Mixed messages about science education

[ This article by Paul Willis, was published on January 25 2012, last updated on April 2 2012. ]

I’m intrigued by the mixed messages that we’re getting within the areas of science support and science education in Australia. Some indicators offer hope, others despair and the overall impression is one of lack of leadership and direction.

It was revealed late last year that high school participation in science had dropped to an all-time low. Twenty years ago, 94 per cent of year 11 and 12 students were enrolled in science subjects, but last year the figure dropped to 51 per cent. Maths is no longer a compulsory subject for High School students and there is a prevailing view that subjects like physics and chemistry are too hard, easier marks can be gained in other subjects. Consequently we are turning out a generation of high school students ill-prepared for the rigours of university science courses.

Yet, ironically, a number of universities across the country reported a significant increase in students taking up science courses. Nationwide this came across as a 15% increase in enrolments for science over last year’s figures. Why the sudden turn-around after years of declining numbers? The answer is not clear but as more careers become available in mining, technology, the biomedical sciences and engineering perhaps that call has been heeded.

Once students get into science at university, what are they offered as courses? A recent survey found that 19 out of Australia’s 39 universities offered courses in ‘alternative’ or ‘complementary’ medicine alongside courses in medical science. These are modalities that have no evidential base and no demonstrated efficacy. Some of these that have been examined for efficacy, such as homeopathy and reflexology, have been shown not to work any better than a placebo. All rely on non-scientific and irrational methodologies and the only excuses for offering them as the subject of university courses is to placate the groups that promote them and to make some money for the universities running them. Offering a subject simply because there are people who want to study it is an intellectually dishonest and financially duplicitous process. Offering courses in subjects that are demonstrably devoid of real-world applications and the results they claim, is fraud.

To give intellectual candy floss the imprimatur of being the subject of a university course falsely elevates it to an equal footing with science and evidence-based medicines. The confusion that this creates in the minds of the students and the public about what is and is not supported by science, research and investigation, cheapens all scientific endeavours. What next? Courses in UFOs, ghosts and miracles? I am loathe to admit that there are already some university courses in paranormal studies. This crap has got to stop. A university education ought to be about clarity, not confusion.

We ought to be supporting science and science education, not staving off direct financial support and diluting its integrity with irrelevant and erroneous bunkum. The lack of funding support for science in Australia formed part of the content, Dr Charlie Teo’s, 2012 Australia Day Address. His comparison of the untied millions of dollars on offer to his colleagues in the USA with the meagre and heavily audited grant funds available to him here are enough to make you wince. While I’m no great fan of awards such as Australian of the Year, it says something contradictory about us as a nation that we so regularly select scientists for that honour while disrespecting and not supporting them for the remaining 364 days of the year.

This little peripatetic wander through a selection of recent media articles concerning science support and education might have left you as confused about our direction in these matters as I have been! Where do we want to head and what do we want to achieve with science in this country? How do we get there and who should be providing the direction and leadership on these issues?

It would be churlish of me to point the finger at any one sector or individual and accuse them of not providing the direction on science matters that this nation needs, because I think we all need to take a hand in providing that direction. We all have a stake in the future scientific health of our nation. Together we must put our hands on that rudder and provide the push required for us to head in the direction we choose for a brighter future for Australian science.

By Dr Paul Willis @Fossilcrox

Science Category:

Healthcare & Medicine

Related Past Events:

Where Worlds Collide

When Art and Science Collide

Kids & Science in Adelaide

Celebration of the L’Oréal Australia For Women in Science Fellowships

Finding the Art in Science

Judging Time

9 Responses to “Mixed messages about science education”

Damian Scanlon says:

January 25 2012 at 3:55 pm

We all vote so make your local MP aware of our need to support scienctific endeavour, education and communication.

Reply
R H says:

January 25 2012 at 6:34 pm

The public needs to demand more funding for science from the government. People who have advantaged from university based research need to make more people aware of how much it has helped them. Until then this farcical system will continue. We also need to equate pay and job security for scientists. I do not have the exact answer on how to fix the pay and job securitity issues, except to rally more funding from the government, but as a scientist if I felt more valued I would be more inclined to continue working in medical research. However as things stand I will be looking at alternative career options thus wasting another highly trained bright mind for science. Perhaps, we, the general australian population, should look at rising up against the continual exorbitant payscale increases for politicians. If the government can afford to do produce these increases from the budget, why can more money not be pumped into the vital medical, health and research sectors and why does a scientist have to work at minimum wage under 6 month contracts?

Reply
Nicholas Smyth says:

January 29 2012 at 8:54 pm

Great article Paul!

