Skip navigation

Please find below the judging results for your proposal.

Semi-Finalist Evaluation

Judges'' comments


Judge 1: The proposal outlines a plan to rapidly increase science education to increase urgency on climate change solutions and reduce misinformation or what the proposal calls "bad" science.The idea of increasing science literacy is appealing on its surface, but I'm not convinced that there is evidence that this strategy will work, and there is research suggesting that people who are more scientifically literate on climate change issues tend to be the most polarized people on both sides.

Judge 2: There is no question that scientific literacy is a tremendous problem that we face today, on issues like climate change as well as GMOs, nuclear power, vaccines and autism, etc. The National Science Foundation estimates that 2/3 of Americans do not understand science or the scientific process. This makes them highly susceptible to pseudo-science and manipulation. But there are many people and organizations trying to overcome this ignorance. How is your proposal different in achieving similar aims?

0comments
Share conversation: Share via:
No comments have been posted.