Beyond Dissemination: From Critical Science Literacy to Citizen Neuroscience

Neuroscience increasingly informs education, mental health, and public policy, yet its real-world impact remains limited, with misunderstandings and neuromyths persisting. We argue that the societal impact of neuroscience communication depends less on the volume of information disseminated than on whether it cultivates critical science literacy, namely, the ability to evaluate how neuroscientific knowledge is generated, modeled, and constrained and to understand the inferential steps linking data to conclusions and their limits of generalization. In the context of neuroscience, we refer to this as critical neuroscience literacy to emphasize the domain-specific challenges of interpreting brain-based evidence. The primary barrier is not insufficient dissemination alone, but systematic misinterpretation of neuroscientific inference once findings leave the laboratory. We advance three claims: first, that public misunderstandings often reflect limited insight into scientific reasoning and practice rather than simple information deficits about scientific results; second, that citizen science and dialogical engagement function as mechanisms for practicing such reasoning rather than as outreach add-ons; and third, that neuroscientists share responsibility for shaping the interpretive conditions under which findings are translated, particularly in education, health, and policy. Importantly, this self-referentiality is not merely descriptive. Interpretations are associated with beliefs, expectations, and environments that may themselves be linked to neural and behavioral change. We outline implications for training, incentives, and professional norms within the neuroscience community.