Describe Trefil's definition of scientific literacy, why it is

important for people to be scientifically literate, and the current

state of scientific literacy (in the US). Articulate your own view on
these three issues
It cannot be denied that the term scientific literacy has been discussed in many
research publications for quite long time. However, the exact definition of scientific literacy
is still debatable. This is reasonable since there are many possibilities in defining this term
based on several perspectives, purposes, and reason. Reading Trefils opinion and explanation
about the definition of scientific literacy, the importance of having societies that are
scientifically literate, and the situation in the US is exciting and I think that those three issues
are interesting to be discussed.
First, talking about the definition of scientific literacy, Trefil has given a slightly
unclear definition so it is difficult to follow what he is thinking of related to the term.
However, his examples make the explanation gets understandable. Scientific literacy is part
of cultural literacy and this is absolutely not related to mastering some science subject such as
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, and so on. Societies who are scientifically literate are supposed
to have knowledge related to the development of science and technology. It is definitely not
required the society to do science or working on science. I would agree with what Trefil has
explained as well as his examples. Being scientifically literate does not mean that people
have to master mathematics, have to do science, or having technical competence. The
importance being scientifically literate is the ability of applying those sciences in their daily
life. In order to be able to apply science, people should have adequate knowledge in science.
Then Trefil says this as matrix of knowledge. This is about the basic knowledge that the
society should understand.
Furthermore, Trefil gives some examples of knowledge that society should know,
such as stem cell, global warming, and other examples, which make the definition of
scientific literate clearer. This is really about the matrix of knowledge when people are not

required to know about the technical process of making stem cell, moreover, doing stem cell.
Another thing about scientific literate that is reasonable (for me) is that people do not have to
obtain the knowledge through formal educations. People who are able to operate computer
are not always obtaining the knowledge from formal school for several times although some
people might do that.
Next, science and technology has been developed over time. As a consequence,
societies who are scientifically literate are important to follow and support the progress. A
community that is consisted of scientifically literate people will experience rapid
development since they will be more aware of new information and careful in making
decision. People who are scientifically literate tend to think further on something such as the
advantages or disadvantages of certain product or technology. The real example related to
scientific literate that can be obtained from my experiences is about GMOs (Genetically
Modified Organisms) that is still debatable. I definitely agree with Trefil that people should
not know about GMOs in detail but they are expected to have knowledge about GMOs.
According to my experience when I asked my student about what the GMOs is, they did not
have any idea at all. As a consequence, I would not expect anything about further opinion
regarding the advantages and disadvantages of consuming GMOs. Once people have
knowledge in science and the progress of science then they are able to make arguments and
make decisions wisely. Another important reason for having scientific literate people is
because they have responsibility to make their community develops. They are expected to
criticize everything happens in their life to make better improvement. I would say that
communities with scientifically literate people will progress rapidly more than communities
that are not scientifically literate.
Lastly, Trefil also discusses about research in scientific literacy. Although it is difficult
to measure peoples understanding in science, there were many surveys that had been

conducted in the USA and European Union. In order to make a decision whether a
community is scientifically literate or not, there must be a minimum standard or threshold
that defines the level of understanding. According to the research, participants who scored
67% on the test are categorized as scientifically literate or well-informed while the other who
got lower are categorized as partially scientifically literate or moderately well-informed. I
could not agree or disagree about whether American people are scientifically literate since
Trefil only gives one research result that has been done over the last 20 years. If we just
compare the percentage of the result and compares with other countries it is obvious that
people in America are scientifically literate. However, since Trefil only refers to one research
that does not guarantee whether the result that has been obtained gives the real picture level
of American peoples knowledge of science or not.
It can be concluded that scientific literacy is about peoples understanding or
knowledge about science that they should have. This knowledge is important for every
individual as well as the society since the level of understanding determines whether the
community will progress to be better society or not. In fact, it is not easy to measure the level
of understanding in science. Although there was a research that has been conducted to assess
the scientific knowledge, one research is not enough to explain whether American people are
scientifically literate or not.