What is Scientific Literacy?
There have been increasing calls for Scientific Literacy to combat the growing spread of misinformation. The hope is that increases in Scientific Literacy would make conspiracy theories and misinformation less believable and that it would allow for more informed decision-making regarding the use and regulation of science and technology in our society. But what is Science Literacy?
In fact, the definition has been hotly debated for years, with the first use in the late 1950s (Hurd 1958). However, it is generally accepted that Scientific Literacy is the basic understanding that the general public ought to know about science (Durant 1993). As they say, the devil is in the details. This is disagreement on exactly what the general public should understand about science and even who the general public refers to. Indeed the lack of agreement on the exact nature has reduced any impact that improvements in Science Literacy could have had (Champange and Lovitts 1989). Recently, there has been some agreement that Science Literacy must contain three concepts
Understanding how science is produced
Understanding how science appears in the media
Understanding how people interpret scientific information
Understanding how science is produced
To understand how science is produced, one needs to know the fundamental scientific terms and processes. However, this will vary greatly depending on the topic at hand. For instance, it would be challenging to discuss the benefits of a PCR COVID test over the rapid antigen tests if one is unfamiliar with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or what exactly an antigen is. At the same time, it is challenging to discuss the universe’s age without understanding the Doppler effect. Therefore, a general understanding of every branch of science is required.
Even without getting into specific branches of science, there are fundamental aspects of science that must be understood. First, science is incremental, meaning that each new scientific discovery builds on older findings. It is easy to think of Hollywood “Eureka!” Moments in Science Fiction, but let me assure you that it is Science Fiction. In fact, sensational ‘breakthroughs’ are often widely regarded with skepticism in the scientific community. Nothing is entirely accepted in science until it is shown to be replicable (the scientist can do the same experiment and get the same result repeatedly) and reproducible (a different scientist can perform the experiment and get the same outcome, over and over).
Another critical method for scientific correction is the publishing process for scientific articles. All reputable scientific publishing companies require a process called peer review. This is where the paper to be published is sent to experts in that field. The experts read and critically evaluate the manuscript and then provide the publishing company’s editor feedback. The editor can then accept the paper for publication as is (rarely happens). More commonly, the editor sends the document back to the author and requests that the comments from the experts be dealt with. Or the editor can reject the paper, determining that it did not provide sufficient new information or was faulty in some way.
Utilizing the incremental nature of science, requiring reproducibility, and having peer-review science is self-correcting. When a discovery that doesn’t fit the current understanding is announced, it is tested repeatedly until it is either shown false or that the old paradigm was mistaken. This doesn’t always mean that the original understanding was a lie, but rather that we now have new information and can now make a more informed understanding.
Understanding how science appears in the media
Science Literacy has to include the ability to find and critically evaluate scientific information in the media. Therefore Science Literacy relies on both Digital and Media Literacy. Digital literacy is generally defined as one’s ability to use modern technology (computers, phones, and the internet), while media literacy usually is one’s ability to access, understand, and evaluate media and its content. Applying these concepts to scientific information, we must realize who produces scientific media reports and why and critically assess the information.
First, the source of information is essential. Many scientists fail to properly communicate their research with the public in mind, and so non-scientists read the published science and then compress it into bite-sized news articles. While this is an important service, it means that the expert is not the one writing the news. The news reporter may or may not be qualified to report on such a topic or may misrepresent the science for a political agenda or financial gain. Therefore, the source of information is an important consideration.
Second, you must evaluate the information presented using the skills from your understanding of scientific vocabulary and processes. It is important to note what information is presented and what is missing. There is almost always some disagreement in science. A single viewpoint does not encompass all of the researchers in the field. Think of the ‘9 out of 10 dentists recommend our brand’ stuff. Another central area to check is that the headline of a science article may not reflect the actual conclusions in the data. Sometimes the reporter or editor of the news publication misses the point of the science or intentionally misleads people that just read the headlines.
Finally, one must always be careful when interpreting the data. An example of misinterpretation is often given: ‘A study has shown that people who own a horse tend to live longer.’ Before you run out to buy a horse, it is also possible that people that own a horse can afford decent healthcare and other services that prolong their life. If the latter is true, the horse has nothing to do with it. Both are possible conclusions, but one of them makes more sense when you think about it.
Understanding how people interpret scientific information
The last section of Science Literacy is how people interpret and incorporate science information into their daily lives. Simply having access to good science information does not mean that people are critically thinking about the information. This is partially due to human nature. We accept ideas that support what we already believe with little to no proof, but we dismiss ideas that challenge our beliefs. By ignoring information that contradicts our point of view, we have a more biased and less informed thought process. This is one of the hardest sections of science literacy to teach. We can teach science, digital literacy, and media literacy in schools, but teaching people to critically evaluate their own beliefs regularly is a skill that must be learned through active use and repetition. It is more than memorizing the planets or the names of all 6 quarks (charm and strange make that list). Learning critical thinking is a lifelong process that we must, as a society, teach ourselves.
