INTRODUCTION

SCIENTIFIC LITERACY: MINIMUM SCIENCE FOR EVERYONE

By Dr Narender K. Sehgal

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1982, I took charge of the NCSTC, the National Council for Science and Technology Communication, in India, after it had just been established to (i) popularise science and technology; (ii) to stimulate scientific and technological temper among the people; and (iii) to coordinate, and if possible orchestrate, all programmes and activities in this area in the country. Even before NCSTC had been established, a whole lot of organisations and individuals in the country -- in the government and non-government sectors -- were carrying out science popularisation activities independently of each other, in their own ways and in geographical areas of their choice, or within their reach. There were science museums and science centres, popular lectures, popular writings in different languages, exhibitions, model making, competitions and quizzes, nature camps, educational tours and so on. But there was no coordination, no overall design, not even a long term plan, no checks on effectiveness, and no incentives for improvement.

When NCSTC actually initiated some concrete activities, there was one thought that kept coming to us all the time: Only if we knew what exactly in science and technology should be popularised or communicated to every man, woman and child, our task would become so much easier. It would only be a matter of putting together a package of content, methods, means and media to effectively deliver that “minimum science” to everyone in the target group. Monitoring and assessment too would become a simple affair. This thought led us to the idea of Scientific Literacy, or Minimum Science for Everyone.

II. THE CONCEPT

The idea of "Minimum science for everyone" draws heavily from

the concept literacy itself. Just as, presently, there is

world-wide consensus on the need and desirability of every self-

respecting individual (above a certain age) to be literate, there

is a strong case for promoting the idea that every self-respect-

ing citizen of this world (i.e. of every country) ought to be

"scientifically literate".

However, before the idea of 'scientific literacy' is able to gain

Widespread acceptance the world over, it would need to be

Well-articulated, and elaborated upon. Not only that, we would

need to come up with an operational definition of 'scientific

Literacy' or of 'Minimum science for everyone' -- together with

details of its contents, and a fairly well tried and tested

System of delivery.

But why scientific literacy? What case is there for it? In a

world getting increasingly dependent on science -- the word

`Science’ is being used here in a generic sense to include all

its manifestations and applications in different forms -- every

Citizen needs to be equipped with a certain minimum of basic

Scientific (and technical) knowledge and an operational/practi-

Cal familiarity with and understanding of the scientific metho-

dology!

A scientifically literate citizen is likely to keep (him/her)

self more aware and better informed about

Matters/issues/events/questions/everyday happenings with scien-

tific and/or technical contents or aspects which concern or

relate to his/her everyday life (health, education, employment,

housing, food, drinking water, etc.) and security; and those

concerning/relating to his/her family, community, city, state,

and country. In addition, a scientifically literate person,

among others, is likely to be:

(i) better placed to critically examine and analyse pros

and cons of issues with a scientific content;

(ii) a better participant in debates on issues concerning

science and technology because of informed opinion(s)

(iii) better able to appreciate technological advances and to

make use of them to his/her advantage;

(iv) less inclined to take things for granted and more

inquisitive and in the habit of asking questions;

(v) less affected by superstitions and blind beliefs;

(vi) less fatalistic in approach/attitude;

(vii) better able to differentiate between fact and fiction;

(viii) better able to deal with threats/ onslaughts on

natural resources needed for survival.

(ix) better able to argue his/her case on an issue of

importance;

(x) more confident and self-assured in any discussions; and

more.

The level and depth of awareness in each case would naturally

depend on the individual and his/her needs and circumstances.

Each level of awareness would also be associated with a certain

level and depth of scientific knowledge -- which, incidentally,

would vary from one individual to another. For instance, a

farmer would know, or need to know, a great deal more about soil,

soil types, seed varieties, fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation

cycles, crop rotations etc, and in general about agriculture,

than another citizen who is not a farmer. Therefore, it would

make sense to define scientific literacy in terms of the knowl

edge and understanding of the "minimum science" that every indi

vidual above a certain age ought to possess.

Admittedly the "minimum science" would need to be supplemented

cases. Those in the medical/health profession would obviously

need to know a lot more in these areas. Thus, as the nomencla-

ture itself indicates, "minimum science" would be the minimum

required for everyone. For many it would not be sufficient in

itself -- just as mere literacy is hardly sufficient for anyone

wanting to make good or frequent use of the printed word.

