You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
A revolution is quietly unfolding in the field of evolutionary biology, challenging entrenched paradigms and reshaping our understanding of how life evolves. The newly emerging Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, as explored in a new book from Princeton University Press entitled Evolution Evolving: The Developmental Origins of Adaptation and Biodiversity (2024), critiques the long-dominant Modern Synthesis, which has reduced evolutionary change to a gene-centric process governed by natural selection acting on random genetic mutations. This framework tended to ignore or downplay the developmental, behavioral and ecological factors that profoundly influence evolution.
In contrast, the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis illuminates how organisms are active participants in their evolutionary trajectories. Through behaviors, environmental interactions, and even cultural inheritance, living beings shape the pressures of natural selection that act upon them. Far from being passive recipients of evolutionary forces, organisms inherit more than genes: they inherit microorganisms, epigenetic modifications, communication systems and ecological niches that profoundly influence their adaptability and biodiversity.
This new framework has far-reaching implications, not just for evolutionary biology but for how science engages the public. It challenges us to rethink how scientific knowledge is communicated and understood.
The Mojave woodrat’s reliance on microorganisms to digest toxic plants, the cultural traditions of humpback whales, and the niche construction activities of various species exemplify the integrative complexity of evolution. Yet the public understanding of science often lags behind such insights, constrained by fragmented educational approaches and sensationalized media reporting.
In many ways, this gap mirrors the limitations of how science is taught in colleges and universities, particularly to non-science majors. Too often, the prevailing model focuses narrowly on discipline-specific knowledge, leaving students unprepared to critically engage with scientific discoveries, interdisciplinary connections or the broader implications of research at the frontiers of inquiry.
To address this, we must rethink science education to emphasize critical analysis of scientific reporting and scientific writings aimed at educated general audiences. By doing so, we can foster a generation that is not only scientifically literate but also equipped to navigate the ethical, ecological and societal challenges of a rapidly changing world.
The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis provides a compelling metaphor for what college science education could aspire to be: a dynamic, interconnected process that values agency, interdisciplinary collaboration, and critical engagement. Just as this framework integrates genetics with developmental biology, behavior and ecology, science education must integrate disciplinary knowledge with broader skills in critical thinking, media literacy and engagement with cutting-edge research. Such an approach would prepare students to move beyond rote memorization of scientific facts and empower them to critically evaluate how science shapes—and is shaped by—human society.
***
The traditional approach to science education for non-science majors at colleges and universities typically involves requiring one or two introductory courses in a specific scientific discipline, often paired with a lab component. This model offers several clear advantages. By focusing on a single discipline, students can develop a foundational understanding of key principles and concepts, whether in biology, chemistry or physics.
In addition, these courses often introduce students to the scientific method, emphasizing hypothesis-driven inquiry, data collection and analysis. The lab component provides hands-on experience, enabling students to apply theoretical knowledge in experimental settings and develop an appreciation for how science operates in practice. For those interested in pursuing further study in science, these courses serve as essential stepping stones.
However, this discipline-based model also has notable limitations. Students are typically exposed to only one or two scientific fields, leaving them ill-equipped to critically engage with developments in other areas or to understand the interconnectedness of scientific disciplines. The narrow focus of these courses often precludes exploration of broader societal and global issues, as well as the frontiers of scientific research.
Furthermore, the structure of these courses, emphasizing established principles, often leaves little room for engagement with contemporary scientific debates or emerging discoveries. As a result, non-science majors frequently graduate without the tools to critically evaluate scientific news or popular science reporting.
An alternative approach to science education for non-science majors could address these shortcomings by offering a cross-disciplinary course that emphasizes critical engagement with scientific reporting and exploration of cutting-edge research. Such a course would not replace discipline-specific introductory courses but could complement them, providing students with a broader understanding of science as a dynamic and interconnected enterprise.
A reimagined science course for non-majors would incorporate several key features. First, it would adopt an interdisciplinary focus, exposing students to major scientific fields such as biodiversity, brain and behavior, cosmology, evolution, climate change, quantum mechanics, and relativity. Rather than diving deeply into the technical details of any one discipline, the course would emphasize the intersections and shared methodologies of these fields.
