Link This | Email this | Blog This | Comments (0)

Science in the pub
October 16, 2006

Contributing editor (and college senior) Amy Laskowski in her blog asks what the recent US Nobel Prize wins in science mean for US science education. Not much, she concludes. Although the spate of prizes reflects well on our top-notch research universities, it means little with respect to K-12 education.

She notes, “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 the new syllabus “moves away from test tubes and Bunsen burners, towards an understanding of such topics as global warming, GM foods, vaccination, pollution, health, and diet,” writes Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins.

Jenkins believes this is just fine and reports on his own unpleasant experiences with a previous curriculum: “My own science O-level 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 scientists for 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 disagree, and the new syllabus has brought about many complaints from the educational community, as reported in the UK public-sector news Website 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”—a poor alternative to “a good grounding in the fundamentals of science and technology.” 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 backwards. 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 today’s students to become those scientists remains open. More funding for Bunsen burners is probably not the answer.

Posted by Rick Nelson on October 16, 2006 | Comments (0)