Reply
SA teacher says:

January 30 2012 at 8:16 am

When South Australia reduce subjects in year 12 to only 4, rather than 5, and not make science compulsory, the study of science is selected less, rather than more. Students rarely look up to scientists, except as an unattainable model, and related science to Einstein and other genius figures, seeing it as remote. Students admire leaders in sport, music, performing arts and literature and steer towards subjects that support these areas of interest.

There is no strong connection with science as a career, unless stumbled on by accident… rather than being able to identify with and select careers specifically.

When will our students recognise that technology that they use relies on scientific study to find new materials, new methods of using new materials and begin to seek to be at the forefront of technological advances?

When will our society celebrate science and scientists as part of our culture rather than outside of our culture?

Why don’t people talk about science on social media, share interesting facts and stories. Try it! Join NASA or National Geographic on Facebook and read some of the things that are happening. Talk about them with your friends and family. If we ignore it, why would our kids engage?

Reply
Ron RIAus member says:

January 30 2012 at 8:17 am

What can be done without involving government? Governments are fickle, easily distracted and all too often make a problem worse rather than better. The very existence of RIAus is a good start. Do we target people who could be interested in science or do we target politicians? I propose we concentrate on people who could be interested in science because we can encourage them individually and have successes whereas it is very time consuming to target politicians, you have to ‘sell’ your ideas to many different people at once and they change, and change their minds, all the time. Look for the best and the brightest, encourage all, regardless of race or sex, and see what we can do to help the shining stars who will stand out and who will encourage others to follow their example. There are charities and government agencies who help the disadvataged. Who is there to help the best and brightest? Let it be RIAus.

Reply
Jen says:

January 30 2012 at 11:48 am

You critise the teaching of alternative medicine in university but there is no critism of teaching Theology, which has a long histoy in academia and also has no scientific basis !

Reply
Ken Wagnitz says:

January 30 2012 at 1:03 pm

Well said, Paul.

Ron, I agree with you. So we need scientists to be film or rock stars. More shows like Catalyst (Paul does his bit). More scientists in the public spotlight. More publicity for science!!! -Don’t know how this could be achieved, given that most scientists just want to quietly get on with their work. They are their own worst enemy when it comes to informing the public about their work. Maybe the connections between science and the things in our everyday lives need to be made a lot more obvious. I’d hate to see a show like Catalyst get any more dumbed down (I want more detail), but easily-digested science for the voting masses is badly needed. Perhaps we need more science figures in the soapies on TV?

Jen, I don’t believe Theology is taught in public institutions. Maybe it should be, -focussing on how it has hindered science and discovery at every step through the centuries.

Reply
andrew shamshurin says:

January 30 2012 at 4:48 pm

I have a PhD in chemistry and I work as a high school chemistry teacher (I couldn’t find ongoing work in a lab)

I don’t encourage any of my students to pursue a career in the pure sciences – its very hard work, the uni fees are excessive, and there are few well paying jobs at the end of your studies

Most people do PhD’s in science because they cant find a job – so they just stay in the education system. Post-docs only last 1 or 2 years, are highly specific, and usually revolve around your supervisor writing a few papers to jusify his funding

There is nothing glamorous about working in science – being stuck in a lab all day like a slave for a minimal wage, worrying where your next round of funding will come from. It’s become just like any other business

I’m sorry to sound negative, especially on this site. But it frustrates me when people talk about the workings of science. Sure, we need it, it’s a useful tool, and a few lucky ones will make a living from it. But I believe people should also be aware of the darker side of our profession and how difficult it can be

I can’t blame kids for dropping out …

Reply
- Paul Willis says:
  
  January 31 2012 at 5:36 pm
  
  Thanks for all the feedback here people, particularly Andrew’s story about how a PhD in Chemistry lead him nowhere. It’s a poignant story that addresses a deeper issue about creating well-structured and renumerated career paths in science. But I think we also need to encourage kids into science, not only to capture them for careers in science, but also because a good sounding in scientific knowledge and methodology is useful in so many other areas of life. Lot’s more to talk about … I’d better get cracking on the next blog!
  
  Reply

Damian Scanlon says:

January 25 2012 at 3:55 pm

We all vote so make your local MP aware of our need to support scienctific endeavour, education and communication.

