Informed scientific thinking is a vital component of engaging all socioscientific issues (SSI) such as climate change and the COVID‐19 pandemic. However, socioscientific engagement may be influenced by sociocultural factors and mis/disinformation efforts to the widespread detriment of human and environmental well‐being. The purpose of this mixed‐methods study was to determine how 506 post‐secondary life science majors' COVID‐19 related nature science (NOS) views and COVID‐19 vaccine acceptance/support and conspiracy resistance changed through pandemic responsive instruction on COVID‐19 science, viral biology, and vaccines with integrated focus on NOS and mis/disinformation. This investigation also sought to reveal factors (e.g., sociocultural group membership, NOS views) that associated with changes in those students' COVID‐19 vaccine acceptance/support and conspiracy resistance. After experiencing the pandemic responsive instruction, the students' COVID‐19 vaccine acceptance/support and conspiracy resistance and trust in COVID‐19 science and cognizance of its reliable and revisionary character (i.e., NOS) significantly improved from a small to large extent. Through the pandemic responsive instruction, the students' development of NOS views significantly associated with their development of higher levels of vaccine acceptance and conspiracy resistance and increases in students' vaccine conspiracy resistance significantly associated with increases in vaccine acceptance. Changes in students' vaccine acceptance and conspiracy resistance from before to after the pandemic responsive instruction also varied significantly based on sociocultural grouping (e.g., race/ethnicity and political orientation). Despite the promising impact demonstrated by the pandemic responsive instruction, vaccine conspiracy views and resistance appeared to linger among the students who notably were entering fields that deal with viruses, vaccines, and public health. Implications discussed include the importance for helping students to understand NOS relevant to SSI and analyze how sociocultural membership, motivated and identity protective reasoning processes, mis/disinformation, and trust in science influence socioscientific decision‐making.