The above should provide ample justification, or base-line argu-

ments to build further or stronger defence or better articulation

of the case for scientific literacy. Making a case for it was

relatively simple and straight forward, but it is far more com-

plicated a matter to arrive at an operational and practical

definition or detailing of what should constitute "minimum

science" for everyone. How does one go about doing it? What

would be the considerations and important factors to be taken

into account?

And once we have arrived at an acceptable definition, how does

one go about equipping everyone with this scientific literacy?

In any discussion on scientific literacy, there are two ques-

tions, among others, which are bound to come up, sooner or later.

One: can there be a universal definition of "Scientific

Literacy", or of "Minimum Science for Everyone"? And two: Can

such a definition, arrived at once, continue to remain unchanged

for long? In the view of the author, if the task of arriving at

the definition of "Scientific Literacy", or of "Minimum Science

for Everyone" has been accomplished well and truly, the answer to

both the foregoing queries ought to be an emphatic "Yes"! Those

among the readers, who haven't previously had a chance to think

through answers to such questions in some depth and detail,

would have a tendency to immediately react by disagreeing with

this affirmative answer. Not only that, there may be some who

would even question the basic premise of this whole discussion

i.e. that whether it is at all possible to even define such a

thing as "Minimum science for everyone"! In fact, initially,

they would try arguing that such a thing was simply not possible!

Let's look at the question of defining "minimum science for

everyone". There are several aspects which need to be looked at:

the meaning we associate with the word 'science' for this pur-

pose; our expectations of a scientifically literate person, or of

one in possession of the 'minimum science' which we seek to

define; and what would an individual gain from becoming scientif_

ically literate (by acquiring the 'minimum science' we seek to

define).

Let's first took at the meaning we would like to ascribe to the

word 'science' in the context of scientific literacy. One hardly

need emphasize that 'science' here has to mean something much

wider and broader in sweep than what students are taught at

school as part of the curriculum. In other words, 'science' here

would mean understanding and application of knowledge (including

the most basic of facts and scientific principles) which would

enable an individual to cope with everyday happenings, events and

phenomena around him/her; to internalise the method of science

and make use of it in whatever he/she does; and to diminish

his/her vulnerability to fall prey to blind faith, superstitious

beliefs, the so called 'miracles' of common conmen and self-

styled godmen, false and exaggerated claims in advertisements

pushing `scientifically' produced goods which serve no real

purpose, and to increasing westernisation in the garb of `scien-

tific' modernisation.

Let's look next at what we expect of a scientifically literate

person (i.e. one who has acquired the "minimum science" we seek

to define for everyone -- henceforth we will use these inter-

changeably). Some of this ought to be evident from the meaning we

have sought to ascribe to the word `science'. Earlier on too we

have alluded to what a scientifically literate person is likely

to be, in addition to being more aware and better informed about

scientific aspects of issues/problems/happenings/events/phenomena

which confront him/her in every day life. Moreover, with large

scale proliferation of electric and electronic gadgets, devices,

and appliances of all kinds in homes and offices, increasing

mechanisation in farming and other agricultural operations, and

an ever increasing proportion of the work force getting engaged

in non-agricultural operations (design, engineering, manufacture,

transport and in the multi farious services sector), a scientific-

cally literate and aware workforce and populace are absolutely

essential for efficiency, efficacy, safety, quality and economy

of their operations -- and optimal use of the available re-

sources.

From what has been stated above, there is little doubt that the

arguments are overwhelmingly in favour of scientific literacy.

However, having said that, let's look at it from the point-of-

view of an individual who is presently not scientifically liter-

ate, and not in possession of the "minimum science" we seek to

define for everyone! How would our efforts aimed at making

him/her scientifically literate, be viewed by such an individu-

al. He/she ordinarily would not be interested in becoming

scientifically literate, unless there is something in it for the

individual -- and this "something" would depend on his/her per-

ception and the existing ground realities around him/her. It is

basically a cost-benefit calculation! The cost or benefit need

not necessarily be monetary in nature; and often they are not!

