Perception of Chemistry and Chemistry Education: a Case Study and Some Reflections

From Firenze University Press Journal: Substantia

Valentina Domenici, Department of Chemistry and Industrial Chemistry, University of Pisa

Giulia Chiocca, Downlands Community School, Dale Avenue Hassocks

Chemistry is one of the most important branches of science since the knowledge of basic concepts of chemistry is as essential for further studies in chemistry-related fields as well as for approaching other sciences, such as natural science, biology, biochemistry, physics, environmental sciences and geology. Most importantly, it enables learners to understand what is happen-ing in the World around them and to use a scientifically critical approach to evaluate and assess the information about different topics related to chemistry that they may encounter every day in newspapers, television programs or in the context of a conversation. Moreover, a good knowledge of chemistry can help people to debunk conspiracy theories and other counterproductive scaremongering attitudes, as those referred as ‘fake news’. Despite its importance in daily life, chemistry is often consid-ered a difficult subject by those ones who approach this science as beginners. Is this merely a prejudice or is there a reason behind this mistrust towards chemistry? Why is it considered such a challenging field of study? Nowadays, the bulk of the population has a fairly sceptical attitude towards science in general. This does not refer to the scientific kind of scepticism, which is based on enquiry, empirical research and reproducibility of results, but a general mistrust of the solutions offered by science, giving chemicals a reputation as ‘unnatural’, ‘artificial’ or ‘poisonous’. In the marketing world this tendency is exploited to improve the sales of so-called ‘natural’ products. Another term which is often used by organic companies is ‘chemical-free’, an extremely mis-leading claim which rings absurd for any professional scientist, if not for others. The word ‘natural’ is often used to imply ‘healthier’ and ‘safer’. This is misleading because many natural substances are neither healthy nor safe (e.g. nicotine or arsenic). Chemical scientists use ‘natural’ to describe substances that are derived from Nature. The word ‘synthetic’ is sometimes used to mean ‘unpleasant’ or ‘dangerous’, however, it simply means ‘man-made’. A similar word, ‘artificial’, implies, in addition, that a chemical does not occur naturally, whereas ‘synthetic’ may refer to naturally occurring chemicals that are copied by humans with industrial or laboratorial processes. Another misused word is ‘contamination’, which is frequently used to imply harmful effects.8However, just because a substance is found somewhere it does not normally occur, this does not necessarily mean it is having a detrimental effect. Making the public aware of how words are misused by the media is a very powerful tool in the fight against scientific misinformation and it is necessary to improve the way chemistry is seen by the public. In their article, “Communicating Chemistry for Public Engagement”, Matthew Hartings and Declan Fahy affirm that chemistry’s bad reputation is due to ‘chemophobia’, a word invented by Pierre Laszlo, who is both a chemist and a populariser of science, to describe the evident trend in the words that people associate with chemistry, such as “poisons, toxins, chemical warfare, alchemy, sorcery, pollution, and mad scientists”. One of the consequences of chemophobia is that people working in creative fields, such as television, cinema or publish-ing, avoid associating the word ‘chemistry’ with the title of their products, fearing that consumers will keep their distance due to bad hangovers from school days or a fear of chemicals. Chemophobia has several definitions, such as: “an irrational aversion to or prejudice against chemicals or chemistry”, “more specifically it refers to the grow-ing tendency for the public to be suspicious and critical of the presence of any man-made (synthetic) chemicals in foods or products that they make use of ”. This social phenomenon has been linked both to a “well-founded concern over the potential adverse effects of synthetic chemicals”, and to “an irrational fear of these substances because of misconceptions about their poten-tial for harm”. Different organizations define the word chemophobia in different ways. The IUPAC (Internation-al Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) describes che-mophobia as an “irrational fear of chemicals”. For the American Council on Science and Health, chemophobia is a fear of synthetic substances arising from “scare stories” and exaggerating claims about their dangers preva-lent in the media. Chemistry professor Pierre Laszlo, who is famous for his work on scientific popularization, writes that historically, chemists have experienced chemophobia from the majority of the population, and he “considers it to be rooted both in irrational notions and in genuine concerns (such as those over chemical warfare and industrial disasters)”. Chemists made a great deal of effort to counteract chemophobia, particularly with regard to educating consumers on the safety of food additives and prepackaged foods. Other counteractions, such as improved communication of science or strategies for tackling adult chemophobia, are described in the literature. Many different organisa-tions also tried to fight this attitude and restore a posi-tive image to chemistry. In the United Kingdom, sever-al associations, such as the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), and in Italy, the Società Chimica Italiana, are working to debunk misconceptions and other counterproductive attitudes towards chemical issues. A very significant action was carried on by the Royal Society of Chemistry in 2015, when a deep investigation about the perception of chemistry in UK22 was performed. This was the first national, in-depth study on how the UK public thinks and feels about chemistry, chemists and chemicals. The aim of this study for the chemists of RSC was to achieve a better understanding of how chemistry is perceived by the general public. A result that came as quite the surprise to professional chemists is that, on the whole, the public has a much better opinion of chemistry, chemists and chemicals than was expected. People also recognize the positive contributions of chemistry both to their daily life and to economic growth and are fairly certain that the benefits of chemistry far outweigh any harmful effects.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/Substantia-2612

Read Full Text: https://riviste.fupress.net/index.php/subs/article/view/2612