The Public Understanding of Science Effort: A Critique

This paper is likely one of the first to question the merits in the united effort to improve public scientific literacy markers. Even before the famous Bodmer Report of 1985, Tratchman, a seasoned professional science communicator, began to question the 3 common assumptions made to support the Public Understanding of Science effort:

1. Knowledge is simply a good thing in itself

2. People will be able to make more intelligent, personal consumer decisions if they have more kanowledge of science and technology

3. The very structure of a democratic society depends upon the existence of an enlightened citizenry. Solid scientific understanding will inform more constructive actions in 3 ways:

   1. Voting

   2. Influencing elected officials through phone calls, letters, etc.

   3. Influencing elected officials through disruptive actions like protests, sit-ins, etc.

However, because the scientific process and ideas are complex and contextual, and their findings often nuanced, inconclusive, or conflictual, a more scientifically educated public might actually not be helped in their decision-making or might actually be destructive as most political decisions require yes/no convictions.

While a scientifically-curious citizen should not be stopped from engaging in science, this is likely to render positive results, in should not be part of a policy mandate which attempts to force literacy gains on all citizens. The very nature of publicized scientific material is incapable of assisting citizen in making better more rational and constructive decisions.

1. Scientific material is likely to be highly selective in choice of materials and to use a variety of questionable selection criteria

2. Scientific material is likely to oversimplify, and hence to misrepresent, the methods and the character of scientific criteria

3. Scientific material is likely to treat scientific news as discrete events and hence to create another false conception of science

4. Scientific material is likely to report on inadequate, incomplete, and poorly designed research as readily as on competent research, as long as the subject matter is relevant to immediate popular concerns

5. Scientific material is likely to draw undue inferences about the meaning and significance of particular lines of research

6. Scientific material is likely to raise false expectations of what science is capable of doing

7. Scientific material may create stress among readers more damaging than the real risks being reported on

This article raises an essential critique of the Public Understanding of Science effort which has been and should continue to be a common thread in scicom. However, it should also be backed up by robust empirical research. Simply showing the lack of change in literacy over the years does not demonstrate the illegitimacy of the effort or the behavioral outcomes. What is essential to test is the behavioral effect of literacy campaigns.

Does an enhanced knowledge of chemistry really help or hinder a consumer when deciding on which deodorant to wear?

Reference:

Trachtman, L. E. (1981). The public understanding of science effort: A critique. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 6(3), 10–15.