People would do a thing for a wide variety of reasons: because it

is trendy or fashionable; it is the done thing; not doing it

would be considered improper by those who matter or by the socie-

ty around; it would result in alternative monetary gains; it

would be good for the family, community, profession, city, state,

or the country; it is challenging; or because it can be avoided

only at an unacceptable cost. Only some possibilities have been

given; there can be many more reasons. In fact, it is because of

such reasons that literacy drives in many parts of India had not

been able to make much of a headway earlier. It is only when we used

a fresh approach, tried out first in our science popularisation

programme in1987, via the Bharat Jan Vigyan Jatha (BJVJ) project,

that our literacy campaign registered significant gains. It began

with the Bharat Jan Gyan Vigyan Jatha (BJGVJ) of 1992 which

attempted to spread the message of science and literacy together. In

fact, efforts during the decade of 1990s added most to our literacy

percentages in quantitative terms.

It is quite clear from the foregoing discussion that in today's

science-and-technology driven world, it is not only possible to

define "scientific literacy" - or "a minimum science for every-

one" - it is also essential to promote it and make it accessible

to all!

II. DEFINING SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

Having established the need for scientific literacy, how does one

go about defining it in a way that would give the resulting

definition a more than even chance of universal acceptability and

-- perhaps even more important -- a high degree of credibility

among common people everywhere. This credibility has to be in

terms of the perceived utility, of scientific literacy (SL), and

the unmistakable benefits that people could hope to derive by

becoming "scientifically literate", vis-a-vis costs in terms of

time, effort and possibly money, they -- or someone else -- would

need to invest in doing so.

One can right away see that arriving at a definition of SL ful-

filling all the abovementioned requirements is going to be no

mean task! Nevertheless, the outlines of what needs to be done

are not too difficult to discern from what has been stated above.

Let us pick up one by one the lines of approach that need to be

pursued.

The "minimum science" package would clearly have to have the

following essential components: (i) Acquiring knowledge of cer-

tain scientific principles and facts, (ii) Internalisation and

application of the method of science, and (iii) Acquiring the

ability to continue to learn.

Of these three components, the most difficult to define is going

to be the first one i.e. the facts and principles of science that

have to be included in the "minimum science" package (MSP). In

the case of the other two components, though it would not be

nearly as difficult to define them, their delivery (when included

in the MSP) to the people isn't going to be an easy or a very

simple task to accomplish.

Let's take up the most difficult part first, i.e that of going

about defining the facts and principles of science that should be

included in the MSP for everyone. But where do we start? The

most logical starting point would have to be the people who need

to be made scientifically literate. Before we begin defining

MSP, we most definitely would need to know what these people

already and presently know about science. Having found that out,

one would need to start with almost the lowest common denominator

as our baseline, to begin piecing together the MSP.

Finding out about what people already know in the name of

science, what their perceptions of science and the scientific

methodology are, and whether or not these things have strong

correlations with several factors (such as age, sex, religion,

educational background or level of an individual as well as those

of his/her parents, source of livelihood, type of neighbourhood,

availability of and access to mass media, and so on) is also a

task that requires a certain kind of expertise which is not so

readily available. This task has necessarily to be accomplished

by conducting specialised surveys. Those designing and con-

ducting them need a strong grounding

in science and scientific methodology. (The run-of-the-mill

social scientists without any scientific background, and

bereft of any practical experience with scientific

methodology, would not be able to do justice to such surveys.)

It is essential for the success of MSP that the "baseline"

information be very very reliable. This is an important point

needing further elaboration.

Before we go any further, we need to take a little detour, and a

very important one at that to discuss something very important.

Several civilisations and cultures were in existence and thriving

prior to the onset of the so-called 'modern science and technolo-

gy' era, in different parts of the world. In each case, people

had devised and developed their own ways, means and methodologies

to gather knowledge, to make use of it, to preserve it, and to

pass it on to the following generations. And each generation, in

its own unique way, improved upon and refined the existing knowl-

edge and perhaps added to it. Even today, some of these knowl-

edge-bases and knowledge gathering/acquiring systems are in place

and in use in different parts of the world, side by side with the

modern, institutionalised, codified systems.

We need to recognise that the modern scientific methodologies and

systems have been developed and built as improvements over older,

endogenous and indigenous systems -- and that efforts need to and

would be made to spread and popularise the adoption and use of

improved (i.e. the modern S&T) methods. But till that happens,

large numbers of people in different parts of the world would

continue to work with methodologies and within the knowledge

systems familiar and available to them.

The point that needs to be stressed is that due respect ought to

be accorded to knowledge and techniques, which experimentally and

repetitively prove to be of practical value in dealing with real

life problems/situations -- irrespective of the knowledge system

which originated them. For, if something works in a given situa-

tion repeatedly and reliably, the onus of discovering the

`science' and a `scientific explanation' behind it is on modern

science and technology!

