Why Not Science?
I
provocative opinion
Our continuing failure to attract larger numbers of able young people into scientific study and careers cannot be attributed simply to ignorance or neglect of the issue. On the contrary, the problem has received a great deal of attention; for almost two decades now, an enormous effort has been made to find ways of increasing the appeal of science. During this period, some interesting and worthwhile ideas were advanced. Many incentive-type programsinstitutes, fairs, talent searches-were developed to stimulate the science interests of talented secondary school students. Through its curriculum-revision and course-content improvement projects, the National Science Foundation implicitly assumed that more students would be led to identify with the ideas and activities of scientists and thence with careers in science. Moreover, the subject received considerable attention in the field of educational research. Among the extensive studies, some sought to characterize the potential future scientist and thus ensure his early identification, proper training, and guidance (1-4); others dealt with attitudinal questions and ways to improve the image of science and scientists which high school students hold (6). However, while such work has produced a number of fine analyses, programs, and proposals, the effect upon the basic problem has been negligible: science enrollments continue to be limited, and scientific careers are enjoying no great increase in popularity. Perhaps, t,he problem of attracting students to science should be examined in another set,ting, with a new focus. Indeed, the very tenor of the times-the dissent and turbulency of the campus-suggests that issues involving the educational and career interests of student,^ might best be understood in the context of their special characteristics and present mood toward t,he educational establishment. Cert,ainly, idealism, a sophisticated ethical and moral sense, a deep sensitivity to the human condition and a personalized dedication to its global improvement are some of t,he hallmarks of this student generation. Most import,antly, it is a group preoccupied with thc issues of war and peace. I'rofoundly disenchanted with contemporary education, st,udents argue that it does not reflect and in often a t variance with values thev hold imoortant:, thev " insist the educat,iorial process is unduly formal and quite lacking in humanism. They view the enterprise of educat,ion as an instrument for guaranteeing uniformity, a of mass production from which emerge looking much as though they were cut from a single cookie cutter. Although discontent with traditional patterns and 484
/
Journal o f Chemical Education
processes of education is pervasive, it alone cannot account for young people's disinterest in science. Admittedly, students argue against conventional undergraduate curriculums generally; but they question those in the sciences particularly. How is it possible, in a world of orbiting and moon-landing men when the power and grandeur of science seem both undeniable and inspiring, for science to have such limited appeal? What is the nature of the special case youth makes against science? Some Student Perceptions
What at least one group of college freshmen look for fromscience seems especially relevant to these questions. The responses of the particular student group to the query, "What do you expect the scientist to do for you?",' were in fact illuminating. Distinct areas of concern were clearly distinguishable in what students wrote, and certain of the recurring themes have great bearing on the problem of why science lacks luster for this student generation. Almost all students regarded science as a powerful force for providing people with a better life. However, the confusion and identification of science with technology were glaring. Most of what students asked of scientists did not actually deal with science, but rather with its applications. While problems of health and medicine received by far the most attention, students also addressed many other important human needs. Thus, scientists were asked to ". . . make city living better . . ." and ". . . reduce the agony of the future population explosion. . . " or ". . .improve transportation, devise new methods of construction for better housing. . Significantly, no one spoke of creature comforts. But in the midst of these expectations of goodness, one could sense a biting antagonism toward science. Awareness of the serious social consequences of scientific and technological advances was keen; virtually everyone dealt with some aspect of environmental stress. The general view that science is a double-edged sword is well expressed in what one student stated: "I would just like to see science use its head in its developments. This way both the benefits of a new development and its harmful effects can be provided for . . ."; and in what Dr. Armin Wilson asked this question of his students in m introductory physical ~ciencccourse at Mercer Cormty Community College, Trenton, N. J. I am indehted to him for bringing this material to my attention and lo his students for permitting me it, These quotations are excerpted from the responses of approximately eight,y st,rtdents (footnote 1).
