1
Science Education for a Competent, Confident and Democratic Society
Cecily Cannan Selby
April 29, 2009
My thanks and appreciation to all of you here today is unbounded---to the dean
and staff of the Steinhardt School of Education, Culture and Human Development for
superb –and friendly--administrative support. To Pamela Fraser-Abder and Janice Koch,
for fertilizing and nourishing the birth and growth of our program, and to the talented
and skilled scientist educators at the Steinhardt School and at the New York Hall of
Science, for the program you are enjoying. “Thank you” to my wonderful friends and
colleagues, for honoring me--and science education--by accepting our invitation to join
us today. And, as always, thanks to my sons and their families for the love and respect
we share—even when my ideas may bore you!
How proud and pleased I am that this afternoon’s presentations reflect the
values, ideas and people that have framed my life and work. The speakers represent all
the caring, curious, brilliant and informed people in whom I have delighted all my life.
It is such friends and colleagues, and their ideas and values, who have sustained my
enduring optimism–a gift I am so fortunate to carry through life. This afternoon, my
optimism about the future of science and its teaching is renewed. Thank you all!
A note to begin: I will use the term “science” throughout for easy communication
although most points made refer to all the subjects covered by the familiar acronym
STEM: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.
2
With apologies for now blocking your way to food, drink and exhibits, I beg
your indulgence to use the privilege of my seniority and a historic perspective to turn
your attention from the many varied approaches to science education, so beautifully
presented here today, to the public beliefs and attitudes desperately needed to support
and advance them. Our nation’s business, political, academic and educational leaders
now declare that our science education goals are a national priority. We can agree what
these goals are. Simply put: increased scientific and technological literacy for all, and
increased quantity, quality and diversity of scientists, engineers, physicians and science
educators. My message today is that, to reach this objective, we must change popular
public attitudes and beliefs about what science is and what scientists do. It has taken me
decades to realize that the misperception of what scientists do—that we somehow apply
a universal, anonymous, impersonal, abstruse, mathematical Scientific Method, divorced
from the arts and humanities—this misperception has held back advances toward a
useful understanding of science for all.
My career as a research scientist began with exploring microscopic boundaries
and linkages between biological cells. Now it focuses on boundaries and linkages
between science and society. Perhaps my daring to consider the form and function of
both microscopic and macroscopic structures, of both science and society, can be blamed
on my growing up in a home and in a community where science and society were
linked—where the sciences and the arts and humanities were happily married.
I grew up as an only child of a chemistry professor father and a Latin teacher mother in
a home where all modes of human inquiry enjoyed equal opportunity. There was no
3
“two cultures” divide at home, or in Woods Hole, the Cape Cod scientific community in
which I was so lucky to spend all the summers of my youth (and now of my “golden
years”)!
As a child, I could readily see that one size did not fit all scientists. My father’s
colleagues came in all shapes, sizes, genders, cultures and religions: Asians and
Europeans, nuns and priests, Jews and Christians—they all worked and played together
throughout Woods Hole summer days. Science, music, art, history---yes, and politics-mixed and matched in talk on the beaches and in our living room when friends stopped
by. I figured out that science answered some kinds of questions (and had been doing so
for a long time) but other modes of inquiry were needed to answer other kinds. And,
scientists seemed to be able to find answers to their scientific questions in all kinds of
places: on ships, on mountains, in laboratories, in libraries…and at home.
Moving away to school and college, I was sad to find science and scientists
viewed very differently. Science was considered a special way of thinking and doing,
accessible only to “brainy” “nerdy” people who were not interested in much else. You
know the stereotype! To this day, when some people meet me they still say “You don’t
look like a scientist”. Or “Are you REALLY a scientist?” All I could say in those days
was that, “Science is not really like that”. Probably for this reason, I early became
interested in philosophical explanations of what makes science “science”.
