Newspapers early this week contained stories about the Piston transport strike, high oil prices and the supposed rollback of the big oil companies. Alongside these items were numbers about the recession and the A(H1N1) pandemic. Embedded in these news reports are calculations of costs of these basic items as well as the science behind the spread of an epidemic. Mathematics and science have never been so integrated in the appreciation of issues that affect each and everyone.

However, it is not easy to expect that an ordinary reader would immediately see the connection between what he reads and reality. There are two reasons for this. One, a lot of obfuscation or squid tactics would be contained in the official responses to these issues. Some of them see print. The other reason is that there is a lack of real understanding of the nature of the issue itself.

Why the first reason makes a reader wonder is straightforward. The second one is the result of the perennial problems in science and math education as well as the general lack of scientific culture in our country.

For example, it is really not easy to explain how a communicable disease spreads if one does not explain that it is caused by organisms that cannot be seen by the eye. One should go beyond dancing the Jai-ho (to teach washing hands) and increase the level of understanding of everyone by trying to explain the nature of the disease.

The general lack of scientific culture pervades most of our outlook as feudal metaphysics—superstitions and the like—and subjectivism dominates our thinking. With our educational system in decline, we should strive to put forward a scientific outlook and methodology in tackling issues of the day.

One way is to enjoin scientists, engineers and other technologists to share their expertise in various issues and explain it directly to the people. One attempt to systematize this is in the People’s Science School project of AGHAM where we invite science professionals to tackle everyday issues in the communities that will be affected.

There is also a need to demystify science. The stereotypical scientist for the layman is a white-haired, uncombed old man supposedly looking like Einstein. Science seems to be an arena for experts and ordinary life does not need science at all. This misconception is used by those who want to confuse and mislead people.

We should allow people the opportunity of applying knowledge and technologies for their benefit and not just for the generation of profits of a few. Local and indigenous knowledge should be valued and developed further.

The views and attitudes of the science and technology community should also be re-oriented to lead beyond the “humanistic” search for knowledge and to instill in them to serve the people by participating to change our current situation. The point is to study and learn how the people themselves can change their own conditions.

The other side of the coin is in making science more democratic. This can translate into several ways. One is that it doesn’t take a scientist to do science. For example, one can mobilize a community to study and monitor their environmental conditions for them to be able to respond to any increased risk of disasters. An example is a project in North Quezon where the community uses a rain gauge to monitor the rain fall in relation to possible land slide events.

Bringing science to the masses also means that there should be extra effort to explain to the people the science behind natural events so that they can adapt to these events such as in the case of global warming. However, one should also try to explain their current economic conditions so that the people can do something about it collectively. One example is to point out the discrepancy in the local oil pump prices to the prevailing world oil prices. Another is to show that this overcharge is shouldered by the driver alone unless there is a rollback in oil prices. There are countless examples in the standard issues of the day where a scientific outlook and methodology can matter a lot.

Pushing for a scientific and mass culture is not easy in a country where science and technology is generally backward and stunted. We lack industries that can absorb our scientists and engineers and we have an agrarian based economy that is fettered by excessive land rent and the lack of control by the farmers themselves. If we can somehow reverse this situation then our professionals and technicians would not go abroad since the opportunities for their gainful employment and creativity will be assured here in the country. Such a situation would make the task of bringing science and technology to the people easier.