People's perceptions of science and what they know in the name of

science

We have already mentioned that this knowledge can only be gained

through a survey among the people concerned. The design of the

survey questionnaire is crucial. What sorts of questions should

be asked of the people to learn about whatever we are wanting to

learn from them? In India, such exercises have already been

conducted over the years at a few places, with fairly large

sample sizes. A great deal of preparatory work went into them

and into arriving at a suitable questionnaire for the purpose.

Let me give some details.

For designing a questionnaire, we had picked the following broad

areas (to formulate questions which, in our view, would be able

to elicit answers containing in them the information we were

looking for): (i) Astronomy and cosmology (ii) Geography and

climate; (iii) Agriculture, and (iv) Health and hygiene. Why

these areas? Except for "agriculture", the other three areas

would probably have to be included in the list to be drawn up for

similar questionnaires anywhere in the world. Wherever agricul-

ture is no longer a dominant concern in the lives of people, it

would need to be replaced by one or more of those areas which

reflect their major concerns.

Let's look at the selected areas one by one. Take "Astronomy and

Cosmology": From times immemorial, humans have looked at the sky,

watched the waxing/waning moon and other objects in it move in

different ways, appear or disappear with regularity, wondered

with awe at unusual or occasional events or occurrences like

shooting stars, comets, eclipses, occultations, meteors and so

on.

Everyone has watched the sky, wondered about various objects and

their movements and heard about old controversies i.e. geocen-

tric or heliocentric universe, demons Rahu and Ketu swallowing

the moon or the sun during eclipses and the attendant myths and

beliefs. Over the years, many a question has been answered, many

a myth has been shattered, and phenomena of eclipses have been

well understood and explained scientifically. People have

wondered about how the universe came about, how many stars are

out there, how and for what purpose humans are here on earth, are

there other worlds like ours, out there, and so on. Thus,

our familiarity, or acquaintance with objects in the

sky, and questions concerning the cosmos, is much older

than concepts of formal education, or even literacy. We thus

expect that everyone would and should already have some minimum

knowledge of this subject. We would need to find out just what

they know.

Next, let us take "Geography and Climate". Much like astronomy

and cosmology, humans have had to know and learn about their

geography and climate in order to survive and grow. Through

theirobservations and experience they learnt about the rising and

the setting of the Sun with regularity, the variations in the

duration ofthe days and nights, the coming of summers and

winters, and otherdifferent seasons in yearly cycles, the waxing

and the waning of themoon in monthly cycles, the concept of the

calendar based on the time taken by the moon to go around the

earth and the earth to go around the Sun. Man had to learn to

live in deserts, on islands surrounded by sea/ocean, in the

hills, and so on while. Man learnt to cope with the sun, rain,

wind, and extremes in variations of temperature during the day

and over extended periods. In earlier times, through their

sustained observations and analysis they were often able to

establish useful correlations between the two! We know today

that there is a great deal of science involved in geography

and climate. But what do common people know or need to know

about these subjects in today's context.

The third area selected was that of "Health and hygiene". This

is a subject with which everyone of us -- no matter who, what and

where we are -- has to be concerned with and learn about. Before

the widely prevalent and many of the modern systems of health and

medical sciences made their appearance and got established,

humans have had to cope with their problems of health and hygiene

while carrying on their struggle for food and survival against

odds of all kinds. Over the years, advances in knowledge, in-

struments, equipment, techniques and materials in the fields of

medical science and technology, have helped us to achieve present

levels of birth and death rates, life expectancy, rates of

infant mortality and eradication of so many deadly diseases

which used to ravage humans in the bygone era. What do common

people know and what are their present perceptions? We need to

find out.

Can we think of more such areas of universal significance for

people everywhere, irrespective of their geographical location,

economic health, standard of living, or level of education? The

area of Computers and Information Technology (IT) is fast

assuming a status that will make it a fit candidate for this

purpose. Even at [present, it is becoming almost impossible for

an educated person to find a job if she/he is not computer-

literate. IT and computers are proliferating everywhere into our

lives and in a few countries, the transformation may have already

been completed. Several others may be on their way. In India, and

in several other countries similarly placed, such a

transformation may never really get fully completed. Such areas

could also be considered while designing the questionnaire.

