17 Nov 2025
Doubting is part of science. But what happens when the doubts call science itself into question? At LMU, future teachers are learning how to foster an understanding of science among their students.
Academia is under pressure. Trust in research and facts remains high in Germany—but so too does the number of skeptics. According to the annual Wissenschaftsbarometer (Science Barometer) survey, around one third of Germans have their doubts about science itself. The lower a person’s level of education, the greater their skepticism toward scientific findings.
This became especially clear during the Covid-19 pandemic. Conspiracy theories spread rapidly, and anti-vaccine activists stirred up public opinion against scientific evidence. “This was an entirely new situation,” recalls Birgit Neuhaus, head of the Department of Biology Education at LMU.
Public resistance was fierce. Ironically, science’s greatest strength—its dynamism—was interpreted by critics as a weakness. How could masks be unnecessary at first and later essential? Why did schoolchildren sometimes seem to play a major role in spreading infections and at other times not?
The desire for straightforward answers was and is perfectly understandable. Yet many processes are simply too complex for monocausal explanations. Controversial topics in particular—such as evolution, genetic engineering and medicine—require more nuanced consideration. Moreover, scientific findings are not cast in stone. Researchers can and should challenge one another. New discoveries sometimes lead to revised interpretations of earlier findings. Criticism, self-criticism and correction are therefore integral to scientific practice.
The best protection against hostility toward science is knowing how science works. You can’t develop that understanding from books alone.Prof. Dr. Birgit Neuhaus
Highly simplified opinions, however, are often much more persuasive. Amid the constant noise of social media, it can seem all but impossible to distinguish scientific claims from unscientific assertions. And that goes for students of all ages, as well as for other social groupings.
Professor Neuhaus believes universities have a responsibility here: “They have an important social mandate in dealing with skepticism about science.” Teacher training, she argues, must respond by involving future teachers more deeply in research. She is convinced: “The best protection against hostility toward science is knowing how science works. You can’t develop that understanding from books alone.”
Fortunately, the critical evaluation of information is now firmly embedded in German school curricula as an aspect of “knowledge acquisition.” The topic has even made its way into final exams for high school leavers. At LMU’s Department of Biology Education, budding teachers learn how to design lessons that help pupils understand how scientists reach their conclusions.
In role-playing exercises, the students practice presenting scientific arguments. Communication methods such as thinking hands help them translate complex data into clear visual representations. Collaboration between LMU’s Biology Education Department, Helmholtz Munich and the Technical University of Munich (TUM) has also given rise to an educational film that illustrates how scientific research works—and how to identify flawed studies.
While awareness of the issue is clearly strong, then, much still depends on the individual teacher’s commitment to addressing it in the classroom.
Young people need to learn to think critically about oversimplified claims.Tobias Bjarsch
For Tobias Bjarsch, nurturing students’ “knowledge acquisition skills” is extremely important. Bjarsch teaches biology and chemistry at a high school in Starnberg; he also conducts research and teaches at LMU’s Biology Education Department. He believes that schools should serve as “safe havens in a polarizing world.”
He explains that his students are constantly bombarded with supposedly scientific information that, in reality, often merely constitutes “black-and-white populist interpretations”. Uncertainty about what to do with sources is enormous. His objective? “Young people need to learn to think critically about oversimplified claims.”
Sometimes, Bjarsch even puts his students to the test. Once, he introduced a mysterious new substance called dihydrogen monoxide and claimed it was dangerous. He then watched with satisfaction as his students drew on their chemical knowledge and critical thinking skills to realize that the supposedly toxic compound was simply water.
“Questioning what others say, calmly checking whether something makes sense, recognizing when someone is wrong and noticing how easily we can be influenced—that’s what it’s all about,” Bjarsch insists. “Those are the mature and informed students we want to have.”