We have created a world in which science and technology are essential to our everyday lives, but many people don’t have an inkling about how things work. Scientific literacy in the United States is surprisingly low, and the most obvious culprit is our education system.
“How does this affect my life? When will I need to use this? Why can’t we learn something useful, like how to file taxes?” These questions too often ring in classrooms full of bright young students, and, for many, they are never answered. The truth is that science is all around us. The camera in your smartphone that snaps photos of your dog contains a detector that uses the photoelectric effect, the navigation app you use to drive is informed by satellites synchronized by the predictions of general relativity, and the computer you use every day for work requires a chip that was designed based on the theories of solid-state physics. Yet, according to a NASA report from 2016, less than a third of Americans have the ability to “find, make sense of, and use information about science or technology to engage in a public discussion.” So, where does our education system go wrong, such that we don’t even realize how essential science is to our lives?
Science curricula in schools often focus on teaching rote facts rather than the “how” and “why” of science—in other words, the scientific method and the acquisition of scientific knowledge. When students do not understand these aspects of science, it hinders their ability to identify the real-life relevance of their classes and makes it harder for them to spot misinformation—an increasingly important skill in the age of the internet and artificial intelligence–driven fabrications. Furthermore, much of the value of science education for most people who will not become scientists lies in the scientific way of thinking. Meg Urry, Yale’s Israel Munson Professor of Physics and Astronomy and former president of the American Astronomical Society, has spent a large part of her career focused on improving scientific education in the United States. “I think the way we do science education is not the best. I hated physics when I took it in high school […] a lot of it was memorizing units or memorizing names of things,” Urry said.
While “trust in science” is frequently cited as an important goal of science education, the phrase can be misleading. Trusting science does not mean blindly following a scientist or institution, but rather comprehending and having confidence in the processes that produce scientific knowledge. An understanding of the scientific method and the ability to critically evaluate evidence are crucial for producing public trust in scientific concepts such as evolution, climate change, and vaccine efficacy, and it is this understanding that many students and members of the public lack.
Even keeping this in mind, creating a science curriculum is no easy task. When education emphasizes memorization over process, this can reinforce the impression that science is only accessible through textbooks full of rigid facts. In practice, science is more like a living body of theories that are constantly being refined or disproven. On a philosophical level, theories can only ever be proven false—widely accepted theories are not proven with certainty, those that endure simply have overwhelming evidence supporting them. So how can we teach something that we are not even sure is true? This is an important question when teaching particularly controversial topics in science; to name a few, evolution by natural selection, the Big Bang, and anthropogenic climate change. In each of these cases, parents sometimes object to what their children are taught, despite the consensus that exists within the scientific community.
“I think the thing we have to do is treat every theory with respect,” Urry said. “If we want to contest alternative theories, we need to engage with them [and] read the paper before we say it’s wrong.” Urry highlights that science education cannot rely on simply labeling ideas as correct or incorrect. Teaching students to engage in the process of scrutinizing their assumptions demonstrates how science actually works. Preparing students to engage with science beyond the classroom, from conducting research in laboratory settings to evaluating scientific information in the media, requires an interdisciplinary skillset grounded in a strong knowledge base of general scientific concepts. “People treat science like another faith entity—that you either believe or don’t believe. Whereas a scientist would say, it’s all about testing, and what I believe today could be wrong,” Urry said.
Equipping students with these skills also requires attention to how scientific knowledge is presented and who is invited to participate in its production. People from marginalized backgrounds often face structural barriers that limit their exposure to science careers and representation within scientific fields. Careers in the modern Western sciences have historically been most accessible to economically advantaged white men. Women—as well as Black, Hispanic, and Indigenous peoples, among other minoritized groups—are still underrepresented in many fields. This may discourage students from seeing science as a space that welcomes their participation. At the same time, awareness of how science has historically been used to justify discrimination against marginalized communities also creates roadblocks to trust and learning. The scientific community must confront this legacy openly in order to repair relationships with marginalized groups and foster participation across communities. Science education is one of the most immediate and effective places for advancing this work. Integrating discussions of representation and ethics into curricula, alongside concrete actions such as incorporating course materials that highlight the personal and professional experiences of diverse scientists to support the visibility of historically marginalized groups can increase meaningful engagement with science.
The importance of these efforts in education is heightened in the age of the internet, when information is rapidly disseminated with few barriers for verifying accuracy. Misinformation has become increasingly prevalent and difficult to spot, making critical thinking and research skills an even more crucial part of daily life for scientists and nonscientists alike. These skills are often underemphasized in science education, and many students leave school without the tools they need to distinguish fact from fiction. This creates a public vulnerable to the sleight of hand of misinformation on topics that may relate to and undermine trust in science. Left unchecked, it is plain to see how the pernicious cycle of poor educational standards and misinformation could radically alter the relationship between American society and science. Now, throw in already-entrenched inequalities, deep-seated mistrust among many communities, and a federal government that is unable—and unwilling—to correct course. However, one must remain hopeful that better days are ahead. Ideally, the responsibility would not fall on ordinary people to help their family, friends, and neighbors engage seriously with science. But we are living in an upside-down world, and we must all do our part to bring our communities back into the fold. When all is said and done, everybody deserves to feel like science is for them.