Author: Kelly

What is science literacy?

Scientific literacy means using the scientific method to create a systematic process, free of as many biases as possible, to uncover evidence to answer a question.

A scientifically literate person understands that science rarely deals in absolutes. If a study shows there’s a 95% chance that smoking and cancer are linked, then most scientists would say the link is real — even though there’s a small amount of room for doubt. And any scientifically derived result should be reproducible by independent researchers using the same methods.

A scientifically literate person also should understand that scientific knowledge evolves as younger scientists build upon, or occasionally tear down, the theories of the scientists that came before them.

Why is it important for the average American to keep up to date on science news?

We’ve thrived as a nation, in part, because of the incredible scientific breakthroughs that have happened in the past century. For example, most of us don’t wake up in the morning worried about contracting smallpox or having to light a candle to illuminate our bedroom.

But our way of life was built for a world in balance, and now we are out of balance with nature and drastically changing the world. Our warming planet is amping up weather-related disasters like Hurricane Helene and the Los Angeles wildfires. We’re also experiencing incredible technological advances that could lead to more scientific breakthroughs but that also threaten our humanity.

These problems impact our food, our health and our economic stability. Rather than turning away from science at this time, we should embrace it. Science is unique in that it can uncover the truth or at least the truest version of the truth, and information is power.

What are some potential problems with consuming science news in today’s media environment?

People get their news from a wide range of sources that may or not be trustworthy. For example, popular podcaster Joe Rogan told his viewers that he wasn’t going to get the COVID-19 vaccine because he worried about its safety. This undoubtedly led to some people deciding not to get the vaccine even though Rogan had zero evidence that it was unsafe.

Even journalists in more traditional media are notorious for disliking math and not understanding things like statistics. They tend to shy away from science or fail to explain it in a way that helps people understand why it’s important. They’re also intimidated by scientists, so they don’t press the scientists to explain their work in an understandable way.

There are ways for journalists and scientists to combat these problems. For example, one acclaimed environmental health researcher went on Joe Rogan’s podcast to talk about her research looking at how certain chemicals are disrupting fertility. She wanted to get her message about the dangers of these chemicals to as many people as possible, so she didn’t just stick to more mainstream media outlets.

I think scientists are getting better at recognizing that if they want the public to understand and appreciate what they do, they need to communicate better. And when students take classes like my science journalism class, they gain confidence that they can cover science.

How can readers fact-check scientific claims in the media?

Readers can always look at the original source. Any scientific claim should have been published in a reputable scientific journal. That means it has gone through peer review — scientists, who were not involved in the research, have examined how the study was organized, the methods used, the sample size, how it dealt with various biases that might creep into the research, and the statistical analysis.

In one of my journalism classes, I show students an Instagram post from a lifestyle influencer who posts about the “health benefits” of drinking raw milk. The influencer quoted part of a study, so I asked my students to look up the study and read the abstract. They found that while the influencer had quoted part of the study accurately, she’d left out another part that described the dangers of drinking raw milk.

Another issue is reproducibility. If scientists from different institutions and parts of the world are in general agreement with a scientific claim, it’s more likely to be true. For example, a consensus of the world’s scientists agree that fossil fuel use is linked to the warming of Earth’s surface.

Another approach is to go to a reputable fact-checking source such as Snopes, Mediawise and Politifact.

Is there any way readers can spot potential author/media outlet bias in science stories?

Yes. Be aware of headlines that claim absolutes such as a scientific study had 100% effectiveness. Science just doesn’t work that way. The most a study can show is that there’s a strong chance that something works or is true.

A good science news story will include an outside source — someone in the same field as the scientist who was not involved in the research. This source may offer criticism of, or skepticism about, the study, or they may praise it. I would be skeptical if a news story doesn’t include an outside voice.

Consider the scientist who led the study. Are they affiliated with an institution known for producing good science? The journal Nature just published an analysis of the universities with the most retracted journal articles in science. You can also check the website Retraction Watch and type in a researcher’s name to see if they’ve published any studies that were later retracted.

There are also some simple things to think about when evaluating a study or a story about a study. How many subjects were part of the experiment? The smaller the number, the less robust the findings. What type of study is it? There are observational studies, where the scientist carefully observes something and makes conclusions; experimental studies where scientists manipulate two or more variables to find an answer; and randomly controlled trials. The latter is the gold standard.

The media is supposed to present the news without taking sides, but that doesn’t mean they should give equal weight to both sides. Going back to the example of fossil fuels and global warming, there’s very strong evidence gathered from many scientists that the two are linked. So I think journalists should be able to report on climate change or vaccines as a way to stop the spread of disease without giving equal support to climate change deniers or anti-vaxxers.

There is also a potential for journalists to put scientists on a pedestal and never question their findings. That’s a more subtle kind of bias. Scientists do make mistakes; they can have implicit biases or their funding may support research that’s not necessarily in the public’s best interests. Journalists should approach their work with some healthy skepticism.

Editor’s note:

To reach Nancy Averett, email naverett@illinois.edu.

View original press release.