another urged: ". . .help abolish evil which they seem to be creating in some cases." There was overwhelming evidence of the identification of science with the military uses of its products: ". . .stop making those damn bombs.. ." and ". . . create something that can cause world peace.. ." or ". . .too much time spent in development of weapons rather than preserving life. . .". Although the sciencetechnology-military association might have been seen positively as a partnership essential for national defense, clearly such view did not suit the inclination or mood of any one of the students. Dismay over the destructiveuses made of science undoubtedly is the basis of their demands of scientists to I L . . .invent love. . ." and ". . .become artists at heart. . ." and ". . .make a better world. . ." and ". . .help humanity. . . ". Seemingly, the scientific "achievements" of nuclear bombs and napalm were not to be forgotten or forgiven. The remoteness of scientific knowledge and the isolation of scientists in society greatly concerned students. What scientists do, what they say, and what they know were seen as distant and incomprehensible to all but the initiated. Students stated the need for "Closing the Gap Between the Scientists and the Others" (6) and for greater access to scientific knowledge when they wrote the scientist(s) should ". . .after they have discovered or invented something to explain why this something does what it does, in simple, comprehensible terms. . . ;" ". . .engage in discussions of his work. . . without the mathematics. . . ;" ". . .inform me of the latest developments in his respective field in such a way that as a human being I can understand and profit. . . ". Some Proposals
The comments of these students expose some of the thorniest issues arising from the interaction of science, technology, and society. If their views are representative, then some important causes of student disaffection for science can be identified. To be sure, the problems raised are complex and defy quick, easy solution; nevertheless, there are challenges here to which those concerned with science education can respond constructively. In common with the population generally, students confuse science with its applications. But since they focus so much anger upon modern, technological society, a clarification of the diierences and the relationship between science and technology become essential. If the distinction between science and technology is not recognized, one can easily assume the misuse of scientific knowledge is inevitable and then insist that its rapid expansion be c ~ r t a i l e d . ~Actually, the only inevitability here is the continued growth of scientific knowledge, which of itself cannot be evil. Efforts to stay the proliferation of knowledge are futile and dangerous; ultimately, they must be self-defeating, since inquiry and a search for understanding are indigenous to free men. That man is quite able to intervene in and alter the course of the science-technology-military relationship must also be appreciated: man can control the applications and uses of science; scientific knowledge does not have to be translated into weapons of war and death. If these principles are not fully understood, students will continue to reject science because it appears to con-
flict with their deepest concerns: especially with their overriding commitments to human welfare and world peace.' An expansion of science education beyond its traditional realm to include studies in the area of science and public policy can promote these needed understandings: the roles of the scientist as a scholar and a citizen can be explored and the social responsibilities of science defined (7). Multidisciplinary courses that deal with the impact of science and technology on society should become an essential part of the fabric of science education a t high school and college levels (8). In our science-dominated society, complaints about the abstruseness and unintelligibility of scientific knowledge are alarming. Apparently, the danger of scientists becoming a group apart from society has become more imminent in the decade since Margaret Mead warned of a deepening schism whereby ". . . small groups of specialists elaborate esoteric knowledge that becomes progressively more inaccessible to the rest of society. . ." (9). This esotericism is one consequence of science curriculums being mainly oriented towards the requirements of professional preparation. School programs have no justification for this direction. And while college science departments are rightly concerned with the education of majors, they too must broaden their outlook and be more committed to and responsible for non-professional science education. The development of a series of non-specialized, but substantive, courses for non-majors is one way of extending science study beyond the exclusive domain of the scientist and increasing the availability of scientific knowledge. Further, science must be seen as one of the humauities. Science is a human enterprise, and its exciting ideas should be dealt with in the context of man's history. The immense beauty and aesthetic qualities of science also need unfolding: what is whimsically referred to as a course in "Physics for Poets" is better taught as the "Poetry of Physics." Finally, science majors' complaints about the narrowness of their education must be faced. Essentially, these ". . .students are asking to be provided not only with the tools of the specialist, but also with the attitudes and outlooks of a natural philosopher" (10). Of the latter, science education provides very little. Rather, as students proceed with science study, they acquire an increasingly limited view of the world: in high school, they prepare for the corresponding courses of the colleges; in college, they get ready for the specialists' courses of graduate schools. a A proposal to do mnent,ially this is reported in the New York Times of March 8, 1969 to have been made at a forum sponsored by t,he Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions. Harvey Wheeler is said to have argued that scientists can no longer be permitted to do anything they wish and some control of their activities is now a societal necessity. He is quoted as having proposed ". . a constitution complete with a hill of rights to provide legal restraints and safegosrds, thus keeping scienlific endeavor within moral bounds.. .". "Students should know that the social consequences of science have long t,ronhled scientists dso. There is great cont,emporaneity in the toast made at rtn annual dinner of lhe Cavendiah Laboratory at Cambridge University amund 1909: "To the electron. May it never be of any ose to anybody." (MOORE, R., "Niels Bohr: The Man, His Science and the World They Changed," Alfred A. Knopf, Ine., New York, 1966, p. 26.)
Volume 46, Number 8, August 1969
/
485
A reexamination of the presumed need for science students to begin specialized study early is surely in order: that a young man who plans to major in physics at Rutgers College should have to make this weighty decision while still a high school senior is patently absurd. While few deny that science majors are being deprived of a broad education, proposals to liberalize it are deemed unwise in the face of the paradox: the more we learn the less we know. Should we then anticipate soon teaching quantum mechanics to children yet in kindergarten! I n sum, science will attract students only if it is consonant with their great idealism and deep concern for human needs. However, it is difficult to find ways of making science curriculums and teaching more relevant and humanistic while still maintaining their integrity. Nonetheless, if the kind of science education that the times demand is to develop, more imaginative experimentation and innovation in curriculums will be required. Otherwise, attempts to increase the appeal of
486
/
Journol of Chemicol Educofion
science will probably meet little success, and the present situation in which science antagonizes and loses many of our most talented youth is likely to continue. Literature Cited
(1) MACCURDY, R.D., Science Educ., 40, 3 (1956). (2)Coomu, W.W., HawardEd. Rev.,2 9 , l (19.58). W. W., "Career Development of Scientists: An (3) COOLEY, Overlapping Longitudinal Study," Haward Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, Mass., 1963. W.W.,J . Res. Sci. Tchg., 2,24 (1964). (4) COOLEY, M.,AND METRAUX, R., Science, 126,384 (1957). (5) MEAD, (6) MEAD,M., Daedalus, 88, 139 (1959). (7) PAULINQ, L.,The Science Teacher, 33,14 (May, 1966). V. K.,The Science Teacher, 35,33 (October, 1968). (8) LUNETTA, (9)MEAD,M., op. cit., p.141. (10) LIPPINCOTT, W. T.,J. CHEM. EDUC.,45, 753 (1968).
Evelyn H. Wilson Science Education Center Rutgers, The State University New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
