1. “Teaching Decision-Making to Future Scientists and Teaching Science to Future Decision-Makers: The Princeton University Experience” Gregory van der Vink & Peter Folger Teaching Public Policy in Earth Sciences Workshop – AGU, April 22, 2006

2. Disclaimer and Reference  Opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of any institution with which he is affiliated.  Based on 15 years of teaching upper-level Geoscience decision-making courses at Princeton University Geo399: “Environmental Decision-Making” Geo499: “Dealing with Natural Disasters”  Princeton University 250 th Anniversary Professor for Distinguished Teaching

3. Course Objectives  Improve scientific literacy of non-scientists (e.g. future policy-makers, business executives, citizens) And  Improve the political, social, economic, literacy of future scientists (make scientists more effective in having their work benefit society – “citizen scientists”)

4. Definition of scientific literacy NSF defines scientific literacy not only as knowledge of the tenets and methods of science, but also the impact of science on society.

5. Boundary Conditions Not every student will become (or wants to become) a scientist – a producer of scientific information. (and that’s OK)

6. Boundary Conditions But every student will be a future consumer of scientific information. These students are our future decision-makers.

7. Courses for non-majors or for majors who will not be professional scientists  Few producers, many consumers  Science background is valuable for many careers Law Diplomacy Business Education Every profession [and to be good citizens]

8. Traditional Focus As educators, we focus on the future producers of scientific information But we generally ignore the future consumers of that information

9. Different Emphasis  For future consumers (policy-makers, business leaders, etc.) Emphasis is not on learning facts of science, but rather on gaining an understanding of the scientific process, valid inference, representative sampling, data discrimination, etc.,  For future scientists Emphasis is on how science interacts with public policy.

10. Format for consumers Courses for non-science majors should be different from the traditional courses intended to train science professionals

11. Goals for understanding  Scientific process  Valid inference  Representative sampling  Boundary values  Data discrimination Signal vs. noise Outliers Scatter Random vs. systematic

12. “Take-away” understanding – example 1 The plural of “anecdote” is not “data”

13. “Take-away” understanding – example 2 Science is a human endeavor “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die” – Max Planck

14. “Take-away” understanding – example 3  Science is not about facts: - Science is a process - Science is a way of addressing problems

15. No need to “dilute” Many non-science students: Engineers Economists Political scientists Etc, have high-level quantitative skills and have experience addressing complex issues with many factors (variables).

16. Less is more  Avoid the “mile-wide, inch-deep” structure of many introductory courses.  Select a few, difficult, unresolved issues with societal implications and have the students work thorough them (go deep).

17. Format for consumers  Expose students to primary data  Have students analyze data  Have students make decisions based on messy, incomplete, ambiguous data.  Experience requirement to make decisions based on their interpretation of the data available at the time of the decision. High content

18. Format for consumers  Data will be incomplete and ambiguous  Data sets will be inconsistent  Decisions will involve long-equations with many variables from different disciplines.  Answers must be scientifically valid, but also politically, economically, socially realistic. Intellectually challenging

19. Format for consumers 10% what we hear 15% what we see 20% what we see & hear 40% what we discuss 80% what we experience 90% what we teach  Give students experience – making decisions and defending those decisions. Long-term impact

20. Format for consumers “Socratic” Method Real Case Studies Long-term Impact High Content Intellectually Challenging

21. Example 1 Senate Ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

26. Scientific:  Global seismicity (Guttenberg/Richter)  Seismic magnitude  Frequency of events  Energy/magnitude  Seismic transmission Verifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty

27. Value-added:  Probability/confidence levels  Different scientists can look at the same data, arrive at different conclusions  Technical assessments are permeated with value judgments Verifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty

29. Example 2 Natural Disasters [Intersection of a Natural Process with Human-built Environment]

44. EarthScope Opportunity

45. Education and Outreach

46. Wishka, WA

47. Transportable Array Siting Interns

48. Sunset Crater Exhibit

49. Why bother?  Improve scientific literacy of future non-scientists  Improve political/economic/social/ engineering literacy of future scientists  Enrich academic department Instill an understanding of, and appreciation for, science (and the methods of science) in the next generation of our society’s leaders.