on the science front, says Jon Miller, a Michigan State University political scientist who has been studying scientific literacy for 20 years.

For example, in the late 1980s, most Americans believed that antibiotics killed both viruses and bacteria. Now, Miller says, about 60% know that antibiotics kill only bacteria, not viruses. "It's a kind of learning that occurs through interaction with health care professionals," Miller says.

Experts contend that people need some health-related science knowledge for their own well-being. For instance, should you be more worried about germs on your kitchen table than about your smoking habit?

No, but you would need a bit of science to recognize that smoking presents the bigger health risk, says Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a health advocacy group.

More rigor needed

Other day-to-day questions require a measure of science acumen: Which chemicals should be avoided? Of the cure-all-type products sold only via television and the Internet, which ones should you buy, if any? Informed scientific opinion and an ability to identify weak evidence go a long way in making such judgments, Miller says.

Some science educators worry that Americans still aren't rigorous enough in deciding which sources to trust.

"We have in this country a major crisis of people listening to people they feel comfortable with (rather than) listening to a variety of groups and critically thinking through their messages," says Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association.

Scientific knowledge isn't a silver bullet for building an informed citizenry. In public-policy decisions, technical insight matters only up to a point, Kennedy says.

He notes that nuclear waste controversies hinge on how much risk a community is willing to tolerate, which is not a matter decided by science. Likewise, debates on the use of embryonic stem cells in scientific research routinely boil down to moral beliefs about when life begins.

"Public policy is for everybody (to make) — it's not just a science game," Kennedy says. "But you have to be able to weed out the scientific arguments that aren't right."