We don't have an information problem. We have a scientific literacy and trust problem.
I agree. Kids learn science as a set of established facts, formulas, and historical discoveries.
Best case is they come away from high school aware of some sequence of wrong theories eventually replaced by the correct one. Atoms were indivisible solid spheres, then we discovered they contained electrons, then protons and neutrons, and finally quantum mechanics revealed "what atoms really are".
They almost always miss that scientific theories are rarely discarded because they are "false." Scientific theories are models with a limited domain of validity and as new evidence appears, we develop theories that explain a wider range of phenomena while preserving the successful predictions of earlier models where those models already worked.
Students learn the fun anecdotes (Newton was sitting under a tree), but no attention is paid to how scientific knowledge is actually produced. The scrutiny, the debates, how they were resolved, what scientists could not know at the time a debate was resolved.
I think it's more important for a 17-year old to finish school knowing why peer review matters, how to read a research paper, or why a single study is almost never the final word on a subject, than of being able to calculate the distance traveled by an object thrown in the air at a 45 degrees angle in the North Pole or what happens if a solution of calcium chloride is mixed with a solution of sodium carbonate or how to calculate an integral.
They should be taught the difference between a hypothesis, a model, a law, and a theory, and how scientific theories evolve as new evidence accumulates. That disagreement is a normal part of science: competing ideas are tested, challenged, replicated, and gradually accepted or discarded based on evidence rather than authority. To treat science as the best available model to explain the world, why we need such a model, and how to compare models.
Understanding this process is more valuable than memorizing isolated facts, because it equips people to evaluate new claims, recognize weak evidence, and distinguish genuine scientific consensus from speculation or misinformation.