Full marks to Tony Blair for saying we need to encourage more of our young people to become scientists. A black mark for causing the problem in the first place.
He says we must encourage young people who want to “change the world”, become science pioneers, a pity he didn’t think of that before allowing science to be 
dumbed down in our failing schools.
We should be proud of our distinguished scientists, and Blair says he wants them to be revered the same as sports personalities. That’s unlikely to happen because while most boys love playing footie and support a team, science, by the very nature of its work, does not have the same appeal about it.
Also, why does Whitehall today control 20% of science spending, stifling creativity and innovation, compared to 2% of the science budget in 1997? This must cause prolonged delays and bureaucracy in trying to set up and support new research projects.
We are certainly going to need to “change the world” too, with the impending threat of climate change, we shall desperately need all our knowledge and skills to tackle a global crisis and other environmental issues.
Let’s hope schools and those in the science profession put their heads together to solve this problem by devising stimulating teaching techniques to encourage and arouse the interest of pupils. Maybe we need a science equivalent of Jamie Oliver to connect with children and make it exciting and fun, without the dumbing down.
But it seems teachers may need extra training. At the moment,two-thirds of those who teach physics to 15-and 16-year-olds do not have a degree in physics, and one third do not even have an A-level in the subject. Are they properly qualified to teach these subjects? Do they feel comfortable about it themselves? I know teachers work very hard these days, but I am surprised about these figures.
Finally, if Tony Blair believes we should show the same esteem to our scientists as our hero-worshipped sportsmen, can someone please tell me why David Beckham deserves a knighthood, while our distinguished Stephen Hawking has not been honoured this way?
That’s so, so true, Ellee. Those scientists who can cure diseases and advance medical understanding are the ones who really deserve a knighthood, not some overpaid footballer who has a fashion-mad wife.
I don’t think it is necessarily always to do with government funding or policies, but can be as much to do with fashion. Science seems to be going through an unfashionable phase at the moment with scientists cast as the ‘baddies’ who mess about with genetically modified crops, cut up live animals, repsonsible for dubious technology and so on. Moreover, children in schools are prefering the ‘softer’ options, so science departments in universities all over the country are closing whilst courses in media studies, performing arts and psychology are overflowing. Children these days don’t seem to be able to cope with the rigourous discipline required to study science.
During my O-levels I didn’t get much hands-on training in doing experiments and thinking scientifically. I don’t know if things have changed now but the best way to get kids into science is to have practicals – see that the book learning is actually good for figuring out real life problems.
Speaking as I scientist I am afraid there is no going back. Blair’s soundbite will be forgotten by tomorrow.
Science happens in only three places. In industry (largely shuit down, or gone abroad), in universities and teaching hospitals (have a look at our nobel prize record, we win half as many as we did a generation ago), and in previously government funded labs like Harwell, Culham, Farnborough (Many now sold off or run down).
We won’t find many fourteen year olds falling for the soundbite. They, or their parents, only have to ask, “What are my job prospects, and how much am I likey to earn in a scientific career?” It will then be obvious to them that “Slim” and “Not a lot” will favour a more pragmatic career path choice.
When I was teaching – I was head of modern languages – a headteacher remarked to me that my subject wasn’t “sexy”! So maybe that’s what’s wrong with science, too! By “sexy” he meant a subject that mostly involved using computers. I agree that lessons need to be interesting and a teacher needs to be enthusiastic about their own subject in order to convey that enthusiasm to others. But you can’t entertain ’em all the time! I don’t see why Beckham should get a knighthood for kicking a ball about when scientists and doctors don’t get honoured, either.
Welshcakes, I agree, you can’t entertain ‘em all the time. This is OK as far as the exams taken up to the age of sixteen (whatever they are called this week), but if we want more people to get decent degrees in physics or chemistry it’s a little patronising to suggest that more touchy feely interactive experiments and demonstrations are what’s needed. If you are going to get a first class honours degree in science you had better have a passion for the subject, including all the tricky boring bits. I sense such sentiments are a bit out of place in this day and age. It’s far, far easier to excel in more “modern” subjects where there is less true/false or right/wrong, and more relative arguments and fashionable opinions.
