A living, breathing science

It has been a year since Project BioLogical began, and it has left me to think about why we do science at all. Now, I strongly believe that the endeavour of science without context is effectively meaningless, and humanity’s great undertaking of understanding the universe will eventually trickle down into tangible improvements to our daily lives. Even the most esoteric of discoveries eventually find their use for us. I mean, mRNA technology went very quickly from a niche edge case in science to being used on a good part of the population through the Covid-19 mRNA vaccines.

By virtue of constantly refining our knowledge and re-applying new theories and frameworks to reality (a practice we usually call “engineering”), we have been able to better humanity’s standard of living with each passing generation.

Despite the laudable track record science has had so far, we now live in an era where a good portion of the population regards science with apathy, indifference, and even distrust. I’ve briefly touched on this trend in previous articles, but I decided that we really need to sit down and grapple with the problem, what causes it, and why even scientists and the well-informed might be part of the problem. We must ask ourselves how to address the root cause of this coldness towards science, and how the world can act to resolve it.

Let’s get right down to the meat of the issue. What exactly is science? I’m not asking you for the scientific method, either. Ask yourself this question, also, and try to answer it. Beyond the oft-cited “scientific method” and mountains of science textbooks, what is science on a philosophical level? Is it a belief? A practice? A body of knowledge? Or something so profound that cannot be isolated and identified with great precision?

For most of us, science is merely a school subject that we neglect once the bell rings and our time in school ends. Even for those working in the STEM industries, we often overlook the basic philosophical groundings of science in favour of drilling into methods and theorems and data – things we can firmly get a grasp on and know to be correct, rather than fluffy issues like ethics and scientific philosophy. That’s where the issue begins. Most scientists know exactly how to explain the way their experiment works or why their results are reliable, but the average person out there would hesitate to even begin trying to listen and understand. We can’t fix the issue of scientific apathy if we only know how to investigate, and not to inspire.

I think this is why our ability to communicate scientific concepts falters. Too many people see science as something far-removed from their understanding, reserved for people with a lot of letters after their names and years of university-level studies. They fail to see the relevance of such highly complex and niche information in their daily lives, anyway, so why bother? And that’s where apathy and disinterest in science sets in, and programmes to pique one’s interest in the sciences quickly lose steam.

Furthermore, the way science has been taught across the world is typically a content-focused paradigm, directing students towards absorbing and regurgitating a laundry list of facts, and  at best, its applications. The unfortunate side effect of this is the perception that science is a static, almost untouchable entity, one with a built-in canon that either cannot be questioned or must be rejected wholesale.  This further distances the average person on the street from scientific discovery as they either defer judgement to the select few perceived to be capable of questioning and critiquing common knowledge, or perceive them as duplicitous with their own ulterior motives.

While misinformation tends to imply the use of lies and deceit, science-based conspiracy theories and “alternative” science don’t tend to operate off of blatant falsehoods. Instead, using actual data (sometimes of dubious quality, sometimes not), internally coherent logic and justifications (by ignoring nuances and edge cases, for example), and attributing some political motivation to the cover-up of the “truth” can be enough to springboard a theory to popularity. Take the flat earth theory, for example. It’s no use to demonstrate that gravity can demonstrate why water stays on a curved Earth – the internal logic of the theory claims gravity is not a force as we know it, at that its true nature is being hidden by those in power.

At the start of this article, I suggested that even those who do their best to get people excited about science could be part of this problem. If you decide to visit certain online forums, there’s a pretty high chance you’ll discover that those who rush to correct the misinformed often end up in vicious arguments that only cause the latter to double down on their beliefs.

So, what is enough? What can we do?

In truth, as individuals ourselves, there is very little sway we can have over others, especially when entrenched institutions and authorities sometimes create an atmosphere of indifference or even hostility towards science.

While it is essential for people to recognise science as an essential and meaningful part of their lives to cultivate their interest, the real heart of the matter is for scientific practice itself to be treated as a living, breathing thing that everyone partakes in. What does that mean?

I would like to imagine a world where science is taken as an attitude, rather than purely raw information listed like an encyclopedia, or even just the “scientific method” as a set recipe of techniques that are limited to the “cooks” of the scientific kitchen.

This attitude comprises a few components. First, good-faith critique, where we are able to set aside political or economic motivations and examine scientific discourse on common ground without assuming deception. Second, a desire to tackle problems we have yet to understand rather than the hesitation bred by the rote learning or examination-focused models of learning. Third, a willingness to re-examine one’s pre-existing beliefs, acknowledge one’s biases, and constantly find new nuances  is required to synthesise one’s knowledge together and formulate a scientific worldview. Finally, the foundational viewpoint that, similar to any creative endeavour like art, science can be further appreciated and understood through sharing and discussion, and that anyone can play this role.

Take Finland’s example, where their students are provided the foundations in cultivating such a worldview. There, educational outcomes are amongst the highest worldwide (including the highest rate of college attendance in Europe), and yet students have little in the way of homework or standardised testing – their first major exam comes at 16. Instead, the focus is on the how of learning, rather than just the what. Extrapolate from here, and what do you see? A world where students are given space to practice good learning attitudes first and cultivate their interests, rather than face the oppressive nature of exams that crush passion in favour of cramming. This is absolutely vital to cure the plague of scientific apathy.

In this world, the prevailing educational paradigm would centre around building up the scientific attitude early on. Whether through mini-experiments in an approachable manner without dealing with intricate technicalities immediately, debates on difficult topics (what is life?), or guided questioning, teachers can lead young students to embrace the critical yet flexible method of inquiry that grounds all good scientific practice.

From there, the learning of new content can begin, with a heavy emphasis on why this knowledge is important and how it was gleaned. Examinations would definitely still test content, but with a greater focus on conceptual understanding than rote memorisation of keywords, placing students in unusual situations where they have to use their knowledge to solve more complex problems they have most likely never previously encountered. That means more practical application, and more long-form questioning that gives space for lateral thought. More advanced examinations could begin to test creativity, requiring students to venture beyond the purely technical aspects of scientific understanding to reason about the wider implications of scientific research on the society around them.

This closely resembles some existing syllabi. For instance, Singapore’s H3 Biology syllabus has a strong emphasis on communication, argumentation and creativity. What we can hope to see is that one day, the approach to scientific discovery in these advanced courses will be treated as the basis of any good scientist’s toolbox, and more people will be able to participate in this vital, thrilling endeavour.

Image Credit: https://www.nature.com/immersive/d41586-025-02736-y/index.html