Final Report (all chapters)

consultations. 36 These doubts are understandable, but hardly justified. Many case studies have
shown that citizens who are given an opportunity to examine a technological controversy
develop an uncanny ability to “deconstruct” scientific claims, to uncover questionable tacit
assumptions, and to thoroughly probe the empirical evidence experts rely on for their claims.
They become, in other words, experts at questioning scientific authority. 37
The important
question is not whether the public meets some a priori, arbitrary level of scientific literacy, but if
members of the general public, given the opportunity, can familiarize themselves with a complex
scientific and technological controversy. The evidence suggests that this is indeed the case. 38
Consider the case of stem cell research. At first, it would appear that scientific literacy
would matter a great deal. Leading scientists have argued that embryos should be sacrificed for
the sake of developing cures for hitherto incurable diseases. While these scientists have
expressed considerable confidence that this line of research will deliver revolutionary new cures,
the President’s Council on Bioethics, in a recent assessment of the state of the art, was far less
sanguine about the availability of cures in the immediate future. 39 A minority of scientists is not
convinced that the development of embryonic stem cells can precisely be controlled, and
recommends instead focusing on the less flexible but perhaps more promising area of adult stem
cells. Assessing the credibility and accuracy of competing scientific claims offered by equally
competent and credible scientists then would seem to require precisely the kind of scientific
expertise that the general public does not have.
A background in science or biology would be useful but is not necessary to evaluate
conflicting scientific perspectives. To adjudicate among competing scientific claims is to take on
the role of an investigative reporter. What are required are general analytical skills and a
reasonable, general level of education rather than expertise in cell and developmental biology.
An understanding of how scientific institutions work would also be helpful. For example, no
special expertise is necessary to probe scientists’ belief that the development of embryonic stem
cells can actually be controlled. 40 The public could also question the reasons for scientists’
aggressive pursuit of cloning technologies; conducting cloning research has been justified by the
need to develop immunologically compatible organs, but a lay audience may come to the
conclusion that this is a rather weak rationale, considering that clinical applications are many
36
37
38
39
40
The National Science Foundation (NSF) periodically conducts scientific literacy surveys whose results are, in the
eyes of NSF officials, invariably a source of concern. See
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/showsrvy.cfm?srvy_CatID=6&srvy_Seri=17.
Robert Futrell, "Technical Adversarialism and Participatory Collaboration in the U.S. Chemical Weapons
Disposal Program," Science, Technology and Human Values 28, no. 4 (2003).
Aaron Wildavsky, But Is It True? A Citizen's Guide to Environmental Health and Safety Issues (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1995).
President's Council on Bioethics, Applications of Human Stem Cells in Research and Medicine (2003 [cited
October 3, 2005]); available from http://www.bioethics.gov/background/sc_application.html.
By their own admission, and despite their best efforts, scientists so far have not been able to control how human
embryonic stem cells develop. But this ability is crucial, if any clinical application should come from this line of
research.
263