Scientific literacy is the ability to critically analyze and understand scientific and technological concepts and arguments. The goal of pre-college and college science education is to have all graduates scientifically literate in order to have true democratic discussions on the future health and well-being of the country and the world.

Unfortunately, Americans for the most part are not scientifically literate (see results from the Third International Math and Science Study at http://nces.ed.gov/TIMSS/ and the recent National Science Foundation's report on scientific literacy of all Americans at http://www.nsf.gov/ sbe/srs/seind00/start.htm).

Why should all Americans, let alone all UCLA graduates, be scientifically literate? Satellite communication, possible life on Mars, potential pandemics, global warming, energy crises and policy, cloning, DNA evidence, gene therapy and modification, natural hazard mitigation, air and water pollution, the Internet - these are all recent front-page stories in the Los Angeles Times that are being debated and discussed due to their impact on society.

Do we know enough about global warming to attempt to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants? President George Bush said no. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its scientifically peer-reviewed Third Assessment said yes. Are the issues scientific, economic or political? How do you make a decision?

Science education's goal is to provide students the tools needed to meaningfully participate in these debates and to understand the underlying physical, chemical and biological principles that are relevant. The proposed modifications of the General Education requirements at UCLA run counter to the national and international efforts for enhancing scientific literacy for all.

The effect of cutting in half the required GE science courses cheapens the UCLA degree and will produce graduates unprepared for the 21st century of science and technology. A reassessment of the science GE requirements and courses is applauded, but a wholesale elimination of three of six required science courses is not the answer. The arguments made in support of this watering down of the required UCLA science curriculum seem to be slightly veiled attempts at addressing Tidal Wave II enrollment issues and not a serious attempt to examine the GE science curriculum.

The academic faculty of UCLA should be proud that UCLA GE science requirements exceed those of other UC campuses instead of rushing to the least common denominator. Can the GE science curriculum be improved? Of course it can. By developing new interdisciplinary courses addressing current scientific issues, by increasing the emphasis on the quality and effort devoted to GE science classes, by increasing the teaching support for GE science classes, by encouraging interactions of faculty in the sciences and humanities and by encouraging faculty to incorporate their research directly in the classroom, the GE science experience can be more meaningful and have a larger impact.

By decreasing the GE science requirements by half, UCLA will begin down a dangerous path of reduced expectations and mediocrity.