John East, what you say is music to my ears! Someone agrees with me! Believe me, I used to be your original all-singing, all-dancing, language teacher. But if we want anyone to learn anything in depth, that, as you say, involves some boring slog at times. When told to “eff off” in class, I used to ask pupils, “What are you going to do when you get a job and your boss asks you to do something boring? Are you going to just say, ‘eff off?'” There were two responses to this: either, “Yeh, so what?” or, more often pupils would put their legs on the table in front of them, lean back in the chairs and announce, “Ain’t gonna get a job, neh – going on the social.” At the other end, those who did want to get somewhere didn’t mind being bored and didn’t want to be stretched. I used to ask them if they weren’t soul-destroyed at all the silly “tick this box” GCSE questions and they’d say, “Yeh, it’s boring but it’s better than wriring something”!! And these were the ones who got A* GCSE grades! Heaven help us! Needless to say, when they got to A level and had to think, they didn’t like that either! Anyway, in the end it was me who got soul-destroyed and got out. Sorry, Ellee, if I’m going off the point, but it’s a debate rather close to my heart!
What is the solution though? Forcing more kids to do science until GCSE?
Actually, I think maybe so. Not so much through force as disposing of media studies and nu meeja subjects that are too easy. A possible alternative woul dbe to make those exams much harder and thereby level the playing field.
WL, Glad you spoke honestly, your experience is why I take my hats off to teachers. Like all subjects, there must be those pupils that stand out as being excellent and need that extra push or encouragement, it’s more than the fact that science isn’t a sexy subject. I’m also concerned about rising tuition fees at university and feel we must very proactive seek out business sponsorship for science, as well as other core subjects. I think we have enough nu meeja students for the whole of Europe!
I agree with Jim and John East. what I find sad is that the Science of Biology seems very out of fashion and difficult to fund new project etc (I am basis that comment on your experience Jim).
This debate (pro/anti-science) will continue, but will go nowhere.
It will be debated by intelligent people and ignorant people on both sides of the argument who are products of the same modern educational system that we are all subjected to today.
This is a system that ignores the basics of every subject taught (guaranteeing eventual failure), encourages touchy feely concepts like self learning, and promotes the concept that all opinions are equally valid.
Most, if not all humanities subjects, which lack any intellectual rigour, can flourish in this environment, but science can only continue on the bedrock of earlier scientific advances. As soon as fashionable opinion is introduced as an equally valid concept in place of the scientific method then the advance of the human race comes to an abrupt stop.
And we might be there today.
Most have no concept of science is all about, no notion of the scientific method, and far worse, no system of logical thought or structured argument to help them to arrive at any intellectually defensible position on any subject.
Strong opinions, firm beliefs, and ideology win the debates in today’s society.
It’s just as well that Galileo, Newton and Einstein did their thing in an earlier age. I doubt that they would get an audience today.
John, You paint a dismal view, if only you had an influential voice to help steer through the proactive advancement of science, don’t give up joining the debate and doing what your can.
Your last observation is a sad conclusion about the position and support of today’s scientists.
Can’t believe that I got to this debate so late – as a university lecture (in physics), it is also close to my heart.
To be fair to Tony, his government has increased science funding hugely. Just like he has with the NHS and schools. But, alas, all that money thrown at a problem hasn’t produced the results it could. Science funding has the opposite problem to the NHS – here just throwing money at the problem would have worked, but unfortunately, he couldn’t stop his ministers fiddling with the system (they have to justify their positions, after all), and he actually put reforms in the system that made things worse. If his strategy had been the same as the NHS – throw money at it – then it would have had a much better outcome.
The problem is worse than hte 20% of Whitehall ring-fencing you quote – the research councils (government quangos for distributing) also have a say what projects get funded, to the point where responsive mode (i.e scientists apply for money for their own research) is dwarfed by directed funding (the research councils telling the scientists what to apply for).
And what is the result of this change in emphasis? If you are one of the lucky few who work in a “sexy” research area (e.g any physical science with “bio”, “nano” or “sustainable” in the title), you get more money than you can possibly spend effectively. There is also a large bias towards the big project managed research plans (e.g electric dipole moment of the neutron), where hundreds of scientists spread across dozens of universities are working on a large-scale, overly managed project. And trust me – they really do have a bums-on-seat policy – I know someone who has been given a job there (and shouldn’t have been).
