Some languages have lower information rates than others.
Korean is the most like Japanese of the languages in the study. Even though Japanese is spoken the fastest (most syllables per second) it has the lowest information rate. What could be communicated in ten minutes in English would take about 15 minutes in Japanese. Maybe that is one reason why Koreans and Japanese study more hours- they must deal with a lower signal to noise ratio.
Regardless of language, verbal information is passed along at more or less the same rate: those languages with a lower info density have higher rates of speech.
This is because the rate of information flow is a reflection of human thought processes, and as we all know, this is more or less the same the world over (only ignorant racists would argue otherwise).
It seems that humans may be naturally and universally self-regulating when it comes to communicating through speech. There is a balance that cannot be disturbed: fast syllables are not allowed to carry too much meaning, and syllables with lots of information must be spoken slowly.This is an interesting source
if you want to know more about how information is passed along with respect to the speed and informational density of various languages.
So judging by that benchmark, English was the most "scientific" of the languages studied. Efficiency is why. Too bad Korean wasn't in that study. (Not a major world language so it was ignored I guess.) Korean is slightly less information dense than Japanese I'd say, as its grammar is a bit more convoluted.
Again, no. What good is a language if it takes forever and a half to learn it properly? Chinese Hanja is incredibly information dense, but students are still learning every-day vocabulary in highschool. Likewise, to master English, we need to know incredibly vast amounts of vocabulary and grammar because English is an exceptional (pun!) language when it comes to exceptions.
As an aside, I also think that before we discuss this any further we need to define what is meant by 'scientific' as I don't feel that it is the same as 'efficient'.