When I speak to groups about scientifi c literacy, I often begin by asking audience members to shout out a signifi cant global problem. A typical list of responses might include poverty, prejudice, overpopulation, the economy, environment, gasoline prices, terrorism, drugs, crime, war, pollution, biodiversity, nuclear weapons, disease - you get the idea. Now, think through the causes and solutions of these problems. I think you’ll agree that nearly all are related to science and technology.

But if the world’s big issues are all connected to science and technology, then we’ve got a public education dilemma. Here’s how Carl Sagan, in his great 1995 book “The Demon-Haunted World,” put it: “We’ve arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology.

We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster.

... Sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”

Many of us look around and conclude Sagan was right and the world is infact already blowing up.

Yet, despite this evidence, the world remains scientifi cally illiterate. And scientists remain largely oblivious to the problem.

For example, most college physics departments - especially the researchoriented departments - place low priority on educating non-science students.

Now, some good news for America.

I’m frequently critical of our cultural and educational habits, but I’m a big fan of one American educational tradition, namely the “general education” courses usually required for college graduation. Here’s why:

John Miller is a scientist, sociologist and expert on the measurement of adult scientifi c literacy.

He defi nes scientifi c literacy as the knowledge needed to read sciencerelated articles in the daily newspapers. He has polled many nations to determine whether their adults have a rudimentary understanding of such concepts as molecule,energy, evolution, DNA and nuclear power. He also probes people’s understanding of the scientifi c process, namely that science is based on evidence and reason rather than on beliefs, ancient manuscripts, authority or your daddy’s opinions. On these polls, a “passing” score of 70 percent indicates an acceptable minimal level of scientifi c literacy.

Miller has polled the developed nations since 1988. His 2005 results are typical. Sweden, where 35 percent of the adults were found to be scientifi cally literate, scored highest. The United States was second with 28 percent. Thirty-two other nations, mostly European, scored well below the U.S., with 13 of them falling in the 1-to-9 percent range.

These scores are dismal. Even the highly developed nations are woefully scientifi cally illiterate. But there’s a bright spot for the USA: We came in second only to Sweden. We have scored first or second ever since polling began in 1988. This is surprising.

For years, the U.S. has scored in the lower third of the pack in international science testing at the eighth- and 12-grade levels.

From this, one would expect the U.S. to score in the lowest group of nations in Miller’s tests.

To learn why the U.S. does so well, Miller obtained additional information during the 2005 tests. He asked U.S.

test-takers their age, gender, religion, highest education level, number of college science courses taken, number of siblings and whether they used other science information sources.

Correlating these with their science literacy scores, he found that the strongest predictor of U.S.

scientific literacy was the number of college science courses people take.

Nearly all of those taking no such courses failed the test. Those who took more than three science courses passed much more frequently. The surprise: Those who took between one and three science courses also passed much more frequently.

This third group is the key. People who took one to three college science courses were almost certainly non-science students who must take a few science courses to graduate. Miller notes that the U.S. is the only major nation that requires college students to take such “general education” courses outside their professional requirements. All other nations require no general education courses. Miller’s results show that general education in the sciences makes a huge dift erence.

The conclusion is that all nations should follow our good example in requiring college students to pursue general education in the sciences.

Furthermore, America should further strengthen its college science course requirements, and science departments should pay more attention tothese courses.

It’s a dangerous world. A big part of both the danger and the solution lies in science. We need to take the science education of the average citizen much more seriously.

ART HOBSON IS A PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF PHYSICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS.

Opinion, Pages 13 on 01/08/2012