Public Understanding of Genetics: The Deficit Model

Abstract

Genetics is relevant to many aspects of our lives. According to the deficit model of public understanding, any misgivings that people have about genetics and its applications are caused by a lack of understanding. Consequently, education in genetics is expected to lead to improved literacy in, and therefore support for, this area. However, studies show that education does not automatically lead to increased public support and that increased knowledge of controversial research may lead to decreased support for it. Understanding is thus a complex and dynamic process which depends on people's prior knowledge and on their social and cultural locations. Members of the public should not be seen as deficient in understanding. Rather, they have sophisticated understandings which should be acknowledged. Public support for genetics cannot be improved simply through more or better education; alternatives such as public engagement in science or institutional changes promoting trustworthiness may be more useful. Key Concepts According to the deficit model, lack of public understanding of genetics leads to an inability to fully participate in social life and potentially lack of support for new technologies. This can be remedied by education. According to critical approaches to public understanding, understanding is a complex process that involves social and cultural factors. Public understanding of genetics is more sophisticated than the deficit model assumes. The idea of lay expertise suggests that people who are not certified scientists may nonetheless have useful and relevant, often experience‐based, knowledge that helps them make sense of science and genetics. Public engagement, where people with different kinds of knowledge and opinions are consulted instead of merely educated, may help improve science–society relations. The deficit model is a sticky concept: it remains popular in some areas of science, policy and science communication despite its shortcomings.

The Many Facets of Genetic Literacy: Assessing the Scalability of Multiple Measures for Broad Use in Survey Research

“…However, for consumer applications of genomics, understanding the words used in an advertisement (awareness knowledge) and being able to find and use additional information online (how-to knowledge) might be a more important dimensions of genetic literacy than technical facts. In this sense, a multidimensional conception of genetic literacy counters the dated deficit model, which has been criticized in health literacy literature for overemphasizing basic scientific principles and underemphasizing that which the public already knows [ 33 ].…”

Lay understandings of drug‐gene interactions: The right medication, the right dose, at the right time, but what are the right words?

“…The deficit model has been critiqued in health literacy literature for failing to capture what the public already knows. 42,43 Crucially, the pragmatic and value functions of patient communication are likely to be overlooked if pharmacists, geneticists, or clinicians solely interpret lay word choice as reflections of underlying genetic illiteracy. This framing is similar to prior research pointing to a mismatch in the amount of information PGx recipients are given and what they want.…”

Evaluation and Discussion of Genetics Content in Museums

“…Though many state science education standards now include specific requirements for genetic literacy, many of these were implemented after 2010, leaving a large majority of current adults without access (11,12) . Adult genetic literacy is impeded primarily by access (13,14) , but also by lack of communication training among healthcare experts (15,16) and perceived lack of self-efficacy to understand genetic information (17,18) . While a growth in availability of online resources led to greater access to genetics literature, they also have contributed to rapid dissemination of misinformation.…”