But this rhetoric from No 10 isn’t new – it’s been there from the start. But unfortunately, the success that Tony is claiming has resulted in the closure of 70 university science departments in 7 years, culminating with the recent announcement from Reading university – who will close their physics department (which, by most standards, is a pretty good department for both teaching and research).
Another dimension in the debate is the willingness and ability of scientists to communicate – with passion and enthusiasm about their work with the general public. The most high profile scientists often face attacks for being popularist by other scientists. But without general understanding of what science is and how it affects our lives positively (as well as being prepared to discuss the more negative applications of science), funding and education in this area will never be considered a real priority.
We need to communicate to a wider audience, the impact of science on life – for example, current interest in environmental issues offers a foot in the door for science to present itself as critical to the issue.
Scientists (especially in schools) should support better understanding (among children and the adult population) of the value of linguistic and mathematical skills which are the building blocks to success in science.
Calls for a wider curriculum to include science, maths, English/communications, humanities/art, technology and foreign languages can only be to the benefit of us all.
The young scientists that I can take at least 50% of the credit for, are working as a patent attorney and a quality control manager. There is more of a social life and money in that than in the laboratory or the classroom. Incidentally, fifteen years ago the one wanted to be an astronaut and the other wanted to discover a cure for AIDS. I suppose reality must have intervened.
Things are bad in science – really bad. I was speaking to a science teacher in Church this morning and asked her if the new 2 Science GCSEs were as bad as the press reported. Her answer was that its worse than that. There is virtually *no* science in them – its current affairs and woolly thinking to allow everyone to pass. She asked recently how kids were going to survive A level and the answer came bad – the A levels will be dumbed down. ( Of course government ministers will deny this – and attack anyone who says so as talking down the kids and their hard work – but it is really pointing out the betrayal of our children. )
I have two logically inclined children and science will be important to them. I’ve been wondering if we can afford independent education to save them from the government’s mess. ( It has to be said John Major’s government shares the blame hear fro letting the education establishment get its way with GCSEs ).
I’m a professional Chemical Engineer and have travelled to quite a few parts of the world selling expertise, including India – soon Britain will be buying that expertise from countries with functioning education systems. People like President Hu of China – an Engineer – understand this.
Its very sad and very stupid. The world doesn’t owe us a living, and we can suffer the same fate that Argentina did going from one of the worlds great economies to basket case in a few decades.
As others have stated, it is about early encouragement, and showing the results (i.e., the “fun”) of science. Show what the possibilities are for young children. Even if they don’t continue to be scientists, encouraging creativity and looking at things from differing viewpoints is healthy.
Hope you don’t mind the self-plug, but my 8yo has taken a liking to science (and film-making). Last week or so, he wanted to re-create a science demo he had done in school that day. We did and posted it to YouTube. (See my link for a link to my other blog and his experiment.)
Maybe combining science with the current I-net technologies can encourage today’s generation.
Mike
Mike, What an excellent idea. Combining the social media and your son’s scientific skills is an idea certainly worth exploring. I shall now check out your YouTube.
Ellee: Thanks for the comment (here and on my blog). I’m not sure the trend or schools’ situation about science, but do know that, in general, I think the U.S. has been lagging in science, engineering, etc., compared to other countries.
Like anything, you’ll only do what you enjoy doing. So, we need to show that science — the end results, not the studying leading up to it — is fun, rewarding and worth learning about. Sure, it isn’t easy, but if the benefits are enough, kids will go through the school work.
Mike
Mike, I have checked it out and can see how this makes science great fun for kids, as well as helping develop their presentation skills. It’s also the perfect way to catch up on a class if you miss one through absence.
The UK will become a third world economy if we continue in this way. India and China have 6 times the population of Europe and they are graduating many students in the sciences and technology. When our current batch of primary school children leave university the world will be a very different place economically.
[…] What concerns me even more is the shortage of scientists in the UK, an issue I have highlighted several times. And our government is approaching this by promoting science in schools to take up a future career as a lighting expert at music festivals and Formula One engineers – more on this here. We have failed to focus enough on supporting our scientists with research to avoid a brain drain. […]