Science Education in the Age of Anti-Science

Reading Time: 6 minutes

Recently, I published an article about the “Age of Anti-Science,” when people choose not to believe the data or information provided by experts. One of the many problems resulting from this is the difficulty in teaching specific scientific topics.

In her publication Scientific Literacy and Social Transformation, Dr. Liliana Valladares explains that “to change society through science education, it is important to understand what aspects of society we want to change and why. This implies knowing how society is structured, how it works, and what place education, culture, and science education occupy in that social structure.” Regarding education, in his article Can we teach people what science is really like?, Professor Harry Collins concludes, “Thank God, my job is not to teach,” a sentiment shared by many experts, as it is challenging to decide which concepts or parts of science to teach. The reality is that many citizens do not feel empowered to understand or make decisions about social or environmental problems and, at the same time, do not trust their political representatives or so-called “experts.” That is why the content of what is taught in the classroom is so important; it is the means to combat this situation.

Many people need more scientific knowledge due to disinformation spread by groups or social networks with particular agendas. This creates an environment conducive to the appearance and proliferation of distorted and erroneous impressions and anti-scientific movements. How can science education counter this situation? 

The Waves of Science Education

In another article (2002), Collins provides a historical framework for science and science education that shows three epistemological waves of scientific knowledge and practice. This framework identifies the challenges addressed in the area and provides a panorama of its evolution. 

The first wave, originating in the early 20th century, still has elements remaining today. It was based on positivism, where scientists were seen as experts or seekers of truth. This paradigm attained its apogee in the 1950s and 1960s, when commercial computers, spacecraft, the hydrogen bomb, and nuclear weaponry developed. At times, experimentation in the search for information and truth overpowered ethics, giving way to unethical human experimentation. Little attention was paid to the implications of scientific choices or the potential for error and interpretation bias.

Scientists and teachers directed the curricula in education, focusing on methods and knowledge rather than local contexts or expertise. Teaching science in the classroom occurred as a microcosm of real-world science, designed to train students to be future scientists. 

The second wave ran from the 1980s until the late 1990s, when constructivist approaches to science education were emphasized. The experts’ experience and the integrity of their discoveries became increasingly questioned; some were suspected of being agents working for political parties or industries. Education became driven by standardized tests and policy requirements, criticism of researchers ran high, and classroom laboratories and experiments focused more on developing practical scientific knowledge than training scientists. 

In those years, empirical evidence was not enough for decision-making; it was necessary to know the context, the social implications, and human biases. Because the public distrusted scientists, they needed to know that political or economic interests did not bias the reports. 

In this wave, educators must teach students to value scientific expertise while accepting accountability. Science is a vocation that should be a collaborative process of inquiry and exploration with professional standards and transparent practices. Anything unethical or biased should be presented as “bad” science; education should focus on understanding what “good” science is and how those in science fields collaborate to make discoveries and achieve consensus.

Finally, the third wave began in the early 2000s, seeking a balance between scientists as experts and the need for accountability and transparency in professional scientific work. This wave spotlights the confusion between experts and the public. As science becomes more complex, it is less clear who has the right to make decisions based on scientific evidence. Collins states that the first two waves did not adequately address who can be considered an expert and how different types of expertise contribute to scientific knowledge.

The second wave often blurred the line between scientific expertise and public participation in science. The third wave highlights that not everyone has the same knowledge, so not everyone understands or contributes equally. This becomes problematic in decision-making; many decisions are in the hands of people without supporting scientific evidence. To counter this third-wave dilemma, the latest wave aims to categorize experience into interactive (formally trained scientists debate and refine discoveries and interpretations within their fields) and contributive (referring to the general public with experience with a particular technology or phenomenon).

Within these epistemological waves, the discussion about the public perception of science focuses on the dichotomy between trust in scientific evidence and scientists as experts versus distrust of experts, who are seen as biased practitioners and political agents. This divide has deepened in recent years because technological changes in communication and medicine and access to the internet, which provides more information (true and false), have impacted how people perceive science and trust or distrust “experts.”  

