This project was a study of scientific literacy of a certain sort -- literacy concerning how science functions as a social enterprise. While this sort of literacy has been largely neglected over the last several decades' worth of attention on the "lay public's" grasp of science, I believe that it is in fact quite important when it comes to the public's recognition of the significance of scientific consensus. And given the central role that science can play in rational public policy, personal and public health, and other matters of practical significance, I argue that aspects of scientific literacy that contribute to the recognition of science as a trustworthy source of information on such matters are aspects that ought to be recognized and promoted. One significant goal of the project was thus to conduct the philosophical research to clarify this nexus of ideas, e.g., connecting the idea of consensus (specifically, how it is formed) to public trust. Under what conditions should the lay public accord a scientific consensus some measure of trust? It is important in this context to separate the idea of a (robust) consensus from ideas of mere agreement. The fact that a large proportion of some population agrees that some claim is true need not be taken as a weighty indication of that claim's truth. Perhaps their agreement is uncritical -- driven, for example, by pressure to conform or other forms of coercion. I am incorporating my research on these matters into a book aimed at both academics and the general public (particularly science communicators and educators) that will lay out why understanding the way that science works -- warts and all -- as a social enterprise is critical to seeing why scientific consensus (when robustly formed) should be taken seriously.

Another part of the project was more empirically-focused. In addressing the issues mentioned above, I wanted to understand what members of the lay public already understood of the scientific enterprise, scientific consensus, and the connection between this idea and their dispositions to trust pronouncements from science (or not). My undergraduate research assistants and I conducted dozens of interviews designed to shed some light on these questions. We found that understanding even the basics of the social enterprise of science (e.g., the system of peer-review or how grants are awarded) was rare; likewise, the idea of consensus wasn't well understood -- even at a level that equates it with mere agreement. This would seem to tell against approaches to science communication on socially-controversial subjects that suggests consensus messaging as a sort of panacea. Science communicators need to take into account the background beliefs / scientific literacy of their message recipients. Results of this study are currently under review.

These results raised a question of whether science journalism could be seen as hurting or helping this situation. In a second empirical study, my students and I conducted a content analysis on a sample of around 180 instances of science reporting in high profile "print" U.S. news sources (the New York Times, Washington Post, and USA Today) over the last ten years in order determine the dominant framing of science. We found that even in this "prestige press", little was done to contextualize articles in such a way that readers might extract some understanding of the scientific enterprise. More often, articles focused on the latest (least reliable) findings, highlighting surprise or conflict with previous results, or dramatic narratives of malfeasance by scientists. Results from this study are also under review. Both empirical studies also inform the argument of the aforementioned book.

Last Modified: 10/27/2020
Modified by: Matthew H Slater