David Suzuki: Science literacy is good for society

Comments

Kids ask questions. Sometimes adults feel inadequate if they don’t have ready answers. But when I became a teacher, I learned quickly that there’s nothing wrong with saying, “I don't know.” Teaching children how to learn is more useful than feeding them facts.

Many parents, though, believe they must appear infallible in the eyes of their children. A U.K. survey found that some moms and dads fear questions such as “Why is the sky blue?” and “Why is the moon out during the day?” Math and science queries were the biggest stumpers.

Researchers questioned more than 2,000 parents before The Big Bang U.K. Young Scientists and Engineers Fair. Many respondents admitted to “furtive researching to save face before answering their child.”

There’s no need for that. My area of training as a scientist is genetics. It’s a huge subject and I don't always know everything going on outside my field. I try to keep up by reading journals like Scientific American. People shouldn't feel that saying “I don't know” is admitting weakness. The important thing is to look for answers.

What could be better than using a puzzling question as an opportunity to teach your children how to conduct and analyze research, think critically about information, and gain new understanding? You even get to learn along with your kids. In our computer age, it’s not even as time-consuming as it once was—although there’s a lot to be said for direct observation, poring over an encyclopedia, or visiting the library.

Some folks are too busy to help youngsters search for answers— but we can at least get them started. If you make it fun, your kids will eventually learn to research on their own, and then you can ask them for answers.

Giving children the tools to learn and analyze is crucial, but it’s often neglected. And that has consequences. Many people don’t understand how science works—its limitations as well as its benefits. This has led to confusion over issues that could have a profound effect on society.

One only has to look at some of the “debate” surrounding global warming to know that incomprehension about science reaches the highest levels of decision-making. U.S. presidential hopefuls have been demonstrating a bewildering lack of knowledge in their attempts to challenge the overwhelming scientific evidence for human-caused climate change. It’s reminiscent of parents who make something up when they don’t know the answer.

This doesn’t always come from ignorance. Sometimes, it’s a way to exploit confusion or lack of understanding to further a political or corporate agenda. In Canada, we’ve seen attempts to limit, control, or silence scientific findings that may hinder the government’s economic and corporate agenda.

The situation is so critical that last year Kathryn O’Hara, then president of the Canadian Science Writers’ Association, wrote to the prime minister, urging him to “free the scientists to speak— be it about state of ice in the Arctic, dangers in the food supply, nanotechnology, salmon viruses, radiation monitoring, or how much the climate will change.”

Currently, the federal government must approve all media and speaking requests for its scientists. Clearance is often not given, or is delayed so much that experts can’t speak in a timely and meaningful way.

Compare this with the Obama administration’s U.S. policy, which states that “scientists may speak freely with the media and public about scientific and technical matters based on their official work without approval from the public affairs office or their supervisors.”

In an open society, leaders who have nothing to hide and who base their decisions on the best available evidence should have no reason to muzzle scientists, or anyone else. Just as parents should help children find relevant facts and encourage exploration, governments have a responsibility to make sure we have access to good information.

Having answers to our children’s questions is not enough. If we want societies that provide the maximum benefit for the most people over the longest time, and if we want to find solutions to the challenges and problems we’ve created, we must teach our children and ourselves how to find and evaluate answers objectively. Making science education a priority is an important part of that.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Editorial and Communications Specialist Ian Hanington. Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

Comments (6) Add New Comment
priest
It is interesting who the new clergy are. The new flat earthers are the corporate and banking leaders that deny science because it doesn't suit their dogma.
1
2
Rating: -1
paul ravenshead
The master of spin should read follow his own advise and quit spinning the message into the political arena. Too bad that Suzuki has been bought off by the US foundations soley to maintain the mega millions that he relishes.
1
2
Rating: -1
Naught Reil
I agree with poster Paul Ravenshead, that Mr. Suzuki appears to have lost sight of his earlier commitment as a champion of our Earth's natural environment. He discards any comment on his own massive footprint as not relevant, or simply that he has heard such criticism before, and will not listen further.
3
3
Rating: 0
R U Kiddingme
Bah! Through his shows and his foundation, Suzuki has done more for the environmental movement than any number of anonymous Internet blah blah makers! If he has acquired some nice things and cars out of it, well, so what. His taking a vow of poverty would not serve any meaningful purpose.

How about the article itself? I cannot see a thing wrong with it. Kids need a science education more than anything else. "Scientific method" is no more and no less than the way a reasonable person assesses the world. If democracy is to succeed, the body politic has to be able to discern fact from hypothesis, speculation from evidence, proportionality from absolutism. Then we are neither naive nor cynical -- ignorant, sure, but able to ask the questions that lead to answers. This applies to environmentalism and any other fit subject for political debate.

4
2
Rating: +2
the results are out
Guess who should be running Canada Fisheries and Oceans?
1. a cop
2. Keith Ashfield
3. a banker
4. a ceo from the Oil Industry
5. bc hydro
5. science

If you guessed the science your absoulutely right. A study was done on what was the best interests of Canadians when it came to taking care of Canada's Oceans and Fsheries and Ashfield was not on the list.




3
1
Rating: +2
Gail Terp
Science is all about I wonder... Such questions are essential for full literacy.
0
2
Rating: -2
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.