When we were fully engaged in scientific research, I cannot remember any of us
worrying about either public perceptions or science teaching---we were happy with the
work we loved and assumed that others who would enjoy it could find their way there,
4
as we had—despite good or bad science teaching. But when I moved my work from
laboratories to classrooms, offices and board rooms, I encountered outdated and
misinformed public perceptions held by non-science teachers and guidance counselors
who steered students away. While head of a 12-grade school and then of the Girl Scouts,
I was able to involve girls with science in a “hands-on” way, but found non-science
teachers still promoting science as impersonal, inaccessible and antithetical to the arts
and humanities---the broadly shared public view. Serving as a director of a couple of scitech companies, I was disturbed to find management scientifically and technologically
illiterate. Scientists were accepted as useful for technical matters, but not for
management and leadership. I was the only member of either Board with any sci-tech
literacy---and that was only by accident. I was elected director for my distinctiveness as
a female, not as a scientist! In the 70’s I asked the president of the Harvard Business
School where technology fitted into their curriculum. His answer was that it didn’t:
“Technology education is for the engineers who come here.” And here I will make the
point that technology is not a relative, it’s a partner of science. Technology includes
much more than applied science. It deserves and needs its own kind of literacy.
I found what I believe is the root cause of these perceptions while working on
advancing women in the sciences. We need more than the arguments we’ve been
using—arguments centered around human rights, equal opportunity, and human
capital-- to advance women beyond simply being “let in” to scientific enterprises. The
public needs to understand that diversity among science practitioners and leaders
enhances and advances the progress of science. The argument goes this way. If science
5
were indeed practiced by “One-size-fits-all scientists” applying a universal Method,
differences in culture or gender would not add value. But, if science is an inquiry in
which the inquirer chooses the questions, observations, and hypotheses, then the
scientist’s personal perspectives---values, culture, needs, interests—can and do influence
the process. While teaching a graduate course in “Science and Human Values” at
Steinhardt in the 90s, I discovered these words by Michael Polanyi that, I suggest, say it
all:
“Science is an interrogation of nature but nature can only respond in the way the
question is asked. “
In the exhibit you may enjoy in a few minutes, notice the question the demonstration
asks about your saliva sample. It is asked in a way that will yield DNA data. It is not
designed to yield any other data—and will not.
In other words, finding and confirming evidence in different ways adds value to
science. Bringing people with diverse backgrounds and talents into scientific enterprises
advances scientific knowledge. And the same is true in teaching. That’s why I emphasize
this so. Some students come from homes where science is not yet spoken. This need not
be a disadvantage. In fact, the values, interests, and culture they bring may be just what
science needs. Viewed in this way, science should be more accessible and more
attractive. And I hope this makes crystal clear why the nature of scientific evidence must
be at the core of all science instruction.
Science research seeks scientific evidence to test hypotheses. In graduate school
we learned no definitions but we sure learned, by trial and error, to differentiate
6
scientific from nonscientific evidence. For a definition, I like Karl Popper’s best—the one
used by the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices wrote that scientific processes are based
upon “generating hypotheses and testing them to see if they can be falsified” and that this
“is what distinguishes science from other fields of human inquiry." A philosopher helped
me adapt this definition for general use. Different kinds of human inquiry can be
differentiated by the kind of evidence they pay attention to. For science, the evidence paid
attention to is falsifiable testable evidence.
As far as I know, all modes of human inquiry, not just science, use observations,
hypotheses and some kind of testing---for art the testing could simply be: “Do I like this
painting now?” and/or ” Do you like my painting?”. The hypothesis could be “If I
choose to use this color, I will like my painting and others will too.” Scientific inquiry
has proven to be extraordinarily useful because of the testability requirement. If
everyone must agree on my evidence, then this evidence becomes useful to everyone. It
is shared evidence. We can all use it. Historically, testable shared evidence was
necessary to dam the Nile, steer by the stars, avoid poison food, and know how many
minutes of boiling will produce a hard egg. Today the search is on for scientific evidence
to stop a particular flu virus disease from spreading. For this purpose, as for most
societal problems, scientific evidence must partner with other kinds of evidence
(geographic, historical, sociological) to develop political and management strategies.
