"Exploring Science Literacy and the Literacy Communities of the Anti-Vaccination Movement"
Wyn RichardsWyn Andrews-Richards is a rhetoric scholar with specific research interests in literacy studies (particularly science literacy/aliteracy), writing center studies, political rhetoric, and feminist rhetoric. She will begin her masters program in August 2016 at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
Contents |
Science Literacy ScholarshipIn a piece from 1982, “Bankruptcy of Science's Debate: The Creed of Science and Its Critics,” Roy MacLeod examines how the science community represents itself in a “scientifically rational” manner and as the “norm of truth.” MacLeod states, “Public criticism of this self-justification has, in the West, assumed major proportions. Yet, remarkably, science is still often taught in ways that assume a canonical world-view" (MacLeod, 1982). This idea gives those interested in promoting science literacy an interesting puzzle to solve. Science itself is trying to convey science literacy to its students, presenting an attitude that science shouldn’t be questioned; the contention is that continued and reinforced science literacy will alleviate suspicion about the scientific method, which is so often found in anti-science groups such as the anti-vaccination movement. With the scientific method following a logical step-by-step process, focusing on achieving absolute truths throughout disciplines, it is curious how science skepticism and science illiteracy have come to the fore. It raises the question that the scientific community might be responsible for the current trend of distrust of science, manifested by the anti-vaccination movement. Interestingly, in a rhetorical examination of Wakefield’s notorious paper, Lauren Archer writes, “I argue the very practices of scientific publishing, specifically the tradition of hedging, help to create a scientifically acceptable text but also leave discursive gaps. These gaps allow for alternate interpretations as scientific texts pass from technical to public contexts, enabling insufficiently supported claims the standing of scientific knowledge among citizens" (Archer, 2014). This raises concerns about the scientific publishing community contributing to science illiteracy in adults, rather than contributing to science literacy. In fact, the possibility is raised that without everyday literacy, the scientists responsible for scientific texts themselves could be leading to scientific apathy among the general population, a scientific aliteracy, as opposed to illiteracy. In our present society, with much pre-modern superstition being eliminated from our culture, it is easy to question the need for science literacy. Jon D. Miller states emphatically, “In a democratic society, the level of scientific literacy in the population has important implications for science policy decisions" (Miller, 1983). When this article was written in 1983, climate change, fracking, GMOs, as well as the prevalence of the anti-vaccination movement could not have been foreseen. However, with these critical problems, science policy is quickly becoming a more urgent theme in politics, and a topic requiring considerably more literacy than the majority of adults in the United States possess, and certainly more than the majority care to possess. In their article addressing the problems relating to science literacy in adults, David Cronin and Jonathan Messemer write, “Only one in four American adults are considered scientifically literate and the average American adult’s understanding of science is less than desirable" (Cronin and Messemer, 2013). Clearly, science illiteracy is a significant issue in the United States. Once a citizen has reached adulthood, how can this illiteracy be alleviated? Cronin and Messemer state, “It is the general public’s appeal for scientific content knowledge that often catalyzes their engagement in citizen science – particularly when a project is meaningful to the learner and community and expected to yield meaningful results” (Cronin and Messemer, 2013). This leads to the deeper question of how science illiteracy and perhaps even more importantly science aliteracy can be alleviated in adults, with their firm commitment to the anti-vaccination movement. In their article for the American Journal of Public Health, authors Kenneth Camargo Jr. and Roy Grant discuss strategies to correct the issue of effective science communication to the general public. Their title is quite adept at addressing many of the problems relating to science literacy in the United States in 2015: “Public Health, Science, and Policy Debate: Being Right is Not Enough.” Clearly, there is a communication chasm between scientists and the public. Scientists produce vaccines, tested repeatedly for effectiveness and safety. Yet, so many believe the scientists represent a brand of evil that is seeking to harm people, rather than help people. Camargo and Grant never deny that issues in public health can be fraught with ethical dilemmas. They state, “The key to democratic public policy is the availability of scientific evidence, its effective communication, and the competence of those involved in its formulation to evaluate presented evidence" (Camargo and Grant, 2015). The anti-vaccination groups must be reached. This deep ravine consisting of these so-very-important factors, effective communication and competence, needs to be bridged. |