Science education has also changed contextually to align with its public perception over time. This results in lessons that are limited by the inability to practice and teach natural, meaningful science; they are affected by bias and societal impact. 

There is an urgent need to change the focus of science education from transmitting knowledge to promoting skills that ensure the training of scientists and specialists and reach all citizens. Many have an obsolete vision of science. They see it as a definitive, unquestionable body of knowledge constructed by scientists through a neutral and objective process. 

Good science education must promote the conception of science as a process of constructing knowledge in social, historical, and cultural contexts in continuous interaction with technology, society, and the environment. It must also facilitate critical questioning and intellectual autonomy in the face of the news published by the media, particular groups’ proposals, and daily life events.  

What can science teachers do to support their students? Teach them science literacy.

Scientific Literacy

Science generates provisional, evolving knowledge that can be refuted. The scientific methodology allows researchers to confirm previous findings or rectify or reject them through testing and research. Research based on the scientific method is familiar to researchers but unknown to the general public. 

The problem is that it is impossible to provide a definitive truth because new technologies, scientists, researchers, and other elements continuously affect the results, generating distrust among the general public, who witness all the uncertainty and change. Some suspicion comes from not having control, but citizens need to understand and trust scientific methodology and be open to the continuous scrutiny of scientific findings, which makes science powerful. They need to see that scientists not only know how to analyze data but also know how to synthesize it into practical applications. Society often lacks these skills, but science literacy can help people develop them. 

In 2020, UNESCO presented nine ideas to build the foundations of post-pandemic education; one was the need to “ensure scientific literacy within the curriculum. This is the right time for deep reflection on the curriculum, particularly as we fight against the denial of scientific knowledge and misinformation.”

Why is this critical? Today, understanding science and using that knowledge in daily life is more relevant than ever. It guides people to make an informed decision on any topic. The Hudson Alpha organization describes science literacy as a perspective on science as a giant jigsaw puzzle, where each discovery is a new puzzle piece that experts examine to see how it fits with the ones they already have, “creating a clearer and more complete picture of the world.” Understanding these pieces leads to understanding the connection between fossil fuels and pollution or how to read a drug label.

Science literacy can help students become more rational in two respects: epistemically, as they can develop their own evidence-based beliefs, and through instrumental rationality, which involves behaving to achieve goals most efficaciously, especially in a society driven by science and technology.

Dr. Liliana Valladares explains that this term has two meanings: the fundamental one, which includes the ability to read and write texts, and the derivative one, which refers to understanding science and its applications in daily life. She also asserts that although reading and writing are essential, the emphasis is usually on the derivative meaning, which includes mental habits, character, values, science as activity, metacognition, and self-direction. 

Scientific literacy focuses on learning the contents and processes of the subject for its future application and on understanding the usefulness of knowledge in life and society. Today, due to the advancement of science, technology, and culture, there is a need in the classroom for scientific literacy that incorporates a broad understanding of the interaction between science and society. 

Dr. Valladares argues that, since the pandemic, there has been a consensus in different countries on the criticality of science literacy to understand global challenges, mainly because the participation of children and young people in science subjects is decreasing. Today’s world is volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous, requiring a science education that expands students’ ability to respond adaptively, resiliently, and sustainably to today’s unpredictable changes. 

Science education should ensure that everyone can learn science, regardless of their point of view, on topics such as vaccines, COVID-19, climate change, or other controversial issues. However, whether because of their own beliefs, those of their parents, or unequal access to quality education, many students lack the opportunity to develop strong science literacy. Prioritizing inclusive and accessible education for all, regardless of background or circumstances, ensures that a broader and more diverse range of people can develop robust scientific knowledge and critical thinking skills.

Translation by Daniel Wetta

This article from Observatory of the Institute for the Future of Education may be shared under the terms of the license CC BY-NC-SA 4.0