Second, it would stress critical media literacy, teaching students how to assess the accuracy, biases and limitations of science journalism and popular science writing.
Third, the course would engage students with the frontiers of scientific investigation, exploring emerging research and the debates that drive progress in various fields.
Finally, it would include a strong emphasis on the scientific method, quantitative reasoning and the interpretation of data, ensuring that students gain the skills necessary to evaluate scientific claims rigorously.
The advantages of such an approach are many. By broadening the scope of scientific education, students would gain familiarity with a wider range of disciplines, enabling them to engage with diverse scientific issues. The emphasis on critical thinking would equip students to assess scientific claims in the media, fostering skepticism and discernment in an era of misinformation.
Addressing contemporary challenges, such as climate change and biodiversity loss, would make science education more relevant and engaging, connecting classroom learning to real-world problems. Moreover, exploring the frontiers of science could inspire curiosity and demonstrate the evolving nature of scientific knowledge.
However, there are potential drawbacks to this approach. Covering multiple disciplines in a single course runs the risk of sacrificing depth for breadth, leaving students with only a superficial understanding of each field. Designing and teaching such a course would also require faculty with expertise across disciplines or close interdisciplinary collaboration, which can be logistically challenging.
In addition, some students may find the course intimidating if it involves significant quantitative or methodological components. Finally, implementing this model would require substantial institutional investment in faculty training, course materials and support structures.
A balanced solution might combine elements of both the traditional and alternative models. For instance, non-science majors could take one discipline-specific course to build a foundational understanding and one interdisciplinary course to broaden their perspectives and develop critical thinking skills.
Experiential learning opportunities, such as lab and fieldwork, could be integrated into both types of courses to provide hands-on engagement. Institutions might also consider scaffolded learning pathways, beginning with introductory courses and culminating in advanced, integrative courses that address complex societal challenges.
Also, to ensure that all graduates possess scientific literacy, colleges and universities must revise their distribution requirements to include both discipline-based and interdisciplinary courses. Faculty development programs could support instructors in designing and teaching interdisciplinary courses, while technology, such as simulations and interactive modules, could enhance student engagement. Institutions should also develop assessment metrics to evaluate whether students gain proficiency in scientific reasoning, critical analysis and familiarity with major scientific issues.
While the traditional model of science education for non-science majors has served an important purpose, its limitations suggest the need for complementary approaches. By incorporating interdisciplinary and critical perspectives, colleges and universities can better prepare students to navigate the complexities of contemporary science and its implications for society. A reimagined science curriculum can ensure that graduates not only understand the foundational principles of science but also possess the skills and perspectives needed to engage with the challenges of an increasingly scientific and technological world.
***
Science education for non-majors has its roots in the mid-20th century, when American colleges and universities began to formalize general education requirements. These requirements were designed to expose all students to a broad range of disciplines, including the sciences, and were grounded in the idea that a liberal education should cultivate well-rounded, informed citizens. However, the structure of science education was shaped by a discipline-specific approach that emphasized foundational knowledge in fields like biology, chemistry or physics.
This model was influenced by the scientific priorities of the post-World War II era, particularly the focus on advancing specialized research to address national needs in defense, technology, and public health. Faculty in science departments were incentivized to pursue research over teaching, and courses for non-majors were often designed to mirror those for majors, albeit in a more simplified form. The result was a system that prioritized depth in individual disciplines over breadth or interdisciplinarity.
Today, however, the societal challenges we face demand a rethinking of this approach. Climate change, pandemics and technological disruption are inherently interdisciplinary issues that require an understanding of how various scientific fields intersect. Addressing these challenges calls for citizens who can critically engage with scientific evidence, assess risks and contribute to informed decision-making. Traditional, siloed science education struggles to equip students with this integrative perspective, underscoring the need for reform.
***
One of the most significant limitations of the discipline-based approach is its insularity. While biology, chemistry and physics are often taught as discrete subjects, many of the most exciting and pressing scientific discoveries occur at their intersections. Biophysics, for example, explores the physical principles underlying biological processes, while environmental science integrates geology, biology and chemistry to understand complex ecological systems. When students are exposed to only one or two fields, they miss the opportunity to see these connections and to appreciate how scientific collaboration drives innovation.
