Miguel Aznar has posted some info on his involvement with the Foresight Nanotech Institute's 2007 Unconference and how he's helping promote nanotechnology literacy. Aznar has a penchant for talking about nanotech—along with a few of the popular misconceptions (check out Bill Joy's "Why the future doesn't need us")—but he's looking for better ways to discuss nanotechnology and other future technologies with students or even just a non-scientific audience. I especially agree with him that there are certain aspects of nanotechnology, and even microfluidics, that everyone should understand. It's true for most fields of science, actually.

Backing up that point with some noteworthy statistics, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) Journal this month published the results of a survey in which they asked 1000 likely voters the following true or false statements:

• The continents or land masses on which we live have been moving for millions of years and will continue to move in the future (79% correctly agreed)
• Antibiotics kill viruses as well as bacteria (43% correctly disagreed)
• The earliest humans lived at the same time as the dinosaurs (53% correctly disagreed).

Those were followed up with questions about whether evolution—as opposed to creationism or intelligent design—should be taught in schools. Of those who answered all three questions correctly (23%), there was a much higher percentage who believed that evolution should be in science classes (78%). Among those who did poorly on the quiz (0 or 1 correct), the results were more evenly distributed between the teaching of evolution (36%), creationism (38%), and intelligent design (39%).

Some might look at these results and worry about the intellectual state of our country. However, the results make sense and they don't have anything to do with the intelligence of the general population, but instead the strength (or weakness) of our country's science education. It's apparent that a chunk of the general population doesn't make the connection between fighting disease and evolutionary biology, when in fact, the former would be impossible without the latter.

The FASEB Journal is pointing out what a lot of teachers already know: we need scientists, doctors, nurses, and anyone else with a strong scientific background to talk to the public (especially schools) about science. It's not just related to evolution. General science concepts, the scientific method, and definitions of terms like "hypothesis" and "theory," should be discussed as often as possible in science classes.

The article ends fittingly:

There is a clear need for scientists to become involved in promoting science education. Challenges to teaching science undermine students’ understanding of the scientific method, how scientific consensus develops, and the distinction between scientific and non-scientific explanations of natural phenomena. If our nation is to continue to develop the talent necessary to advance scientific and medical research, we must ensure that high standards in science education are maintained and that efforts to introduce non-science into science classes do not succeed. Failure to reach out effectively to a public that is supportive of science and open to information from the scientific community is not just a missed opportunity, it is a disservice to the scientific enterprise.