As has been pointed out, the alleged problem of the lack of knowledge of science among citizens has been a major concern in developed countries, particularly in the USA, since the late 1950s. This concern led to the implementation of a series of educational initiatives with the aim of promoting a more even distribution of scientific knowledge in society (Gregory & Miller, 1998). These initiatives led in the late 1970s to two academic-educational programmes: one of "scientific literacy" and the other of the "public understanding of science". In the latter "scientific culture" has become one of
the central concepts because it is more comprehensive and has a more descriptive and less normative and cognitive orientation than "scientific literacy". Although both concepts have a long history dating back to the early 20th century (Gómez Ferri, 2012), as is synthesised by Laspra (2018:
27), the concept of scientific culture does not develop from that of scientific literacy but rather builds on its critique.
In this respect it should be made clear that the expression "scientific culture," in its most widespread and accepted definition, does not refer to the term "culture" in an anthropological sense but rather in a "humanistic" sense. In other words, it refers to the knowledge and tastes which lead to a person in a society being considered cultured or uncultured or well-informed and educated or the opposite.
This is a different sense from the term "culture" when it refers to social and cultural anthropology, which is much wider and more comprehensive. The humanistic sense contains and expresses a hierarchical and normative conception of knowledge (Gómez Ferri, 2012). The use of the term
“culture” in an anthropological sense goes beyond the question of the value of knowledge and how it is distributed in society. This anthropological sense understands knowledge as a set of practices of being in the world and giving it meaning. By analogy with the communities studied by anthropologists, it alludes to a set of norms, beliefs and practices shared by a group or community, the "tribe" of scientists (Gómez Ferri, 2012). In this sense, the most accurate expression is "science culture", i.e., the culture of the scientific community (or scientific communities), although as it is not uncommon to see this expression used interchangeably with "scientific culture" the terminology may cause some confusion (Vogt, 2003; Quintanilla, 2010; Claessens, 2021).
"Scientific culture" in a humanistic sense and "scientific literacy" are thus two key elements of the scientific study of what people know, do, or think about science, i.e., of citizens' knowledge, skills, behaviour, and attitudes to science (and technology).
In societies of knowledge with democratic political systems, both the promotion and development of science and technology and in addition the achieving of a certain familiarity and appreciation of the latter by citizens constitute a challenge for public policies and are of undeniable interest if cultural indicators are to be obtained. The surveys commissioned by the National Association of Science Writers (NASW) and carried out by the University of Michigan in 1957 in the USA laid the foundations for the first public perception studies on science and technology. This initiative represented an attempt to measure the scientific literacy and culture of the American population (Davis, 1958). Public perception surveys were not taken up again in the USA until the late 1970s and shortly afterwards were carried out in many other countries. However, in this initial period the foundations were laid for a theoretical model that of the "cognitive deficit", which is precisely what is reflected in Sagan's previous diagnosis.
The deficit model establishes the existence of a linear association between scientific knowledge or literacy and attitudes towards science. The less knowledge and less familiarity with science, the more rejection and disinterest; the more knowledge, the greater the acceptance of science. This model was a result of scientists' own perception and concern rather than being supported by the existence of data. It was based on the concern about a possible generalisation of disaffection with
and even hostility towards science deriving from the public's lack of scientific knowledge. It was allegedly detected in the late 1950s in the context of the so-called "cold war" and more specifically the space race between the USSR and the USA.
This is a simplistic and simplifying model which has predominated for a long time, especially in the carrying out of science communication and popularisation activities, even though the data and results of empirical research do not confirm it. Nevertheless, it has served to sustain and legitimise an extensive programme of the dissemination of scientific culture focusing on the concern about the governance of science. On the one hand, this programme has shown the existence of a certain level of panic in the rush to produce "a more scientifically literate citizenry, capable of actively participating in the resolution of controversies related to science and technology" (Muñoz van den Eynde, 2014). On the other hand, it has been partially separated from studies of scientific culture, which have dealt with the relations between science and the public (López Cerezo, 2017).
Academic interest in science and public relations is somewhat more recent than the study of and reflection on epistemological, sociological, and historical questions about science. Despite this, in just over six decades since the late 1950s (Laugksh, 2000) a rich, varied and powerful interdisciplinary field has emerged, that of science communication and the public understanding of science. In all this time there have been significant advances in the theorisation of its central objects (namely scientific literacy and scientific culture). Progress has also been made in empirical research and in the practices of science communication and popularisation.
This evolution could be summarised very briefly by commenting on the main areas of research. On the theoretical side, the characterisation and definition of "scientific literacy" and "scientific culture", two concepts which have been converging in the process, have been refined. In this manner both concepts have become more precise, rigorous, and comprehensive. In addition, they have been moving away from the school bias of the initial period (Pardo, 2014). A conceptual apparatus capable of better describing and explaining the reality of the diverse and complex relationships between science and the public has been developing. To be more precise, it would be more helpful to talk of the relationships between different sciences and different publics (de Cózar Escalante & Núñez Castro, 2018).
In the carrying out of research, the operationalisation of core concepts has reached an acceptable level of refinement, which means that solid measurement instruments have been established in empirical research, either to describe the phenomena involved or to formulate theories and explanatory models in rejection of the initial deficit, passive, and unidirectional model (Pella et al, 1966; Shen, 1975; Miller, 1983, 1998; Bauer et al, 2000; Roberts & Bybee, 2007; Godin & Gingras, 2000; Bauer, 2014). This process of operationalisation has been the result of collaborative work at an international level which has produced indicators allowing both transverse and longitudinal comparisons within countries.
In any case, in the process of international standardisation one should avoid the trap of the conceptualisation of scientific culture in terms of a sporting competition, to see who comes in first
and last, an approach which judges countries or individuals (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016: viii). We must also avoid losing the ability to capture ethnic, regional, or national particularities owing to the preponderance of quantitative survey techniques.
Finally, throughout this period of time there have been profound social changes which go beyond the very field of scientific study being discussed here. Basically, as society has changed the roles and relationships between science and its publics it has also been reshaped. This is especially evident in the changes observed in the attitudes, perceptions, and practices of citizens with regard to science.
The model of an ignorant, passive, and uncritical citizen, in addition to the paternalistic, elitist and technocratic relationship of the initial period, is losing ground. In its place we are seeing the emergence of the perception of a more active, critical, involved and participatory citizen both individually and collectively. It is a dynamic in which the boundaries of the relations and divisions between laymen and experts are more open and fluid (House of Lords, 2000; Jasanoff, 2003; López Cerezo, 2005; Lengwiler, 2008; Cortassa, 2010; Pardo, 2014). Civil society has been incorporated as a new agent in the (co)production and dissemination of expert or scientific knowledge, thus breaking the monopoly and scientific hegemony of so-called experts. This new point of view calls into question, although it does not reverse, the traditional cultural order and hierarchies based on the divisions of the production and possession of knowledge.