For the survey in India "agriculture" was chosen as the fourth

area, largely because nearly two-thirds of the entire Indian

population continues to be dependent directly or indirectly on

"agriculture" or related occupations for its livelihood. Proba-

bly, similar is, or has been, the case with most other

countries.

During their early phases of industrialisation, the percentage

of people dependent on agriculture and related operations was

large, but had been going down progressively. Even so, a

large number of people still involve themselves with home and

kitchen gardens, lawns, social forestry and the like. Thus one

would still expect most people to know a little about the basic

scientific facts and principles relating to agriculture. In tha

sense, this too is pretty universal in nature.

In any case, depending on the existing ground realities, another

area or areas could also be considered for the survey.

The complications, in the survey to be conducted to find out what

common people already know about or in the name of science, arise

from the fact that, to do so, we really need to have a fairly

good idea of what MSP itself should contain; for if one had no a

priori inkling of what a scientifically literate person should

know/learn, it would be impossible to design and devise a suit-

able set of questions for a survey, to discover what people

already know (or do not know) about science or scientific method-

ology!

Let me give you a glimpse of the findings of the two surveys

conducted at Allahabad (1989) during the Kumbh Mela1 and at

Mangolpuri(1991)2 - a suburb of Delhi with a population whhich is

neither urban, nor really rural.

"The analysis of the data collected during the two surveys re-

vealed that factors such as socialisation in modern systems of

education, the nature of occupation, the gender, age and the

cultural environment of the respondents were significantly corre-

lated with the response variable. The analysis further revealed

that the percentage of those respondents who could not offer any

explanation to various questions related to natural phenomena and

said Don't Know in the urban sample was substantially higher when

compared with that of the rural sample; and this led to the

conclusion that erosion of traditional knowledge systems has

taken place over a period of time and new structures of thought

are yet to fill in the gap.

Furthermore, the statistical models developed by computer for the

selected areas showed a high level of sensitivity to the inde-

pendent variables _ cultural predisposition, and education scored

next to this variable on the sensitivity scale. This essentially

suggests that socialisation in the modern system of education is

a necessary but not a sufficient condition for inculcating deeper

understanding of the scientific phenomena. The cultural modes of

dissemination of information assume significant importance in the

light of the above argument. It was observed while analysing the

data collected earlier that since the majority of the inhabitants

in the J.J. Colonies of Delhi have migrated from neighbouring

villages about 10 to 15 years ago, interaction with the metropol-

itan setup, change in the field of experience, the on-slaught of

new technologies, especially those related to the mass media are

impinging on the coming generation, thereby obliterating and

toppling the traditional cultural heritage. The coming genera-

tion appears to be in a state of transition, forgetting the old

cultural traditions but yet to come to terms with the new metro-

politan culture.

The factors that influenced the apparent knowledge base of the

sampled population the most was access to a modern educational

network. Occupation, gender, duration of stay in Delhi and the

access to channels of information were found to have a strong,

statistically significant relationship with the response varia-

ble.

The following three factors operated as determinants of scientif-

ic knowledge base of the populace.

a) the degree of complexity, counter-intuitive or mathemati-

cally obtuse explanation required to unfold the life cycle of the

phenomena,

b) the intensity with which the phenomena intervene in the

life of the population,

c) the degree of collective or individual control which the

respondents could exercise in this process of intervention."

These two studies were followed by a third study+ at Allahabad

(1995) at the Ardh Kumbh Mela, with a similar set of questions

and a sample size of about 3000. An attempt was made to compare

the results of the two surveys conducted almost at the same site

with a very similar target group at Allahabad -- after a gap of

six years! The inferences drawn after an analysis are summarized

below.

"The awareness level of the urban* population (Ardh Kumbh) was

comparatively higher compared to their rural (Kumbh) counter-

parts.

Traditional complexes of thinking were prevalent among the rural

populace to a comparatively larger extent compared to urban

sampled population.

A large percentage of total populace interviewed during 1989,

offered intuitive explanations based on their field of experimen-

tal knowledge and the percentage of intuitive interpretations

offered by the urban populace was comparatively low.

The response extra-scientific was offered by a fairly large

section of respondents among those who were interviewed during

the Kumbh Mela when compared with similar segments who constitut-

ed the urban sample. The percentage of those respondents who

said don't know was quite high among the urban populace compared

to the sample collected during the Kumbh Mela held in 1989.

