Demystifying science, for our own good

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 21/05/2025 (184 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

While we live in the most literate culture in history, science literacy continues to plummet in North America, especially among adults. We learn about science (sort of) in school, but whatever most people have learned is left behind at graduation

The general public’s lack of knowledge about science will have increasingly tragic consequences, however, if that trend is not reversed.

A couple of weeks ago now, I went to a book event at the University of Manitoba for The Deadly Rise of Anti-Science, by Dr. Peter Hotez. Hotez is a vaccine scientist, biochemist and pediatrician from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas. He was in conversation with Dr. Jillian Horton, local author of We Are All Perfectly Fine: A Memoir of Love, Medicine and Healing.

It was a fascinating hour on a timely topic, especially as we watch the number of measles cases increase, often in communities where parents have not immunized their children. Hotez discussed themes from his book, such as anti-vaccination activism, and the threats he (and his family) faced for his work on life-saving vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Noting that anti-vaxxers are only one dimension of a growing anti-science movement, he talked about the dangers this movement poses, especially in the United States, estimating that 200,000 more people died, unnecessarily, from COVID-19, because they refused available vaccinations.

The anti-science movement is rooted in an increasing distrust of public institutions and the experts (like Hotez) associated with them. That distrust is reflected in various ways: Cries for “medical freedom” are unabated by all those new (and unnecessary) cases of measles among unvaccinated people. Climate change denial persists, despite the accumulation of clear and alarming evidence that a heating planet will cause the death of millions of people, along with the sixth mass extinction of other species.

This interesting event attracted fewer than 30 people, however — including the security staff — though it was held in a lecture theatre that seats 250. There was very little publicity at either UM campus; I only learned about it by accident, browsing a display in the university bookstore.

Whether this lack of advertising was deliberate or not, the poor turnout speaks to how science has become a “black-box problem” for the average citizen, and too contentious a subject (I fear) for our universities to debate in public spaces with free access and an open mic.

A black-box problem is one where there are clear inputs, and definite outputs, but the process between them is hidden inside a black box. Some people claim to understand what goes on inside the box — we can call them “experts.” Everyone else has to trust the experts’ interpretation and accept whatever comes out of that black box as being true, correct, or whatever. If you don’t understand what is in that black box, you have to trust the experts who do.

So, on the one hand, we have scientists, who understand the processes involved and make the obvious connections between vaccination and not dying from a disease; or increasing CO2 levels, global warming and climate catastrophes.

On the other hand, we have public figures (not scientists) telling people that these experts should not be trusted, that their version of what the black box tells us is wrong, and you should not believe what they say.

Each side claims to know what is in the black box and what it means. So, we are forced to choose whom we trust, which people we should believe. We have apparently transformed issues of scientific information, knowledge and wisdom into issues of belief, expecting people to demonstrate faith rather than understanding in the choices they make.

By doing this, we make a religion out of science, turning scientists into priests, and dividing the public between groups of believers and non-believers. Logic, method and evidence go out the window, and inflammatory rhetoric based upon opinion takes their places. For those wanting to manipulate public opinion to gain (or maintain) power or wealth, such general ignorance about science is (literally) a gold mine.

What universities should be doing, for everyone in society (and not just for a few of their students), is opening that black box and revealing what is inside. But arts or business students learn nothing about science, while science students learn nothing from their humanities electives that helps them understand how science relates to society.

We need programs in science, technology and society studies (or STS, found elsewhere but never in Manitoba) in which students and the general public can engage creatively with the crucial questions that will determine our collective future.

We especially need universities to be institutions of learning for the general public, not just (for a short time) for those few who are fortunate enough to attend them.

We need to open that black box of science and learn what we need to make important choices, based on evidence and for the right reasons, together.

Our future literally depends on it.

Peter Denton writes from his home in rural Manitoba.