This model also misses opportunities to engage students’ curiosity. By focusing on foundational principles and established knowledge, introductory courses can feel static and disconnected from the dynamic nature of scientific discovery. Students rarely encounter the unresolved questions, ongoing debates or ethical dilemmas that make science exciting and relevant. This approach risks alienating students who might otherwise develop a lifelong interest in scientific inquiry.
Moreover, the fragmented nature of science education reinforces public misconceptions about science. When presented as a collection of facts to be memorized, rather than as an iterative and collaborative process of discovery, science can seem static and inflexible. This perception undermines public trust in scientific expertise, particularly in an era when misinformation and pseudoscience are widespread.
***
An alternative approach to science education could be built around integrative themes that connect multiple disciplines. For example, a course on “The Origins of Life” might draw on biology, chemistry and astronomy, while “The Science of the Mind” could incorporate neuroscience, psychology and philosophy. These themes would not only provide coherence but also highlight how scientific questions often span traditional disciplinary boundaries.
Global and cultural perspectives could further enrich this approach. For instance, students might explore how traditional ecological knowledge contributes to biodiversity conservation or how different cultures have historically approached medical care. This broader lens would emphasize that science is not just a Western enterprise but a universal human endeavor.
Practical applications could also play a central role. Case studies, such as the use of CRISPR for gene editing or the deployment of AI in healthcare, would demonstrate how scientific advances address real-world problems. These examples would make the material more engaging and show students the tangible impact of scientific research.
***
Such an approach would cultivate transferable skills that extend beyond the classroom. Critical thinking, media literacy and data interpretation are essential for navigating the complexities of modern life, and a reimagined science curriculum could prioritize these competencies. By analyzing scientific news reports and engaging with primary research, students would learn to evaluate the validity of claims, identify biases, and make informed judgments.
Ethical and philosophical discussions could further deepen students’ understanding. For example, debates over the implications of genetic engineering or the societal consequences of AI would encourage students to grapple with the broader implications of scientific advances. This reflective component would prepare students to approach science not just as a body of knowledge but as a tool for addressing complex, interconnected challenges.
***
Implementing such reforms would undoubtedly face resistance. Faculty accustomed to teaching within their disciplines might view interdisciplinary courses as a threat to their expertise, while institutional inertia could hinder the adoption of new curricular models. Overcoming these barriers would require strong leadership, as well as incentives for faculty to collaborate across departments.
Assessment poses another challenge. Traditional metrics, such as exam performance, may not fully capture the outcomes of an interdisciplinary, skills-focused approach. Institutions would need to develop new methods to evaluate students’ critical thinking, media literacy and ability to synthesize information across fields.
Fortunately, there are existing models that demonstrate the feasibility of such reforms. Harvard’s General Education curriculum includes courses designed to connect disciplinary knowledge to societal challenges, while Stanford’s Thinking Matters program encourages students to engage with big questions through interdisciplinary inquiry.
When I taught at Columbia, I was especially impressed by the core curriculum Frontiers of Science sequence. Team taught by faculty from biology, physics, chemistry, neuroscience and Earth science, the course covers a broad array of topics, including the origins and evolution of the universe, the human brain and cognition, climate change and environmental science, genetics and the potential of CRISPR technology, and quantum mechanics and its implications for technology. The course blends lectures by leading researchers with smaller seminars where students engage in discussions, analyze scientific articles and develop skills in interpreting data and evaluating scientific claims critically.
By introducing students to multiple scientific fields, teaching them how to think like scientists and focusing on the frontiers of scientific inquiry, the Columbia, Harvard and Stanford approaches provide valuable blueprints for integrating breadth and depth in science education.
***
In a recent essay, the cultural commentator and education writer Fredrik deBoer critiques the hype and sensationalism that dominate contemporary science communication on platforms such as YouTube. While acknowledging the unprecedented access to scientific information through various free resources, deBoer laments the overwhelming presence of distorted, speculative and often factually dubious claims.
Examples include grossly exaggerated claims about quantum computing and interstellar colonization that prioritize sensational appeal over accuracy, perpetuating misconceptions and diminishing public understanding of science.