As the complexity level of the explanation involved increased,

the percentage gap in the scores of scientifically correct re-

sponses offered by the respondents interviewed during the two

religio-cultural events reduced.

Awareness about the 'causes of earthquakes' and 'rainbows' among

the rural populace was comparatively high. The reason could be

attributed to the difference in the realm of experience and the

degree of dependence on nature of the two sets of population.

It was evident from the data analysis that as the questions

became increasingly complex in the area of agriculture, the

experiential knowledge system that trains the community of agri-

culturalists influenced their thought processes to a far greater

degree as compared to the modern classroom knowledge imparted

during socialization in the formal education system."

The above does give an idea of how to go about determining,

among any part of the populace in a country, what people already

know about or in the name of science. We next go on to another

very crucial aspect in the formulation of MSP, which might ulti-

mately determine whether or not there would be ready takers for

the MSP among the people we are aiming to design it for!

Method or Method(s) of Science!

While knowledge may be acquired in any number of ways including

empirical, using many methods, its proper validation is a must

-- in terms of repeated experimental verifiability anywhere and

everywhere under the same or similar set of conditions. There is

only one method of science that has to be applied for valida-

tion, irrespective of the system used to acquire knowledge. Any

system that does not provide for such validation of acquired

knowledge cannot be accepted as "scientific".

-----------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE:

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 1995 ARDH KUMBH SAMPLE

Of all the respondents, at the Ardh Kumbh in 1995, 25.9% were

illiterate. Primary and middle pass were 13% each and 13% were

graduates. About 6% of the total respondents had completed their

post-graduation course and 13% were graduates. Among the earlier

set of respondents i.e. the 1989 sample the percentage of the

illiterate segment was quite high (48.8%) and only 1.4% were

graduate and above. It is evident from the data analysis that

the second sample, on exposure to the education scale could be

placed at a much higher level compared to the earlier one. So

most of the respondents who had come during the Ardh-Kumbh were

residents of small towns rather than villages and hence their

degree of access to the system of modern education was compara-

tively much higher than the population that was sampled during

the Kumbh Mela held in 1989 (See Table 1).

Table 1: Education-wise Percentage Distribution

----------------------------------------------------------------

Categories 1989 1995

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Illiterate 48.8 25.9 (*)

Primary 24.4 13.4

Upper Primary 12.7 13.1

High Sec./Secondary (10) 8.9 16.3

Sr. Secondary (12) - 12.1

Graduate 1.0 13.0

Post graduate and Others 0.4 6.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------

(*)Value in percentage

Occupation

According to the nature of profession that a respondent pursued,

the sampled population was classified into ten categories. Women

respondents who did not work outside the house were categorized

as Housewife and constituted about 14.7% of the total re-

spondents. Those who reported labourer, scavenger, sweeper,

rickshaw puller, waiter at roadside dhaba, as their profes_

sion, put together were 2.7%, and were, for the purpose of

analysis, put under the category unskilled workers. Those who

were engaged in skilled jobs such as carpentry, electrical, or

electronics repair or assembly, were 3% of the total sample and

formed the subset labelled as skilled workers. About 10.3% were

engaged in business. Those who owned small roadside kiosks of

cigarettes, bidis, paan (betel leaf), Tea stall, etc, have been

included in the category of petty traders. As high as 16.8%

of the total respondents were engaged in private or government

service and 2.7% were professionals and artists including paint-

ers, musician, photographers, physicians, lawyer, etc. About

12.7% of the total respondents were students, a significantly

high percentage when compared with the percentage of students

present in the 1989 data set which was only about 0.4%.

Those who were engaged in agricultural activities including

farmers and agricultural labourers were about 23.8% of the total

sampled population. The percentage of the agrarian population in

the Kumbh Mela data set was 53%. This again points out that

those who visited Ardh-Kumbh had come from urban or semi-urban

settlements and the rural population of northern India does not

perceive this event to be as significant as the Kumbh Mela, held

after every twelve years. In response to the question 'what

profession are you engaged in?' some 3.6% respondents said that

they were unemployed or were not engaged in any productive activ-

ity (See Table 2).

