Science is a way of life. Science is a perspective. Science is the process that takes us from confusion to understanding in a manner that’s precise, predictive and reliable — a transformation, for those lucky enough to experience it, that is empowering and emotional. To be able to think through and grasp explanations — for everything from why the sky is blue to how life formed on earth — not because they are declared dogma but rather because they reveal patterns confirmed by experiment and observation, is one of the most precious of human experiences.
Those lines come from a wonderful op-ed in the New York Times entitled Put a little science in your life by Prof. Brian Greene (found via a Tweet by Tim O’Reilly).
He touches upon subjects and ideas that I’ve been thinking about for a long time, albeit much less eloquently. In my interview with Jon Udell, I spoke about the disconnect between science and the general public, and the need for better communication, to bridge these gaps. Prof. Greene writes
It’s striking that science is still widely viewed as merely a subject one studies in the classroom or an isolated body of largely esoteric knowledge that sometimes shows up in the “real†world in the form of technological or medical advances. In reality, science is a language of hope and inspiration, providing discoveries that fire the imagination and instill a sense of connection to our lives and our world.
The way I see it, science ends up in three buckets; scientists lock themselves up into their silos, e.g scientific conferences, publications, etc; or magazines like Wired sensationalizing the ultra-geeky, somewhat futuristic side of science; or the mainstream media either overhyping discoveries or usually being very negative about science. What is lost in all this? The beauty of science today, and where we are headed, not 50 years from now, but in the next 5-10. How many people out there really appreciate the advances possible because of PCR? How many people understand the beauty and challenges of complex organic synthesis? Does anyone what it’s like to solve the crystal structure of a protein? Or what kind of advanced biosimulation we are doing today? Do people know the limitations of these methods? To they understand the potential? My answer would be no to all of them. Even within the sciences, we tend to lock ourselves up into our shells (there are notable exceptions, systems biology and bioinformatics being poster children, which is why they appeal so much to me).
But I digress. The fact remains that we have lost something along the way. We’ve lost the beauty of science (rather we’ve stereotyped it as nerdy or uncool). I won’t write anymore. Just read the article. It’s one of the best I’ve ever read. I will end with one last snippet
Like a life without music, art or literature, a life without science is bereft of something that gives experience a rich and otherwise inaccessible dimension.
Image via Wikipedia
Technorati Tags: New York Times, Science, Science Education, Society, Op-Ed
5 Comments
It's a nice piece and I do like to see articles that celebrate raw enthusiasm.
We have to admit to a problem though: for very many people, science is difficult, to the point of being unintelligible. What happens to those bright-eyed “little scientists” between age 4 and 18?
The big issue for me is that we live in an age where important global issues which affect everyone depend on an understanding of science. People just can't participate without it. One example: GM food. How can you decide whether you're “for” or “against” if you have no concept of what it means to do genetic manipulation? Or for that matter, no concept of what a gene is? Or a molecule, or an atom? I'm tempted to argue that the value and influence of an opinion should be completely dependent on what the person offering that opinion knows about the subject. That goes for politicians too.
This is why we rely on “experts”. Or rather, experts as viewed through the eyes of the media. Which really equates to relying on the media. Which is very troubling indeed. Second example: if you're even aware that a space shuttle launched last weekend, I doubt that you heard much about the enormous Japanese laboratory on board. However, I'm sure you heard all about the broken toilet. The media, not the scientists, is dictating what is of interest to the public.
So what's the answer? Become better at engaging with media and non-scientists? Or hope that a new age of enlightenment is just around the corner?
for very many people, science is difficult, to the point of being unintelligible
True on its face, but only because there are so many people that a relatively small percentage of them still comes to “very many”!
I think most people can get a solid grounding in science. The difficulty is not that people are too stupid for science, it's that curiosity is beaten out of most of us by the education system. Curiosity is the force that drives science, and figuring things out by doing stuff is just plain fun. You don't have to be a geek like me to appreciate that — but too many people think you do.
I think we're saying the same things here; in particular, I agree about the media's pernicious role. I don't have the answers myself, but I look to people like Deepak and Bora and this guy Greene to start generating them by engaging with that dreaded faceless mass, The Public. Blogging can play a role, I think, along with Open Education (see David Wiley's web presence).
I was coming from the opposite direction: that scientists make up a very small fraction of the population 'scientists + non-scientists” !
I do agree with you that the problem is education, not intelligence. I also think that professional scientists are trained to think in a particular way. We don't even think about it any more, because it's how we think every day, but I suspect that formal science education results in different thought processes to the basic “observe with wonder, then wonder why it is so” model seen in children.
From the perspective of an Indian, I would like to add something. It is not that a typical student in India does not appreciate analytical thinking, rather most of them enjoy it. But we grow up in an environment where clearing 'competitive examinations' (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIT-JEE , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPMT ) is the whole point of formal education… it ensures a economically viable life. This sucks in the bright kids who instead of using their analytical skills for developing science and mathematics, use it to clear those 'competitive examinations' and by the time they realize it, they have lost the time (most analytical geniuses peak around 20).
From the perspective of an Indian, I would like to add something. It is not that a typical student in India does not appreciate analytical thinking, rather most of them enjoy it. But we grow up in an environment where clearing 'competitive examinations' (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIT-JEE , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPMT ) is the whole point of formal education… it ensures a economically viable life. This sucks in the bright kids who instead of using their analytical skills for developing science and mathematics, use it to clear those 'competitive examinations' and by the time they realize it, they have lost the time (most analytical geniuses peak around 20).
2 Trackbacks
[...] us to ask some interesting scientific questions. The other day I talking about Brian Greene’s thoughts on science and the wonders of science. In keeping with that train of though, are today’s kids, or even adults for that matter, [...]
[...] Putting a iittle science in your life [via Zemanta] [...]