Researchers know better than anyone that science is not really the
“exact science” that many people seem to think it is. Each
new result generates new questions and a healthy debate. Experiments
have to be replicated and answers analyzed and discussed before a
consensus emerges about what a study might mean. It takes time for
a finding to become accepted as fact.
The process of discovery that we take for granted can be confusing
to others. Those in the public, and policymakers in particular, who
are not well versed in the scientific method sometimes take scientific
interpretation or opinion for a clear conclusion. In the absence of
hard answers, policymakers often misconstrue the evidence when making
decisions—many of which have far-reaching effects.
A vivid example of this is an issue important to the environmental
sciences. Investigators are certain that human activity has fueled
an increase in greenhouse gases, especially methane, nitrous oxide,
and carbon dioxide. And they know that these gases trap heat. What
they don’t know is how much our activity is directly responsible
for global warming and what all the environmental impacts might be.
Some policymakers point to the ambiguities and use them to justify
political decisions that ignore the information that is available.
We as scientists are obligated to make an effort to resolve such
disconnects. One contribution we can make is through education. For
more than a decade, Carnegie has been teaching science to both children
and adults. Our work began when Maxine Singer opened the First Light
science school in 1989 to teach Washington, D.C., students hands-on
science. In 1990 she started the Capital Science Lecture series, which
is free and open to the public. The Carnegie Academy for Science Education—an
outgrowth of First Light—is also spreading the word. Some 800
teachers have gone through the academy to improve their methods for
teaching science and mathematics to elementary school students. Just
recently the centennial exhibition, Our Expanding Universe,
opened. It’s drawing a diverse array of visitors who are experiencing
our science through engaging displays.
In addition to these programs, a number of Carnegie research projects
include educational components. The MESSENGER mission to Mercury,
headed by Sean Solomon of the Department of Terrestrial (DTM), is
one example, and the astrobiology venture at the Geophysical Laboratory
(GL) and DTM is another. For MESSENGER, dozens of different sites
throughout the country are coordinating an interactive distance learning
system that will explore both the engineering side of getting to Mercury
and what we’ll learn once we get there. Students from schools
all over the country, including those from historically minority institutions,
will be hooked in to the mission. The astrobiology component is similar.
This endeavor will, among other things, develop and distribute educational
materials to partner organizations and the thousands of teachers affiliated
with the National Science Teachers Association.
Individual Carnegie researchers are doing their part too. Bob Hazen
at GL has been teaching for years. Marnie Halpern at Embryology was
recently appointed to a board urging biomedical researchers to get
involved in socially important issues. John Mulchaey, Wendy Freedman,
and others at the Observatories are preparing a summer curriculum
in astronomy and space science for students in the Pasadena area.
Part of Steve Gramsch’s day at GL is spent teaching chemistry
to high school students, most of whom have had little exposure to
anything technical. And Chris Field continues to help policymakers
understand the science behind environmental issues—an undertaking
that will undoubtedly have positive ramifications for the new Department
of Global Ecology.
These are just some examples of what Carnegie is doing to get the
word out. Grassroots approaches like these are important. They help
instill the culture of science into the broader population, and I
applaud our scientists who have become involved. As the public becomes
more comfortable with what we do, they and the decision makers they
elect will be able to evaluate results more critically—and ultimately
make better decisions.
—Tom
Urban