Public Understanding of Science: A Review of the Literature

Alexander Gutierrez
The University of Texas at El Paso

Abstract
Science has been humanitys implement of illumination for centuries. In recent years, the extent
of utility of science and the intentions of scientists have come into question. This paper will
discuss barriers to scientific understanding, whether science is crucial to a prosperous society,
and how science can be better communicated to the general public.

One of the most crucial elements in the progress of science is for the public to properly
understand it. Although we live in a world where science has flourished, there are still many
questions about the importance and impact of public science education and communication.
There have been a number of issues and controversies that have arisen in recent times
surrounding certain scientific issues, especially ones that relate to political and social issues.
Science will likely continue to light the way for mankind, but in order to analyze the utility and
lasting effects of public understanding of science, a couple of questions need to be considered:

1. What are some barriers facing public understanding of science and what are their sources?
2. How does public understanding of science affect political and social issues?
3. Could better understanding of science lead to a more successful society?
4. What can be done to help the public better understand science?

This review will discuss the problems and obstacles the public face to understanding science, the
political and social effects of understanding science, if science can lead to a better society, and
how science can better be communicated to the public.

What are some barriers facing public understanding of science and what are their sources?
Barriers facing science understanding stem from many different roots. Political position,
culture, biases, mass hysteria, and just plain lack of communication all play a factor in limiting
the public understanding of science. With the advent of the internet, information has never been
as widespread and as easy to access. While arguably one of humanitys greatest inventions, this
network of information does give rise to some problems. While the amount of useful, valid

information in the grasp of our hands has increased greatly, so has the amount of non reliable,
potentially harmful misinformation. In a YouTube video entitled Genetic Engineering and
Glowing Kitties of DOOM! by Myles Power, Power talks about how the internet can be used to
spread misinformed ideas:
Its [the internet] also a place where we have to be extremely skeptical. Its because its
like a global game of chinese whispers sometimes, where in the case of research,
someones research can be twisted and manipulated and picked etc. until it no longer
resembles the original research.
One commonly misunderstood scientific issue is genetic engineering. While the scientific
consensus is that genetically modified food does not pose any greater risk than non GM food,
public opinion seems to differ. In recent years, support against genetic modification, especially in
foods, has reared its head. In fact, a growing number of countries around the world have
restricted and in some cases banned GM food altogether. Many fear tactics, including dishonest
articles give support to the anti GM movement. In the video by Power, he talks about articles
which are written specifically to incite fear, paranoia, and mass hysteria. Articles online should
be viewed with, as stated earlier, a keen eye and skepticism.
Politically and even cultural and religious reasons can even play a role in the understanding of
science to the public. Many politicians and business magnates have politicized issues like climate
change and have denied some aspects. This is a problem with not only understanding of science,
but many other issues. Some people choose to cherry pick certain scientific ideas that agree with
their political or cultural views. Though the fact of, for example climate change, is not affected
by the amount of people that choose to accept it or not, the perception and attitude towards
climate change by the public is in fact affected. People such as politicians and business magnates

certainly have a great deal of influence over the public, and their views and opinions on social
and political issues tend to be held in high regard. If these people hold and express views that are
either misunderstanding or detrimental to science, then these views and ideas will spread and can
hinder the public understanding of science.

How does public understanding of science affect political and social issues?
Many issues that are at the center of debate and decision are, to the surprise of many, are
scientific issues. Knowledge of science means knowledge of these and other relevant issues, so
the amount of knowledge the public has ultimately has an effect on their decision making. In The
Publics Bounded Understanding of Science by Rainer Bromme and Susan Goldman, they
discuss the effects of understanding science, and lack of understanding, on decision making. One
problem with understanding of scientific knowledge involves how the public perceives and
comprehends said knowledge. What experts and specialists in a field take from such
information resources will invariably differ from what the general public understands from the
same resources., say Bromme and Goldman, ...even when science information is popularized
in journalistic news reports, science digests, or feature stories on advances in health care,
members of the scientific community bring different epistemic stances to that information than
do members of the general public. In other words, the knowledge about the scientific issues that
scientists and the general public have are different, and ultimately leads to differences in how the
knowledge is interpreted.
The issue of the safety of vaccinations has been hotly debated in recent years. Although
vaccinations have been responsible for a vast drop in deaths attributed to diseases, there is still a
movement of resistance against vaccinations, claiming vaccines are more harmful than helpful.

The amount of deaths due to diseases like Measles, Scarlet Fever, Typhoid, Whooping Cough, and Diphtheria has dropped
dramatically since the implementation of vaccines.

A growing number of concerned people have raised questions over the effects of vaccinating
children, and many people have stopped vaccination themselves and their children altogether.
The movement is strengthened even more now that celebrities and other influential people have
backed up and been lead the movement. One notable critic of vaccinations is Jenny McCarthy,
model and actress. Jenny has spearheaded the movement, and after her child was diagnosed with
autism, wrote a number of books claiming vaccinations were the cause of her son's illness. The
anti-vaccination movement undoubtedly has a major impact on society and politics. In "One
Thing We Know About Autism: Vaccines Aren't To Blame", published for National Geographic,
it is mentioned that a number of reputable sources have refuted the association between
vaccinations and autism. The article states that the U.K. Department of Health commissioned

two studies, both of which failed to link vaccines and autism. Also mentioned is the Institute of
Medicine, part of the National Academy of Sciences, which found no link between autism and
vaccines. According to Glenn Braunstein, Vice President of Cedars-Sinai Medical center, what
McCarthy does is "one step down from yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater when there is no fire."
If the majority of people begin to distrust vaccinations, then ultimately political opinion on
vaccines will shift. If what science says is true, then dwindling vaccination numbers will have
serious repercussions, including bringing about more outbreaks of preventable diseases, like
measles and rubella. Government policies regarding vaccinations and other issues in medical
science may be affected, and this will no question have an impact on society.

