Kids and Science

     When kids are young, it is no surprise that they have a distinct interest in science. As stated in the prompt, it can be insects, rocks, dinosaurs etc. I believe that this sparked interest has to do with the high ambition and energy that kids exemplify. When you consider science, especially to those who have little interest in it, the common theme is that it is too complicated and too hard to understand. In its most simplified state, science is the gathering of testable knowledge and study of how things in the universe work. Children, around the preschool age, are in the early development of defining themselves and figuring out the world around them. In a sense, children and science can be defined in a similar way when you consider the developments.
     So what is it that makes kids shift away from science? In my opinion, the key ingredient is the fact that kids continue to define themselves and increase their worldly knowledge as they develop. As that development continues, the knowledge surrounding science proceeds to be more complex. Side by side, humans cannot keep up with the complexity of science. We can only attempt to understand the complexity and make the choice of whether furthering the knowledge is for us or not. People do not lose ambition or energy in science, but as we develop as humans we learn to cope with the world around us surrounding our interests. When you consider when exactly a child loses that interest in science, I believe there is no number or age you can associate with it. People find ways to survive in this world and as that complex issue develops, the interests tend to shift elsewhere. Kids find things to be interesting whether it may be tangible or not but as a child develops, I believe the lack of a grasp on science tends to deter the crowd.
      The lack of interest is the issue that drives scientific writers crazy. I like to call it the "million dollar question". If you could grasp the interest of a child in the general public's view, you would have it all solved. I believe that scientific writers just are not capable of restoring that interest or solving that mystery. Although the development of a human and science is my theory, I believe that the distinct lack of interest is too much for a writer to solve. As I said before, people learn to cope and engulf their time with that. Fitting science into a person's life is something that people do not see tangible results in. Without science resulting in something we can grasp, a writer cannot use his words to spark the interests we once believed in.

The work of a Scientist can always improve...

     In the ASA article, there is a clear goal set forth for scientific writers. In its simplest form, it is to question everything and do everything in your power to eliminate biases within ourselves and others. This is a taller task than words make it seem. As people we are raised and developed into biases and typically scientists are pushed into a more particular bias. This bias is that all that is scientifically proven is “correct”. This article insists that we must drop that in order to become better scientific pioneers/writers. Although it is relatively impossible to drop all biases in writing, it benefits us to consider the popular belief or public consensus. The goal of a journalist is to convey a relevant, interesting, and useful piece of work, but as scientists we want to find the happy medium. Our writing thrives on the factual evidence but our words are only as good as the reader allows it to be.
     By allowing ourselves to be open to the general public, we make ourselves better writers and scientists. As we know from history, we progress through dissecting a subject and improving that matter. It is the simple science of innovation. While writing scientifically and considering those who may contest the sciences, we must set a goal for the reader to choose to pursue. We need to set forth information but in a manner that is confrontational, factual, and open for the reader to decide their views. Rather than portraying our biases in the information we have dug out and pouring it on the reader, we can better ourselves by opening up and connecting to our reader. As scientists as well as citizens, these are basic concepts that can help our everyday lives. Confronting an issue and testing the truth allows us to further our own understanding and allows us to better those around us. It is a concept as humans that we are introduced to as young kids. Who has not heard, "Share with your friends" or "Be nice" or "wait your turn"? The concept of opening up, connecting, and being considerate of others, is something we can continue to learn from...AND YES! EVEN A SCIENTIST CAN KEEP LEARNING AND BE CONTESTED!

Prompt 1: Scientific Literacy

     For the first prompt, I will look into the importance of scientific literacy in a healthy democracy. I like to look at Scientific Literacy as the way to most simply bring important terms of everyday life to more understandable and compatible material. In other words, make important yet applicable terms feasible to the average person. Democracy, in general, thrives in the hands of the people and if scientific literacy is irrelevant, than the power is in the wrong hands. For instance, if "we" the people vote on the passing of climate controls, it is our duty to actually understand the concept. That task is easier said than done. The average Joe can attempt to pick up a book or turn on the news to become educated, but the scientific literacy of that person will handicap their ability to fully understand. What I am trying to get across is, Scientific Literacy and Democracy come hand in hand.
    The question is how and why? As I said before, we the people have the power. And the average Joe will not be able to decipher the 15 letter words and millions of viruses that we see flashing all over the TV. The majority of people do not have access or have the desire to further that knowledge. The answer is simplicity. Simplicity in the large, confusing terminology in hope to increase knowledge and awareness. Then you must consider why? If we can make those with the power educated and aware of those scientific constructs, then we are surely benefiting society through our knowledge. A basis of information will create awareness, but may not create interest.
    The solution here to a lack of interest in these "15 letter words" is not just educating. It is a educating in a broad, more basic fashion. By following this method, we can allow people to adapt and understand to different information rather than be narrow minded in certain areas. The result here is the turn off of topics that people cannot understand. That spark of interest combined with understanding, allows the advancement Democracy needs.
     A Democracy is looking to constantly progress and give the best product from the people. If people are responsible for proposing, developing, and creating the components of living, then the combination of Scientific Literacy increasing and interest increasing, will have a positive effect. The advancement must take place in order to open democratic citizen's eyes to important subjects they might otherwise surpass.

Posting Something...

..that is very special