Science is subversive. Its whole basis is to question authority, which may partly account for its unpopularity in our culture, writes Christopher Moriarty.
Many people have been alarmed by the high failure rates in Leaving Cert maths and science. Few were surprised. What is more, the high failure rates reported last week were part of a grave problem of low numbers of second-level students who even elect to take school courses in science.
These are the symptoms of a crisis which has been approaching for some years and which is being taken very seriously be the authorities.
It was heartening to see that the Minister for Education, Mr Dempsey, is to launch an investigation into the alleged harsher marking of some subjects rather than others.
Whatever facts this may reveal, there is a clear perception among Leaving Cert candidates that it is more difficult to secure points in the sciences than it is in the humanities.
This is believed to be one of the reasons for the unpopularity of science. But there are other reasons, of which one is deeply entangled in human culture. Another, the shortage of essential facilities for science studies, stems from the cultural situation.
The problem of the points would be one of the simplest to eradicate. The fact that candidates in the sciences achieve lower scores does not mean that they have less ability than the apparently higher achievers in the humanities.
There are several well-established marking methods which can be used to adjust the scores to ensure that a student who opts for science has an equal chance to obtain high points.
There may well be a valid argument that the marking which results in the difference is lacking in objectivity.
It would be possible to bring about such a change in a short time. It would cost very little and would be likely to have a positive effect.
The more serious problems lie much deeper - but they must be faced if Ireland is to hold its place in the industrial world.
The lack of enthusiasm for science is more than short-term pragmatism on the part of the students in search of points. Science itself is a concept that appeals only to a minority of the human race.
The discipline flourished for a generation or two in the time of Aristotle.
There was even a highly original scientific thinker in 7th century Ireland, a monk named Augustin. But, until the Renaissance, learned people by and large relied on written or verbal authority. Neither church nor state encouraged deviation from traditional teaching.
The reason is very simple. Science is essentially subversive. The whole basis of science is to question authority.
Scientific investigation has proved over and over again that dearly loved traditions are false.
What makes the discipline particularly difficult and unpopular is that scientists must reject even their own ideas should the experiments show them to be wrong.
The comforts and safety of modern life depend to a great degree on the application of the scientific method. In spite of that, we have a long way to go before the principles are widely accepted.
Science was deleted from the primary school curriculum in 1934. It has come back, in particular with the recent introduction of an imaginative course. But this requires only one hour in the school week.
The positive side is that all citizens in future will have been taught some science. The negative is that their perception will be that science is much less important than the subjects which receive full-time treatment .
Politicians, ecclesiastical authorities and civil administrators - with some honourable exceptions - do not trust scientists.
Without being arrogant, scientists present facts and have a duty to stand by them.
Politics and religion depend on ideas. These can be successfully developed or adjusted by forceful personalities. The intransigence of a scientist challenges the power of those in authority.
This, to a considerable degree, explains why school science is grossly under-funded and the courses are inadequate.
First comes the small proportion of time given to science at primary level.
Next, and perhaps most serious of all, is the fact that many secondary schools have no laboratories. Science depends on experiment. Experiments are stimulating.
So the deprived students are subjected to a sterile course - equivalent perhaps to studying a language purely as grammar and vocabulary without reading or speaking. It is not surprising that the uptake is so low.
In our carefree days of subsistence agriculture, dancing at the crossroads and mass emigration, such a situation may not have been too serious.
Today the authorities have taken the step of recognising the importance of science and are actually worrying about the downward trend in interest.
The ultimate solution of the problem will require a profound change of personal philosophy - accompanied by a massive injection of funding to science education.
Few people doubt that our future welfare depends on science and technology. Unless we are to fall behind our competitors, we must equal or surpass their contribution to science education.
Christopher Moriarty is an environmental scientist and chairs the National Committee for the History and Philosophy of Science