Table 2: Occupation-wise Percentage Distribution

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Category 1989 1995

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Housewife 4.8 14.4 (*)

Agriculture 53.0 23.7

Service 6.6 16.2

Worker 10.8 7.7

(Skilled) - (3.8)

(Unskilled) - (3.9)

Shopkeeper/Business 12.0 11.6

Petty traders - 1.9

Student 0.4 10.8

Unemployed 1.8 7.0

-----------------------------------------------------------------

(*)Value in percentage

------------------------------------------------------------

III. FACTORS/CONSIDERATIONS TO DETERMINE CONTENT OF MSP

OR SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

There are two aspects which need attention. One is the definition

of Scientific Literacy as per purely theoretical considerations.

The other is the high degree of acceptability of MSP that would

be required if Scientific Literacy is to gain widespread popular-

ity as a desirable goal as perceived by a majority of the common

people -- the desirability, no doubt being strongly driven by

benefit-cost perceptions! What this means is that in designing

and formulating the MSP, the user ought to be an active partici-

pant/contributor -- and it would be ideal if the subject could be

widely discussed and debated openly and on a large-scale.

On the face of it, these two aspects may appear to be placing

contradictory demands on the essential content of Scientific

Literacy or MSP. However, if we look into this a little more

closely, we would discover that such a contradiction can be

traced to our system of education -- in particular, of science

education! The formal education that is being imparted in most

places around the world is so far removed from reality, real-life

situations, and practical applications that any attempts at

defining the content of Scientific Literacy in academic terms is

bound to score poorly in so far as common people's "benefit-cost"

perceptions are concerned -- and will hence prove a non-starter

when time comes for its delivery to the target audience.

So, one thing is quite clear! We should not even attempt to

define the content of Scientific Literacy (or MSP), by involving

(academic) subject experts who have never made an effort to

communicate science in the local every day language to the common

people, or have never had a chance to work in the field with

common people in trying to devise solutions to non-standard but

common every-day problems through application of scientific

principles, knowledge, techniques and methodology -- things which

ordinarily are not likely to find ready references in any books,

or even in any published works!

On the other hand, while purely academically oriented experts may

not be very helpful, those without good grounding in science, and

without any experience of (formal) scientific methodology would

also be unsuitable for this kind of work, no matter how well-

meaning and eager to participate in this endeavour.

Let's, momentarily, move to the other side as it were and examine

this whole thing from the point of view of a scientifically

illiterate person*. who is presently employed as a driver, say,

of an office vehicle and who would be our likely target for the

minimum science programme. He is on duty at least 12 hours a day,

six days a week on an average -- and yet is barely able to sup-

port his own family of four, plus parents -- with his wife,

mother and father doing odd jobs to contribute towards expendi-

ture on their survival. How would he and his family members

react or respond to pleas or messages that they come forward to

become "scientifically literate"? What would you or I do in

his/their place?

Right away, I would like to know: What would I have to do to

become scientifically literate? What will it cost me in terms of

time, money and/or effort? How long will this take? How would I

or my family benefit, or be better off after I

become scientifically literate?"

Answers to these questions would determine the kind of response

the MSP would be able to generate: enthusiastic, positive, indif-

ferent, or negative. We obviously need to define SL and devise

an MSP, likely to make people respond positively and enthusiasti-

cally. This would surely get us on the right track. But to

convert this enthusiasm and positive response into more and more

scientifically literate people would require a whole lot of other

parallel efforts and follow-up exercises.

After we are all done, simple answers to the above-mentioned

questions ought to emerge somewhat like this: To become "scien-

tifically literate", one would have to acquire the knowledge and

skills as well as practice of methodology specified in the MSP;

yes, some time, effort, and perhaps funds would have to be in-

vested; the time it would take one to accomplish this task would

depend on one's existing knowledge and skill base and one's pace

of learning; and becoming "scientifically literate" would defi-

nitely benefit one and one's family in many different ways.

These are no doubt very general answers, but specifics would have

to wait till details/specifications of MSP have been arrived at.

IV. CONTENTS OF SCIENTIFIC LITERACY

(OR MINIMUM SCIENCE PACKAGE)

To get things going and initiate a discussion on this subject,

let me give below a formulation of the contents of MSP which was

suggested during an exercise done for the same purpose in India

nearly a whole decade and half ago3.

Starting with the meaning of the word 'science' -- making a

distinction between the `science' a physicist, chemist, engineer

or another professional does as part of his/her profession and

the `science' a common person comes across in his/her day-to-day

life, say, in the kitchen, in the garden, at work, or in one's

profession -- and after presenting well- reasoned aarguments and a

case in its favour, this formulation suggests the following broad

areas for inclusion in the MSP: (i) Health and related issues;

(ii) Environment and related issues; (iii) Mensuration and other

miscellaneous topics, as far as the science part is concerned;

and (iv) Agricultural science and technology (S&T); and (v)

Technologies for urban and urbanised population, as essential

elements of the "minimum technology" in rural and urban settings.