DeBoer attributes this phenomenon to several factors: the attention-driven economy of online media, funding pressures faced by researchers, and corporate motivations to bolster stock prices through overstated claims. He shows how even legitimate scientific advancements, such as quantum computing, become vehicles for overblown speculation, as seen in Google’s claims about their quantum computer “proving” the existence of alternate dimensions.
He also criticizes the cultural portrayal of science as a series of dramatic “Eureka!” moments, contrasting it with the reality of methodical, incremental progress achieved through tedious and often repetitive work. He warns that misleading depictions of science as flashy and groundbreaking may alienate young learners when they encounter the painstaking realities of scientific practice.
DeBoer’s critique of the “coolification” of science is particularly salient in an environment in which the lines between established findings and speculative theories is blurry. His critique of the attention economy and its distorting effects on science communication is particularly timely, given the proliferation of digital platforms that prioritize engagement metrics over accuracy.
***
The paradox of our information-rich age is that while scientific knowledge is more accessible than ever, most people lack the tools to critically engage with and evaluate this information. This gap stems from deficiencies in scientific literacy, which is not merely about knowing scientific facts but involves understanding fundamental principles, assessing evidence, questioning methodologies, and identifying exaggeration or misinformation. Without these skills, the public’s ability to navigate the complexities of modern science remains limited.
The gap in scientific literacy is rooted in several interrelated factors. First, the sheer complexity of modern science creates barriers. Topics such as quantum mechanics, artificial intelligence and biotechnology often require specialized knowledge, leaving the general public dependent on simplified or sensationalized interpretations.
Second, the dynamics of the attention economy amplify this problem. Online platforms, driven by clicks and engagement metrics, prioritize headlines that attract attention over those that accurately reflect the science. As a result, nuanced, evidence-based reporting often loses out to flashy claims and speculative narratives.
Compounding these challenges is growing mistrust in scientific institutions, fueled by political polarization, misinformation campaigns and past instances of scientific misconduct. This erosion of trust makes it even harder for the public to discern credible scientific sources from unreliable ones.
The consequences of limited scientific literacy are profound. Individuals without the skills to critically evaluate scientific claims are more susceptible to misinformation from anti-vaccine rhetoric to climate change denial.
Misunderstandings about how science operates, such as its reliance on provisional hypotheses, can lead to disillusionment when new evidence revises earlier conclusions. This lack of understanding also hinders informed decision-making on critical issues like public health, environmental policy, and technology regulation. Moreover, the portrayal of science as either overly complex or sensationally simplified risks disengaging people altogether, further eroding public trust.
Colleges and universities have an essential a role to play in fostering scientific literacy. Campuses must prioritize critical thinking and media literacy in science education, emphasizing skills such as evaluating evidence, questioning methodologies and identifying bias. Students need to understand the scientific process, including its iterative and self-correcting nature, to build trust in its outcomes.
***
Reimagining science education is not just an academic exercise; it is a societal imperative. In a world grappling with climate change, pandemics and technological disruption, the ability to think critically about scientific issues is more important than ever.
The challenges of our time demand more than technical expertise—they require citizens who can synthesize knowledge across disciplines, evaluate evidence with discernment and consider the ethical implications of scientific advances.
An education system that equips students to navigate the complexities of science and its intersections with society is essential for fostering informed decision-makers, compassionate leaders, and responsible global citizens. By embracing interdisciplinary approaches, emphasizing critical media literacy, and engaging with the frontiers of research, colleges and universities can transform science education into a dynamic, inclusive and empowering experience.
This transformation is not just about producing graduates who understand scientific facts; it’s about cultivating individuals who can question assumptions, grapple with uncertainty and act with wisdom in the face of pressing global issues. Science education must inspire curiosity, ignite a sense of wonder and nurture a deep appreciation for the interconnectedness of knowledge.
The stakes could not be higher. The future depends on an educated populace capable of addressing the environmental, social and technological challenges that define our era. By rethinking science education, we can ensure that students are not only prepared to thrive in an increasingly scientific and technological world but are also equipped to shape it for the better.
This is the promise of a reimagined science education: not just to teach science, but to empower a generation to think critically, bridge disciplines, apply scientific understanding to real-world problems and build a sustainable future.