Could better understanding of science lead to a more successful society?

Science, without a doubt, has made a tremendous impact on human lives and the world.
The extent to which science has done good, and it's potential to do good, still seems to be of
debate among the public. Advancements in science undoubtedly lead to better medical care,
superior technology, better communication, and a multitude of other innovations that assist
human life. A grand number of global leaders have praised the advancements and importance of
science. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had this to say during a recent event celebrating
science, "The world faces multiple crises. But this is also an era of opportunity, where great
achievements are possible thanks to science, technology and innovation."
Much of human growth and progress is attributed to science, and in fact, countless
numbers of lives have been saved because of advancements in science. Perhaps the best example
is the impact that the American biologist, Norman Borlaug, has had on the world. Norman
Borlaug is considered the father of the Green Revolution, and worked on developing resistant
varieties of wheat. Borlaug is credited with saving more lives than any other person in history.

Borlaug received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970, for his contributions to humanity. Science has,
without a doubt, helped humanity prosper, and the better the general public understands science,
the more potential for scientific innovation and acceptance.

What can be done to help the public better understand science?

No doubt, introduction to ideas at a young age is . Science is one of many subjects taught
at public schools,. In order to raise a public that better understands science, more science needs
to be introduced to children. In an interview conducted by Alexander Gutierrez with Dr. Robert
Kirken, Dean of the College of Science at the University of Texas at El Paso, Kirken says that
the key to getting children interested in science is hands-on activities. Science is about that. Its
touching, its seeing, its using all your senses to see an experiment, or work with an experiment,
to better understand science, says Dr. Kirken. Setting up more science museums and kid centers
would attract a greater number of children and young adults to scientific ideas, and would
familiarize children with science in the long run. Organizing more hands-on activities, not only
in specified places like a museum, but also in the classroom as well would introduce many
aspects of science to children. The years during which children are being first introduced to
science in school are very formative. At the end of the day, the best place [for understanding
science] is really in the classroom. says Dr. Kirken.
If we want people to understand a subject, regardless of what it is, communication is key.
As mentioned earlier, a huge barrier in public understanding of science is many people simply
just don't know the science of issues that are relevant to them. As science continues to expand its
reach, the public's grasp on scientific ideas dwindles. Science fiction writer Isaac Asimov puts it
simply, "The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than
society gathers wisdom." In "Communicating Science", LeeAnn Kahlor and Patricia Stout state

that being able to effectively communicate sophisticated ideas to a crowd of laypeople is pivotal
in communicating science. "The communicator, whether scientist or journalist, often must
translate highly technical information to language that a less specialized audience can
understand.", Kahlor and Stout write, "However, when a communicator alters specific
terminology to produce understandable content for a general audience, the changes may not
accurately convey the original information." Being able to accurately relay ideas A quick
example of this is the public perception of evolution as a random, chance-based process when in
reality it is anything but. Derek Muller is the creator of a popular YouTube channel called
Veritasium, in which he makes videos that teach science concepts. In a video interview on
YouTube entitled "Derek from Veritasium", he explains how his PhD thesis involved
researching and According to Muller, the strategy he found the most effective was starting with
what people initially thought about whatever topic he was trying to teach, and tackling their
misconceptions. As Muller says, you "have to start where they are." Addressing what the
audience already knows is a more engaging process, and the audience gets to really see the path
from where they were to the actual science. This is similar to the concepts of Nacherzeugung
(re-production) and Nachverstehen (re-understanding) discussed by Roth and Friesen in their
article Nacherzeugung, Nachverstehen: A phenomenological perspective on how public
understanding of science changes by engaging with online media. The process of
Nacherverstehen, when it comes to learning scientific ideas, regards learning something from the
context and understanding of someone else.

Conclusion
Although science is present in almost every aspect of society, there is still a growing
resistance to science, and a need for improved science communication. A number of scientists

and communicators are developing ways to better communicate scientific ideas to the public, and
as scientific knowledge grows, the need for increased communication to the public also grows.
The future holds promising for science communication, and ultimately the greatest asset to
society is a well informed, scientifically literate public.

References
Power, M., (2013). Genetic engineering and glowing kitties of doom!
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x1TvYgy8tc
Brink, S., (2013). One thing we know about autism: Vaccines arent to blame.
Retrieved from news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130716-autism-vaccines-mccarthyview-medicine-science/
Ki-moon, B., (2014). Secretary-General remarks at the economic and social council special event
"CERN: sixty years of science for peace and development"
Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/sg/statements/index.asp?nid=8117
Roth, W., & Friesen, N. (2014). Nacherzeugung, Nachverstehen: A phenomenological
perspective on how public understanding of science changes by engaging with online media.
Public Understanding Of Science (Bristol, England), 23(7), 850-865.
doi:10.1177/0963662513512441
Bromme, R., & Goldman, S. R. (2014). The Public's Bounded Understanding of Science.
Educational Psychologist, 49(2), 59-69. doi:10.1080/00461520.2014.921572
Kahlor, L., Stout, P. (2010). Communicating Science New York: Routledge
Haran, B., (2012). Derek from veritasium (extended interview).
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6RFcs2-Jv4