Since always, science has been considered somewhat of a synonym for education, intelligence, or prestige. Many times the word “scientist” is used to describe a very intelligent person, who can do everything, and is discovering incredible things. Phrases like “scientists discover…” or “scientists warn about…” are very common in today’s social environment. To some extent, these conceptions are not entirely incorrect, as a person who decides to dedicate their life to science does educate themselves, and I would dare to say that no matter the branch of science you want to pursue, once inside, you never stop studying and learning. Mainly because science itself is not something we can easily categorize into a career or a job. Labeling someone as a scientist is a huge generalization because just as a person in a lab cultivating cells and conducting experiments is a scientist, another person solving mathematical theories who has never touched a pipette or seen a microscope in their life is equally a scientist. Science is too vast and increasingly specialized, but all this must start somewhere, and that is precisely the topic that will be discussed in the following article. The journey of every “scientist” begins in the classroom, and I believe that how we teach science needs to change radically.
I recently started a position as a science teacher, and for no reason do I consider myself an expert in pedagogy. Being completely honest, my time in teaching is just a drop in the ocean of experts and people infinitely more experienced than I am. However, it took me only 4 months to notice some problems, or better said, without too much negativity, some areas of opportunity where teaching, and especially teaching science, needs to change.
It's no secret that the lecture method is a very tested model and has demonstrated good results for a long time. But it’s also no secret that it is a quite outdated model, and nowadays, many educational institutions are looking to move away from this model. My entire education, both pre-university and post-university, followed this model, but now that I find myself on the other side, I have observed that this model may not be the most suitable for today’s generations.
Outside of the different models being promoted in institutions, I myself see that it seems like young people simply do not seem as receptive as I or my peers were in our high school days. And I am not actually suggesting a difference of decades; I finished high school in 2019 and my education was always based on the transmission of information from teacher to student, and very practical exercises. Whether you were a good student or not so good, it was enough to study and have appropriate notes to excel academically. But this no longer seems to be the norm. I say this from my very limited experience, where I do my best to convey information, share supporting material, and conduct quizzes or exams exclusively on what was covered in class and the shared material. Despite this, my students' performance on these tests is poor, even when they have all the tools to excel.
For me, science has always been of personal interest. From the first time I entered a laboratory, I knew this would be what I dedicated the rest of my life to, and I was fortunate enough to have teachers who ignited a passion for science that is often needed to pave the way in any profession you choose. As I mentioned at the beginning, science is too broad, so to be clear and not contradict myself, my main interest was in biological chemistry, while mathematical physics was never my strong suit. For that reason, my role as a teacher today is within this area where I am an expert and have developed throughout my professional career. And here is where I think I reach my main point, to what I refer to when I say that there must be a change.
Interest is key to excel in anything, be it educational, recreational, sports, etc. If there is no interest, it is difficult for effort to arise to excel or even simply fulfill tasks becomes complicated. I believe that there have never been so many sources of stimuli as there are today, so attention will always be divided between what is happening in class and the rest of the elements in today’s students' lives, whether phones, computers, tablets, or the countless extracurricular activities they may have. This is why I believe we need to rethink how we teach science. One who is already on the other side, who knows and has already fallen into the web of wonders and illusions, it seems easy to just repeat our knowledge and expect the same in return; however, explaining the same functioning of the human body or a cell is not really interesting for a person who can interact with the rest of the world live by just using their phone. And although I am definitely aware of the importance of certain basic information necessary to understand larger parts of science, I believe we should focus on forming thinking rather than memorization in future scientists. What I mean by this is that it is more important for my students to question people talking about science without clear or at least logical evidence rather than being able to recite essential amino acids from memory.
Within this same argument, I would like to provide the following example. Today, I found a contradictory statement on the CDC website while consulting (12/09/2025). This requires analysis because it does not align with their historical stance nor with scientific consensus. This is likely due to the fact that today, certain political actors in the United States have pushed narratives that contradict scientific consensus leading a campaign of boycott and discrediting against “expert scientists,” and using their own “scientists” (and this time the quotation marks are not due to the generalization suggested at the beginning, but rather because I genuinely do not believe they even deserve that generalized title) they have spread misinformation on topics where the consensus is more than clear. And of course, it had to be about the possibility that vaccines cause autism. The verdict, for a long time, has been that there is no relationship between early vaccination and the appearance of autism spectrum disorder [1]. However, at the time of writing this article, the official CDC website states the following, “The claim vaccines do not cause autism is not an evidence-based claim because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism. Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities” [2]. This institution should be the highest authority regarding the science behind health, and it has been for a long time; it received much criticism during the COVID-19 pandemic, and lost the favorable perception of the general public. However, dealing with a new and constantly evolving pandemic is much more complex than “reviewing” one of the most studied issues in the health world. Not to mention that currently that “study ignored by health authorities” they mention is under investigation [3]. Just as the first study published on the subject showing a correlation was retracted for being of little scientific validity, this study uses alarmingly extreme data to report this relationship.
All this to say that memorizing the Krebs cycle does hold some importance, but I am much more interested in them knowing how to differentiate between interesting statements and suspicious ones. Another example is the attempt in the United States to pass a bill in which all foods containing messenger RNA (mRNA) must be labeled with this information. In the video [4] it is not entirely understood if it refers to animal products that have received some type of vaccine using mRNA technology because if it is genuinely talking about products with mRNA, it is likely that there will not be a single product, either animal or plant-based, that will remain free of this label since mRNA is one of the key points in the production of proteins in any living organism; the mere presence of bacteria or yeasts in things like beer would suffice to require this labeling. On the other hand, only very fresh foods might fit this category. This is because RNA is a very unstable molecule, and after a certain time in preservation, it is more than likely to degrade. Regardless of the case, mRNA in food products does not pose any threat to anyone. So here is where we can observe the decline of scientific understanding in society and even worse, in politics. It is really concerning how ignorant we are in an era where we have most of human knowledge summarized at our disposal.
So, all this to say that today, if we want to form scientists, and even better, people aware of scientific thinking, I believe we must allow ourselves to take a step back from theory and concepts and give the main stage to critical thinking, independent research, and evidence-based questioning. Because they already have access to theory and in much greater detail than I could ever teach them. And it is important to teach them to guide this information, and I am not advocating for the disappearance of lectures. But in a world filled with so many stimuli, so much information, and especially so much misinformation, the scientists who will be talked about tomorrow will not be those who learned the most concepts, but those who managed to form a critical way of thinking and who then learned their Krebs cycle and amino acids, knowing how to differentiate between quality information and garbage information.
References:
1. Andersson NW, Bech Svalgaard I, Hoffmann SS, Hviid A. Aluminum-adsorbed vaccines and chronic diseases in childhood: A nationwide cohort study: A nationwide cohort study. Ann Intern Med [Internet]. 2025;178(10):1369–77. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00997
2. CDC. Autism and vaccines [Internet]. cdc.gov. 2025 [consulted on December 9, 2025]. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html
3. Gallagher CM, Goodman MS. Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002. J Toxicol Environ Health Part A [Internet]. 2010;73(24):1665–77. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2010.519317
4. Rubin Z. Could Idaho require that foods with mRNA be labeled? [Internet]. Youtube; 2025. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/XZHcH3LaHok
Comments