R H says:

January 25 2012 at 6:34 pm

The public needs to demand more funding for science from the government. People who have advantaged from university based research need to make more people aware of how much it has helped them. Until then this farcical system will continue. We also need to equate pay and job security for scientists. I do not have the exact answer on how to fix the pay and job securitity issues, except to rally more funding from the government, but as a scientist if I felt more valued I would be more inclined to continue working in medical research. However as things stand I will be looking at alternative career options thus wasting another highly trained bright mind for science. Perhaps, we, the general australian population, should look at rising up against the continual exorbitant payscale increases for politicians. If the government can afford to do produce these increases from the budget, why can more money not be pumped into the vital medical, health and research sectors and why does a scientist have to work at minimum wage under 6 month contracts?

Nicholas Smyth says:

January 29 2012 at 8:54 pm

Great article Paul!

SA teacher says:

January 30 2012 at 8:16 am

When South Australia reduce subjects in year 12 to only 4, rather than 5, and not make science compulsory, the study of science is selected less, rather than more. Students rarely look up to scientists, except as an unattainable model, and related science to Einstein and other genius figures, seeing it as remote. Students admire leaders in sport, music, performing arts and literature and steer towards subjects that support these areas of interest.

There is no strong connection with science as a career, unless stumbled on by accident… rather than being able to identify with and select careers specifically.

When will our students recognise that technology that they use relies on scientific study to find new materials, new methods of using new materials and begin to seek to be at the forefront of technological advances?

When will our society celebrate science and scientists as part of our culture rather than outside of our culture?

Why don’t people talk about science on social media, share interesting facts and stories. Try it! Join NASA or National Geographic on Facebook and read some of the things that are happening. Talk about them with your friends and family. If we ignore it, why would our kids engage?

Ron RIAus member says:

January 30 2012 at 8:17 am

What can be done without involving government? Governments are fickle, easily distracted and all too often make a problem worse rather than better. The very existence of RIAus is a good start. Do we target people who could be interested in science or do we target politicians? I propose we concentrate on people who could be interested in science because we can encourage them individually and have successes whereas it is very time consuming to target politicians, you have to ‘sell’ your ideas to many different people at once and they change, and change their minds, all the time. Look for the best and the brightest, encourage all, regardless of race or sex, and see what we can do to help the shining stars who will stand out and who will encourage others to follow their example. There are charities and government agencies who help the disadvataged. Who is there to help the best and brightest? Let it be RIAus.

Jen says:

January 30 2012 at 11:48 am

You critise the teaching of alternative medicine in university but there is no critism of teaching Theology, which has a long histoy in academia and also has no scientific basis !

Ken Wagnitz says:

January 30 2012 at 1:03 pm

Well said, Paul.

Ron, I agree with you. So we need scientists to be film or rock stars. More shows like Catalyst (Paul does his bit). More scientists in the public spotlight. More publicity for science!!! -Don’t know how this could be achieved, given that most scientists just want to quietly get on with their work. They are their own worst enemy when it comes to informing the public about their work. Maybe the connections between science and the things in our everyday lives need to be made a lot more obvious. I’d hate to see a show like Catalyst get any more dumbed down (I want more detail), but easily-digested science for the voting masses is badly needed. Perhaps we need more science figures in the soapies on TV?

Jen, I don’t believe Theology is taught in public institutions. Maybe it should be, -focussing on how it has hindered science and discovery at every step through the centuries.

andrew shamshurin says:

January 30 2012 at 4:48 pm

I have a PhD in chemistry and I work as a high school chemistry teacher (I couldn’t find ongoing work in a lab)

I don’t encourage any of my students to pursue a career in the pure sciences – its very hard work, the uni fees are excessive, and there are few well paying jobs at the end of your studies

Most people do PhD’s in science because they cant find a job – so they just stay in the education system. Post-docs only last 1 or 2 years, are highly specific, and usually revolve around your supervisor writing a few papers to jusify his funding

There is nothing glamorous about working in science – being stuck in a lab all day like a slave for a minimal wage, worrying where your next round of funding will come from. It’s become just like any other business

I’m sorry to sound negative, especially on this site. But it frustrates me when people talk about the workings of science. Sure, we need it, it’s a useful tool, and a few lucky ones will make a living from it. But I believe people should also be aware of the darker side of our profession and how difficult it can be

I can’t blame kids for dropping out …

Paul Willis says:

January 31 2012 at 5:36 pm

Thanks for all the feedback here people, particularly Andrew’s story about how a PhD in Chemistry lead him nowhere. It’s a poignant story that addresses a deeper issue about creating well-structured and renumerated career paths in science. But I think we also need to encourage kids into science, not only to capture them for careers in science, but also because a good sounding in scientific knowledge and methodology is useful in so many other areas of life. Lot’s more to talk about … I’d better get cracking on the next blog!

Reply