www.nature.com/natureimmunology • january 2003 • volume 4 no 1 • nature immunology

In 1859 Charles Dickens wrote in A Tale of Two Cities,“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it wasthe age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness …”.With regard to scientific literacy, we can rightly make asimilar statement about today’s two-tiered society. It dis-turbs most biologists that some school systems in the USrequire that creationism be presented as a legitimatealternative explanation to evolutionary change. However,it is equally disturbing when scientists assume a patron-izing ‘leave it to the experts’ attitude when pushing newtechnologies or using their scientific findings to influ-ence public policy decisions by governments or otherinstitutions. This latter approach can be counterproduc-tive and has already provoked an international anti-science backlash. Resistance to genetically engineeredagricultural products, particularly in Europe, is a policyfailure that has its roots not only in the ‘Green’ politicalmovement, but also in the insensitive approach that com-panies like Monsanto used to forward their own agendaswithout appreciating the informational needs and politi-cal views of the public. The British Government’sresponse to animal products tainted by the causal agentof mad cow disease only increased the distrust of UK cit-izens in their government’s ability to protect them.

Because science plays such a prominent role in ouropen societies, it is essential that an informed citizenryparticipate in these debates from their inception. Thehuman stem cell debate is a positive example of publicdialog not yet being outpaced by scientific progress.However, it is also an excellent example of how limit-ed the success of the debate can be if the public cannotevaluate the facts properly. It is in the interest of sci-ence that the lay public be schooled in the process ofscientific inquiry to prepare them for this role.

The public expects science to provide definitiveanswers. But it is the nature of scientific inquiry tomore often identify uncertainties and gaps in ourknowledge. Interpretation of the same ‘facts’ can legit-imately vary, which generates debate among scientists,policy makers and the lay public. Societies use avail-able scientific data to assess the benefits of screeningand treatment of chronic or preventable diseasesagainst economic, health and moral issues. The uncer-tainty inherent in new medical information also affectseveryday life, such as individual decisions on the use ofgenetic information about disease-associated traits oron weighing the risk of potential vaccine side effectsversus the likelihood of severe illness from a diseasethat is preventable by vaccination. Clearly, both indi-viduals and society as a whole need a better under-standing of relative risk.

Public interest in science is actually high, as seen byextensive news coverage, science programming on tele-vision and the number of science museums. TheInternet has also made public access to informationfaster and easier, providing educators with an opportu-nity to capitalize on science’s current popularity. Butthe Web varies greatly in quality and harbors misrepre-sentations and patent misinformation. Only recently,the disproven link between autism and measles vac-cines has again resurfaced. Thus, the challenge beforescience educators is to teach students to think criticallyabout information from all sources, to separate factfrom fiction and to see the ramifications of potentialoutcomes. In short, the lay public must become a savvyconsumer of scientific information.

As most attitudes toward science are developed dur-ing childhood, fostering a scientifically literate societystarts with primary school education. But excellent pri-mary educators in science are uncommon. In the worst-case scenario, students’ budding interests in science arestifled by educators not trained in science or who teachscience by rote memorization rather than as an activediscovery process leading to hypotheses and testing.The science community has introduced newer scienceteaching methods: some programs, which bring teach-ers into research settings, are funded by the USNational Institutes of Health. In the US, curriculumsupplements are available, but not mandatory, to helpteachers prepare lesson plans to teach problem-solvingskills to children. Implementation of nationwide scien-tific curriculum standards, common in other nations,would be a laudable goal for the US, but it is unlikelyto be realized. Participation of scientists on the localschool level is also critical, not just as concerned par-ents, but as scientist role models and mentors, availableto counter views voiced by antiscience advocates.

Fostering public interest through the improved sci-ence education of nonscientists and encouraging theirparticipation in policy decisions is a positive move thatwill lessen the distrust of science. And, as demonstrat-ed by early AIDS advocates, an informed public canexert considerable pressure that causes substantial pol-icy changes. The protest efforts of the ACT-UP coali-tion in the US led to a streamlined drug approvalprocess by the US Food and Drug Administration,without detrimental effects on public health. By pro-moting public discussions of science issues, policychanges better reflect the will of the citizenry, as politi-cians are asked to explain (or defend) their views onhealth care, technology and environmental topics. That,too, is a good thing.

EDITORIAL

Haves and have nots

volume 4 no 1 january 2003

1

©20

03 N

atu

re P

ub

lish

ing

Gro

up

h

ttp

://w

ww

.nat

ure

.co

m/n

atu

reim

mu

no

log

y