Survey: Canadians are ignorant about basic science

The skeptic Internet (myself included) is often hard on the US for its rampant scientific illiteracy, probably because of things like how more Americans believe in angels than in human-driven global warming, for fuck’s sake. But lest I get too cocky here on my Canadian perch, a new poll from the Ontario Science Center^* – conducted for Science Literacy Week (Sept. 18–24), no less – reveals that most Canucks don’t have much of a leg to stand on when it comes to mocking Americans for being dum-dums:

Are scientific findings a matter of opinion? Forty-three per cent of Canadians agree that they are, suggests a new poll.

The survey found widespread concerns about fake news — 66 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement that "false information reported as fact (so called 'fake news') is affecting your knowledge of science."

It also uncovered possible evidence of that happening, including a widespread belief in ideas contrary to scientific consensus:

• 52 per cent of respondents agreed that "genetically modified organisms are bad for your health." (This is an issue where there recently has been the biggest divide between scientists and the public.)

• 47 per cent (up from 41 per cent last year) agreed that "the science behind global warming is still unclear," despite what scientists have been calling for years "unequivocal" evidence.

• 19 per cent agree "there is a link between vaccinations and autism," even though the study that made the link was found years ago to be "an elaborate fraud."

I suppose there’s some consolation in how only one in five Canadians still buy into the central tenet of antivax lunacy, though I can only hope most of them vaccinate their kids anyway. I also thought global warming denialism wasn’t as prevalent up here – and that it was going down, not up. The doubts over GMOs definitely fit into my expectations, though … which isn’t a good thing, since those expectations are that most people don’t understand a damn thing about GMOs and how many millions of lives they’ve saved.

• 31 per cent of respondents agree that "because scientific ideas are fluid and subject to change, they can't be trusted."

But … but that’s exactly why science is trustworthy, especially when compared with the alternative! Science is a human endeavor, so of course it’ll get things wrong. But the fact that it’s willing, even eager, to debunk its own positions with the emergence of better evidence and data is precisely what makes it a reliable method for seeking out the truth. Our perception of the world changes constantly, and so must our science; that’s how it stays relevant and accurate in the face of new discoveries. The point isn’t to put your blind trust in science; it’s to accept that it’s the best tool we have for understanding the natural world and applying that knowledge in practical ways, even if that means occasionally rearranging what we thought we knew when it turns out we were wrong about something.

Take paleontology. Scientists dig in the ground to unearth fossilized remnants of long-dead plants and animals, from which they try to paint an image of the prehistoric world. Now and again, they’ll find a new fossil, often called a “missing link”^†, that forces them to rework their classification system a bit to better fit the newfound evidence. This happened in 2011, for instance, with the discovery of Xiaotingia zhengi, a small chicken-like dinosaur that prompted scientists to rethink the earliest origins of birds. The usual cranks and deniers came out braying that this somehow proved that science couldn’t be trusted, when of course it established the exact opposite: that science is willing to reevaluate what it thought it knew when faced with contradictory evidence … a trait that’s remarkably absent in faith-based thinking, which relies on sticking to one’s beliefs no matter how badly they’re disproven.

Of course, the blame for this lack of scientific acumen doesn’t rest solely on the educational system; schools can only do so much when kids and teens spend their extracurricular hours growing up having their heads filled with fairy tales and conspiracy theories at home or in church (though the latter is thankfully far less prevalent than south of the border). Another culprit is the eternally balance-obsessed media; Canadian news may be more reliable than the comparable trainwreck down south thanks to regulations prohibiting media figures from knowingly lying to their audiences, but it is still preoccupied with an illusion of balance: for every rational, scientifically valid viewpoint, they will bring on someone willing to provide a clueless counterpoint, if only to avoid accusations of being biased (which is utterly meaningless, since all media and people are biased anyway, but I digress).

All that said, the survey does carry a silver lining. Most Canadians may be confused about what the science says on various topics, but at least they still generally trust the scientific enterprise [my emphasis]:

• 82 per cent of respondents said they "would like to know more about science and how it affects our world."

• 79 per cent agreed they're comfortable "knowing that scientific answers may not be definitive."

• Respondents said they trusted museums and science centres (89 per cent), scientists and professors (88 per cent) and educational institutions (87 per cent) as sources of information, but far fewer said they trusted word of mouth (25 per cent) or social media (20 per cent.)

There’s some hope yet.

* I will never use the centre spelling. What do you take me for, a Brit?
† In a colloquial sense; there’s no such thing, scientifically speaking.