Science in the pub
Rick Nelson, chief Editor -- Test & Measurement World, 11/1/2006
 |
Contributing editor Amy Laskowski in her blog (www.tmworld.com/blogs) applauds the recent spate of US Nobel Prizes in science, but she notes that although the prizes demonstrate the capabilities of our top-notch research universities, they mean little with respect to the educational experiences of the vast majority of US students at the elementary and high school levels. She commented, “Americans tend to be passionate about ’hot’ science issues, such as the stem-cell debate and evolution, but educators need to find a way to translate that interest into their classrooms” in a way that “fosters interest in math and hands-on learning.”
On the other side of the Atlantic, UK educators are contending with a new syllabus called “Twenty First Century Science.” Far from fostering hands-on learning, the new syllabus “moves away from test tubes and Bunsen burners, towards an understanding of such topics as global warming,” writes Guardian (www.guardian.co.uk) columnist Simon Jenkins.
Jenkins believes this is fine and reports on his own unpleasant experiences with a previous curriculum, which “included trigonometry, advanced algebra, and differential calculus, and related them to physics, engineering, statics, and dynamics. I can not remember any of it, nor have I found the slightest use for it.”
He sees an upside to de-emphasizing science: “If I were a scientist or mathematician I would plead for my subject to be optional after primary school…I would want no army of sullen recruits telling the world that my subject was 'boring.’”
Others object to the new syllabus, as reported in the UK public-sector news Website www.24dash.com. Sir Richard Sykes, rector of the Imperial College of London and the former chairman of GlaxoSmithKline, said the new syllabus is a move toward “sound-bite science.” The British philosopher Baroness Warnock suggested the new curriculum is “more suitable for the pub than the classroom.”
I agree with Baroness Warnock. What little interest people do take in science and technology is primarily related to an attempt to win a pub argument, or an election. The passion Laskowski comments on is for the politics—not the science.
That’s completely backward. As Sir Richard said, “Science should inform the news agenda, not the other way around. Before we can engage the public in an informed debate we need the scientists to do the science.”
The question of how we encourage passion for science for its own sake remains open. More funding for Bunsen burners is probably not the answer.
