Under the Microscope: Science Week 2004 has come and gone. This annual event is sponsored by Discover Science and Engineering, the State organisation responsible for promoting interest in science, engineering and technology among the general public, particularly young people, writes Dr William Reville.
Lectures and demonstrations are held throughout the country, principally in the universities and institutes of technology. Now in its eighth year, it might be time to re-think our approach to Science Week, particularly our approach to young people.
The current movement for advancing the public understanding of science had its origins in the US of the 1950s, after the Russians launched Sputnik 1. The idea was to awaken American enthusiasm for science in order to compete with the Russians in the space race. Most national efforts today are sponsored by governments alarmed at the declining interest among university-entrants in pursuing careers in science, engineering and technology - careers vital to the well-being of the modern developed economy.
Easily the single most effective initiative in enhancing public understanding of science here was the recent introduction of science to the primary school curriculum. It teaches elementary physical, chemical and biological principles to the children. It is hoped those with a natural aptitude for science will recognise this and follow on with it at second and third levels. And all students will benefit from learning something of what science has discovered about how the natural world works.
Science is intrinsically interesting but, like any body of professional knowledge, it takes effort to master its intricacies. The pleasure derived from achieving understanding repays the necessary effort expended. Also, some of what science has discovered about the world is spectacular - black holes, star birth and death, cures for disease, cloning, exotic animals.
However, much of the work of science does not deal with the spectacular, but rather with the "nuts and bolts" that are the necessary fabric of science and that occasionally allow spectacular advances to be made. For example, optics - the study of the science of image formation - is a somewhat dry mathematical discipline, but without a good understanding of it we can't design telescopes to probe the spectacular secrets of the faraway universe.
My concern about many of the presentations to young people made during science week, and in various other science events, is their orientation towards the slogan "science is fun" and the undue emphasis on the "wow factor". Thus we have "creepy-crawlies" shows in biology, "magic shows" in chemistry and rocket launches in physics.
I'm not looking down my nose at the people who make these presentations, who work hard at them and present them very well, usually in the evenings and on weekends on an unpaid, voluntary basis.
However, I think it would be much more effective just to let science speak for itself. The lecture-demonstrations given by Michael Faraday in the late 1800s are models of effective and entertaining communication of science to the general public. Scientific principles were illustrated by vivid demonstrations. Science is not fun but it can give great pleasure to those who invest some effort. If we sell science to the young on the basis that it is fun, easy and spectacular, we give a misleading impression and risk setting many up for disillusionment later, when they realise it can be hard work.
Also, the hectic targeting of young people in order to produce adequate numbers of scientists to bolster the economy tends to downplay the value of science as a basic branch of culture. The official calendar of events to be held next year in Cork to mark its nomination as European Capital of Culture 2005 lists only one science event - a series of public lectures that I have organised on behalf of the science faculty at UCC. The lack of other events is probably largely because scientists did not push for their inclusion in the calendar.
There is a great reluctance to view science as anything other than a narrow technical discipline, powerful for making useful things, but not to be included on the broader cultural stage. This is a great pity, even from a utilitarian point of view. If everyone felt that in order to be a cultured person one required a basic appreciation of science in addition to appreciation of arts and humanities, the future of science and technology would be secure and, consequently, so would the future of the economy.
Finally, much more effort must be made to promote the fact that not only is science an intrinsically fascinating subject, but that a qualification in science, engineering or technology is a gateway to a well-paid and progressive career.
In this regard the recent publication of the Irish Council for Science, Technology and Innovation's (ICSTI), A Comparison of Starting Salaries for Science and Engineering Graduates, makes very interesting reading for students and parents alike. It shows that starting salaries in science, engineering and technology are very competitive with other areas. The booklet is available free of charge from the ICSTI Secretariat, Wilton Park House, Wilton Place, Dublin 2 (Tel: 01-6073186), or can be downloaded from www.forfas.ie/icsti/index.html
William Reville is Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Director of Microscopy at UCC