NeuroMythBusters – Breaking Down Issues in Science Literacy

As upper-level students at a renowned university, we often pride ourselves on an excess of scientific knowledge. So let me begin by testing that knowledge base.

True or False:

Children are less attentive after consuming sugary snacks or drinks.

There are distinct types of intelligences, and learners have a unique combination of each.

Left or right brain dominance can result in differences in learning ability.

You may be surprised to learn that the answer to each of these statements is false.

But how? These ideas have been taught by a plethora of teachers, science or otherwise. And based on a study by Paul A. Howard-Jones, many educators do believe that the above statements are scientifically accurate.

These commonly misunderstood notions, or neuromyths, can be attributed to issues in science literacy and science communication as a whole. I will address a few of these problems as they pertain to the neuromyths above.

1. The use of jargon in surveys and articles

57% of teachers in the UK believe that sugary products make students less attentive. However, studies have proven that there is no connection between sugar and hyperactivity. This idea may be propagated by a difference in understanding – teachers comprehend the word ‘attention’ in terms of behavior compared to neuroscience’s cognitive terminologies. As well, the unnecessarily complex and technical jargon in journals makes it difficult for non-specialists to understand the exact meaning, often leading to oversimplification.

2.  Difficulty in testing

The idea that intelligence cannot be quantified by a single general ability is a popular one. This theory, introduced by Howard Gardner in his book Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences gained traction because everyone wanted to believe they were smart in some way. A critical review has argued that there is a lack of empirical evidence to support this theory; yet Gardner claims that it was misunderstood. Furthermore, the complexity of the brain makes it nearly impossible to test its legitimacy. When ideas cannot be definitively tested or counter-evidence is not clear, it is easy for the average reader to simply accept ideas.

3. Misinterpretation of graphs and images

Educators are encouraged to determine the dominant side of a learner’s brain in order to teach better. While it is true that different brain regions are preferred for different tasks, the idea of hemispheric dominance has no scientific basis. This neuromyth has been aggressively promoted due to misreading of neuroimagery that shows ‘hot spots’ in the brain. Graphs and images are meant to present information in a straightforward manner; however, non-specialists can be easily led to believe there is a greater significance than what is presented.

So where does this leave us? It is obvious that scientists need to do a better job balancing simplicity and detail, whether it be in the form of words or graphs. Nevertheless, it is encouraging to know that while people may not know a lot about science, they still hold a positive view of scientists and consider scientific progress important. If we can continue to build understanding between science and the public, future generations will develop both skill in critical analysis as well as a fervor for scientific advancement.

Famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson on scientific literacy:

Tim Cheung