Under each of these broad subject areas, a number of themes were

listed:

1. Health and related issues:

(i) General considerations; (ii) Hygiene; (iii) Drinking water

and sanitation; (iv) Diseases, causes and cures; (v) Sex,

reproduction and contraception; (vi) Child-care; and (vii) Addic-

tions and unhealthy practices.

2. Environment and related issues

(i) Air, atmosphere and weather; (ii) water; (iii) Soil; (iv)

Trees and forests; (v) Other natural resources; (vi) Food con-

tamination; (vii) Clothing and housing; and (viii) Biosphere and

ecology.

3. Mensuration and miscellaneous:

(i) Mensuration; (ii) Calendars and cellestial bodies;

(iii) Children's education; (iv) Radio, television and other

gadgets; and (v) General.

4. Agriculture Science and Technology:

(i) Agriculture; (ii) Animal husbandry and poultry and (iii)

Others.

5. Technologies for urban and urbanised population:

(i) Electricity, (ii) Appliances; (iii) Manufactured consumer

goods; (iv) Exercise; and (v) Water purification. For each of

these themes, further elaborations were also provided.

(Annexure I)

Looking at the above, one is sure to protest that the proposed

content is too heavy, for something being billed as "minimum

science" - even if the listings are supposedly onnly illustrative

and not really comprehensive. Nevertheless, without a practical

or functional understanding of the underlying principles in-

volved, man's survival would be threatened. But having said

that, while the content part can be cut down, reduced, or re-

tained as it is, there is another essential component of the MSP

which has to do with a scientific outlook and approach without

which no one could rightly claim to be "scientifically literate".

Included in this are habits of not taking things for granted,

asking questions and seeking answers, making observations, exper-

imentation, learning-by-doing, trying out new things, thinking

things afresh for oneself, ability to create and innovate, urge

to learn new things, skills and urge to explore and try things

which no one has tried before, and the like.

A third element in the MSP relates to acquisition of an ability

to continue learning for ever. This is essential also in the

context of the content of MSP. In the discussion above, there is

mention somewhere of the volume of the suggested content in some

exercise being "too heavy" for something to be called a

"minimum". This notwithstanding a person with a scientific

outlook and basic creativity -- and an ability to continue learn-

ing -- would only need to be initiated propeerly into learning the

MSP; he/she would be able to draw up his/her own agenda for

learning and continue building on it.

V. PRETESTING AND DELIVERY

Once we have defined "Scientific Literacy" (SL) and suitably

designed a "Minimum Science" package (MSP) for all, we would need

to check it out for its saleability and effectiveness among the

intended audiences. For such pretesting we would need to devise

a good delivery system, or systems, which will accomplish the

task effectively. Not only that, we would also have to devise a

mechanism to quantitatively test as to how well or successfully

is our delivery system able to deliver the MSP.

a. Delivery

Depending on the content and the target audience, there may be

several ways of delivery:

(i) class-room type of teacher-assisted learning, combined

with practical, hands-on self-learning-by-doing, field trips,

earning-while-learning, production-cum- learning etc.

(ii) Self-learning through "how to" manuals and built-in tests

for step by step progress towards prescribed goals.

(iii) Computerised self-learning and self-testing packages,

incorporating multi-media features; and

(iv) Others; combining features of one or more of the

above, and possibly employing the mass media like

radio and television.

For each of the above delivery systems, complete documentation

back-up would be required.

b. Pretesting

Once we have the MSP, and some delivery system(s) devised for

delivering it, we can do the pretesting at two, three or more

places, with similar as well as differing audiences. If this is

done well and scientifically, we would be able to come out with

the following:

(i) Inputs for possible additions/subtractions/modifications in

respect of MSP and its overall acceptability;

(ii) Suitability and effectiveness of the delivery system or

system employed.

(iii) Usefulness and specific benefits of MSP to individuals;

(iv) Ideas on software development for large-scale delivery of

MSP, among different audiences under differing conditions; and

(v) Identification of the core or universal part(s) of MSP, and

the remaining one(s) to suit local ground realities.