Is it time to stop using the phrase “science literacy”?

Earlier this week, I shared a comment made by Canada’s new Chief Science Adviser, Dr. Mona Nemer, on Twitter:

““Survey after survey is giving us a picture that I would say is somewhat worrisome. We have close to half the public who doesn’t believe in science, who think it is opinion or propaganda or things like that. I think that is pretty worrisome,” she said.

“The way to help this is to engage in a better conversation with the public, between scientists, science communicators and the public. It’s not a matter of giving lectures like (teaching) Biology 601, but synthesizing and putting this in a form that helps the public understand.

“I think that we need to develop a better dialog and better ways of exciting the youth about science.””

My argument was that we already engage youth. The key is to engage adults, because they’re the decision makers and voters who ensure what our country’s strategic priorities are (see my op-ed here). As Jim Woodgett says, there’s a difference between people supporting research, and people thinking it’s a priority that government should address.

6/So it’s not a surprise that 92% of 1500 members of the public is in support of increasing research investment but is that their priority?

— Jim Woodgett (@jwoodgett) September 18, 2017

We need to help people make the distinction between supporting research versus making it a government funding priority, and so I wrote that we needed to “bridge the science literacy gap.”

Part about #scicomm is great. But we already do a lot to engage kids in #cdnsci. We need to engage adults to bridge science literacy gap. pic.twitter.com/QFErajgGBj

— Sarah Boon (@SnowHydro) September 29, 2017

My colleague Jay Ingram responded, suggesting it’s time to stop using the phrase “science literacy.”

it’s time to abandon the term”science literacy”. If you don’t agree, then please tell me exactly what it means and how it’s helpful

— Jay Ingram (@jayingram) September 29, 2017

According to Merriam-Webster, “literacy” is the state of being “literate.” “Literate” means several things, including “educated, cultured” and “able to read and write.” The definition that applies in this case is “having knowledge or competence,” where “competence (competent)” is defined as “having requisite or adequate ability or qualities.”

So if someone is “science literate,” the assumption is that they have knowledge about science, but the word “competence” is more difficult to interpret in this context. It suggests you have the ability to…what? Do science? Understand science? Read about science? Think scientifically?

This isn’t entirely clear, and could be part of the problem with using the phrase “science literacy”—we don’t know exactly what we mean.

In the 2014 Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) report on Canada’s science culture, Box 4.3 outlines the problems with using the phrase science literacy. The CCA writes that:

“a review of literature on science literacy notes that a wide range of “different interpretations result in scientific literacy appearing to be an ill-defined and diffuse—and thus controversial—concept (Laugksch 2000).””

Given this range of interpretations, the CCA outlines the specific definition they use in their report:

“for a citizen to be scientifically literate, they need to have both (i) “a basic vocabulary of scientific terms and constructs,” and (ii) “a general understanding of the nature of scientific inquiry” (Miller, 2004).”

Defining what is meant by science literacy is critical when quantifying how science literate people are, because your criteria for science literacy rest on your definition of that term.

One science literacy metric noted in the CCA report was the ability of people to understand articles written in the science section of the New York Times. While this may seem appropriate, it can also be affected not just by people’s knowledge of science, but by their general reading level, the relevance of what they’re reading to their everyday lives, and their interest in the topic.

These factors suggest that the term might be due for an overhaul, or should perhaps be dropped altogether. Particularly when you consider some of the other perspectives brought up by my colleagues on Twitter.

For example, Darren Anderson suggested (in response to my original tweet above) that it’s not really a “science literacy gap” we need to close.

It’s not just a literacy gap – it’s a trust gap.

— Darren Anderson (@darrenjanderson) September 29, 2017

Based on the latest public survey of people’s attitudes towards science completed by the Ontario Science Centre, this seems appropriate. Their headline?

“Public trust in science news is dangerously low.”

I won’t go into their findings here, but it would be interesting—maybe in my next blog post?—to compare these results with the new US results from the Pew Research Centre on science news and information today.

Both Anderson and Ingram also noted that “science literacy” can come across as elitist and divisive.

That’s a fair assessment. But IMO counterproductive – “increasing science literacy” can be viewed as elitist.

— Darren Anderson (@darrenjanderson) September 29, 2017

Well both, but more because it has the uncanny ability to separate those with it from those without, a huge barrier to communication

— Jay Ingram (@jayingram) September 30, 2017

If we define science literacy primarily as the ability to do science or to think scientifically, that cuts out a huge portion of the population. And is that really our goal?

As science communicators and science journalists, we’re aiming for many things, the holy grail of which is probably to help people think scientifically. We want to engage people in science so they know what scientists do, why it’s important, and why it should be funded. To share science stories so that scientists become human, just like everyone else. To expose the inner workings of science so that people can see that, contrary to what they may think about individual geniuses and instant scientific breakthroughs, that science is a long, iterative process, with many minds tackling similar problems.

Because as Anderson also noted:

Yup — how society as a whole views science has a big impact on how science is treated. More than overall literacy, IMO.

— Darren Anderson (@darrenjanderson) September 29, 2017

We also need to ensure we’re using these terms appropriately. I’ve often seen science literacy used as a catch all phrase to mean “how people view science.” Why not just say “people’s attitudes towards science” or, even better, as the CCA report uses, “science culture?”

I think I’ll be limiting my use of “science literacy” because, in the words of Inigo Montoya, “I do not think that word means what you think it means.”

Thanks Jay for making me think about this!