The title for this talk claims that education in the sciences can help achieve a
competent, confident and democratic society. This claim is based on the following
assumptions. Understanding and being able to use the processes of scientific inquiry
7
helps develop student self-confidence through satisfying curiosity, and solving
problems. Scientific knowledge about personal and environmental health develops more
competent adults. And is not the ability to distinguish between different kinds of
evidence essential for active citizenry in a democratic society? For this point I remind
you of my favorite quotation –from the South African leader, Rampele Manphele, when
she was Chancellor of the University of South Africa. Speaking in 1998 at an AAAS
annual meeting in Washington D.C. on the topic of science for the developing world, she
said,
“With its emphasis on evidence and honesty, science enables us to call the bluff of those who
would lie to us.”
Perhaps you now see where I am going with this argument. Science education
can and does do much more than prepare for jobs and careers. It advances human
development. In classrooms, in board rooms, and in communities. Science needs and
deserves equal opportunity to join with the arts and humanities in advancing personal
and societal development.
.
I will conclude with three examples of policy changes that this view of science
and scientists could yield. Cries for more and more sci-tech literacy, teachers and
scientists all seem to end up on the backs of science teachers and their classrooms. But, I
have not heard literature teachers held responsible for producing a certain quota of
journalists. Why hold science alone accountable? There are historic reasons which we
have no time to go into here, so I will give just the simple answer. Why not hold
responsible for scientific literacy all modes of communicating science beyond the
8
classroom? Should they not all share resources AND accountability? A useful
understanding of science –for health and daily life--scientific literacy must be a
community responsibility. Let’s figure out what can be best communicated and
understood in classrooms, what best in museums, on TV, in different media. When
citing “good teachers” as the sine qua non of a STEM literate society, as politicians do,
why are not supportive communities, teacher education institutions, media and other
resources included?
Policy changes are also needed in school curricula. Some of you may have heard
me tell of my dream of elementary school—where children might explore all modes of
human inquiry concurrently. They could discuss the kind of questions different
inquirers ask about a tree--the artist, the historian, the scientist. Middle School testing
might seek evidence that students had understood and were able to use scientific,
artistic, historic, philosophical, mathematical, and technological inquiry. For the
Secondary School, my Regents exams might emphasize health and environmental
knowledge (with all the chemistry, biology and physics they include). The tough
problem will be to gain some accommodation from higher education concerning if and
what special preparation is needed for high school graduates to qualify for college preprofessional studies. My opinion is profoundly influenced by having been admitted to
the graduate department of physical biology at MIT without having had any courses in
biology in school or college…
Today’s increasing emphasis on interdisciplinary college courses may finally
relieve science instruction from the misperception that chemistry, biology and physics
9
must be presented as discrete subject building blocks, one on top of the other. When
designing curriculum and instruction of the North Carolina School of Science and
Mathematics, I suggested we start without departments and it worked beautifully—with
the faculty of all subjects sharing planning and implementing instruction. Just imagine
evaluating student progress through how well they understand and can use different
forms of inquiry–in daily life, in professional life, in political life. How’s that for a dream
to leave you with?
I would like to close with a few words about teacher education, about continuing
professional development for teachers. I accepted the invitation to join NYU’s Steinhardt
School faculty because, when I worked on the National Science Board 1983 report on K12 Mathematics, Science and Technology education and had a nationwide scope, I
discovered another misperception: good science students and good teachers are born not
made. This perception is, sadly, responsible for the appalling failure of so many school
boards to provide opportunities and funds for their teachers to continue to develop
professionally–to attend national professional meetings and join refreshment
workshops—the lifeblood of continuing education. I suggest that changing views of the
nature of science, and making scientific literacy a community responsibility could and
should vastly improve the professional skill and status of classroom teachers. For me,
the ideal outcome would be that science instruction is supported for its contribution to
human development—and that graduate schools for teacher education could help
advance this by emulating the Steinhardt’s objective: “education, culture and human
development.”
10
Thus, with pride and pleasure, I introduce Mary Braback, Dean of NYU’s
Graduate School of Education, Culture AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT.