]]>Science is important because …. I like cake
Back in the times of hunting and gathering, when wisdom teeth were to replace ones we’d already lost, when food, shelter, firewood and medicine all came from the forest or the plains, science was rather different. We needed to know some engineering to make hunters’ weapons; we needed to understand some biology to know when different plants would be ready to eat.
But now, in the age of farming and medicine and a population of billions of people, when teeth fall out because of eating too much cake, the science we need to survive is rather more detailed. If we want to eat cake, and I certainly do, here are just a few of the many reasons we need science:
Sustainable agriculture - science is essential if we are to produce enough food to feed the world without doing long-term damage to the environment. Maintaining soil fertility, finding new ways to control pests, protecting bees and other pollinators, developing new varieties of crops, and designing effective irrigation and drainage systems are some of the ways that scientific research helps to feed us.
Health - much as I would love to live on cake, our understanding of nutrition helps keep me healthy and improve my quality of life. Food allergies and intolerances prevent some people from eating cakes, but science helps treat their conditions, and provide food they can eat.
Energy - energy is involved at every stage from growing the crops to feeding me the cake - making the fertiliser, harvesting the crop, processing the ingredients, baking, storing, transporting… If that is to continue science needs to find alternatives to fossil fuels.
It’s important that everyone understands science because decisions about how we can make cake in the future shouldn’t just depend on a few scientists, and nor should decisions be made by people who don’t understand them. Decisions such as whether to use GM crops, whether to ban pesticides, whether to put resources into protecting bees, and how to produce the energy we need are everyone’s business. If they’re not made with an understanding of the science behind them we are jeopardising our chance of a sustainable future.
Science helps me understand the world and to make it a better place.
]]>]]>I’m 68, and I’m studying for a degree at the Open University. All being well, I will be 70 when I get my degree. My friends think I’m mad. Most people, of my age, are “hanging up their boots” and looking forward to a life of leisure. Not only that, I’m studying Maths, Physics and Astronomy! The other day, I declined a golf game, to concentrate on an assessment. My friend asked: “Why do you put yourself under this pressure?” It’s a good question, I suppose.
“Show me the boy before he is seven, and I will show you the man”. (Actually I believe psychologists think the age is nearer ten, but the principle appears established.) At the age of eight, I was recognised as a potential mathematician, and by then I had decided that I wanted to be a scientist and/or inventor. I got the latter, not from school, but from my parents.
My father was a radio and TV engineer with a broad, secondary education background in the sciences. My mother had wanted to be a doctor, but had been persuaded to train as a nurse. Neither parent grew up with adequate financial resources to release their potential in the educational climate of the early 20th century. At home, I was encouraged to take an interest in the range of sciences that my parents had embraced. Father used to repair electrical things, radios etc. and even built our first television (from salvaged components) at home. I was particularly interested in how things worked and were constructed.
The only children’s paper I was allowed was “The Eagle”, with its front page story about space travel. At 10, I knew a little about the composition of the atmosphere, a little basic anatomy, about chemical symbols, that water was H2O, how to solder electrical components and what the components of a radio were. And, of course, I knew a little about the planets. I couldn’t understand, at the time, why others didn’t share my enthusiasm for all these fascinating things.
We were taught nothing (so far as I can remember) about science at primary school. A sickly child, I missed a lot of primary school and failed the common entrance exam. So my mother went back to work and I was sent to boarding school in North Wales. To mitigate the boredom of a restricted lifestyle I started going to the local library, and having learnt a little about atoms and astronomy, in general science lessons, I sought out books about atomic structure and astronomy, and was hooked. So by the age of 14, I knew I wanted to be a nuclear physicist. About that time Sir Patrick Moore started broadcasting on the BBC, further reinforcing my interest in astronomy. I left school with A levels in Pure Maths, Physics and Applied Maths. Fate then took a hand, and I ended up working in the aeronautics industry, where somebody taught me computer programming.
One thing led to another and I had a lifelong career in commercial software application development and computer services management. The final 5 years of my official working life were engaged in lecturing on a BSc (Hons) course in computing and other computing-related FE/HE courses. (That was an eye-opener in many respects!) Over the intervening years, I kept in touch with science via the TV documentaries, fascinated by the new ideas, and longing to own a telescope.
Following retirement and divorce, preceded by the fledging of my two sons (one is a science teacher) I had to do something with my overactive brain. As my computing career became a distant memory, I returned to my original interest: Physics. As a practised problem solver, I love a mystery, so the continuing challenges, of trying to understand the universe, fascinate me as much, today as when I was a teenager. And so to the present day: my studies are aimed at equipping me for research in particle physics. And, yes, I have a telescope.
What can be drawn from my experience? When I was a schoolboy, careers were thought of as later-years secondary school topics, whereas it appears that primary school age is, perhaps, the time to introduce careers, albeit at an introductory level. I am not an expert on demographics, but I believe it can be shown that about 15% of the population has some interest in science. Given that, and my background as an example, suggests that perhaps 85% of children, at primary school age, are prevented from considering a career in science, because they have no real awareness of it, due to lack of parental interest. That, and the “before he is seven” syndrome, I believe, places a heavy burden on primary education, to contribute towards solving this problem. Although, mass-market TV programmes could also be a vehicle for generating interest. (I suggest that science programmes are only watched by people who already have an interest in science.)
The key facets in my interest in science can be summarized as: excitement from the idea of space travel, fascination with the sheer scale of the universe, intrigue in how things work and are constructed, the discovery of all the things that can be worked out using maths. These concepts are largely demonstrable, which, you will all appreciate, are key to generating enthusiasm at primary education level.
]]>]]>I have worked in many areas of science, from conservation field biology to condensed matter physics. The single most common questions I have been asked across all disciplines are ‘Why is this important?’, ‘Why should I care?’ or even sometimes ‘Why do my taxes pay for this?’
We live in a technological age where there is often a misconception about the difference between science and technology and this is one of the sources of the question ‘Why is this useful?’. Societally we, perhaps, see things as useful only if they improve our lives in the short term: a bigger faster computer, a cure to cancer, a cheaper faster way to deliver electricity.
Often what is missing in this in this picture is the science that goes on behind it. Scientific progress is not linear and not very predictable, and is not connected with technology in a straight-forward manner. We know so little about the natural and physical world around us and science is a way to answer these questions one tiny step at at time. As scientists on a fundamental level, we increase, albeit very slowly, the knowledge of the world, which is, in its on right a beautiful and useful thing. And important leaps forward that do change our lives often occur as an off-shoot of science.
All technology is based on science. And the way that science evolves to technology is always a variegated path. Without Thomson searching for fundamental components of atoms and discovering the electron, we wouldn’t have electronics. Without Tim Berners-Lee we wouldn’t have the internet communication we find so useful today. Thomson wasn’t looking at making a model cell phone and Tim Berners-Lee was a CERN physicist that was only concerned with sharing data between scientists at different places around the world. But look at the benefits. Even if you try to do directed research to build technology, the structure of science is such that ‘discoveries’ come from the most unexpected places.
And this is, in part, why I am fascinated by science and why, even on the smallest level, it’s a part of being human. Humans have the capacity to ask WHY? Even the question of why is this important? is reflective of this and science is one way of answering the question why? about the physical and natural world. And that is a an amazing, uniquely human thing.
]]>Science is important because the act of doing science is a creative process. All creative processes are important, be they art, music, storytelling or anything else. After love, creativity is the most important human quality. Not only is science creative, it enables creation.
Science is important because it provides us with mysteries to wonder about and beauty to wonder at.
Science is important because it is part of the honourable quest that is the search for truth and knowledge
Science is important because it reveals our ignorance and humbles us, even the most intelligent and the most powerful.
Science is important because when adults do science we recreate within ourselves the sense of awe and mystery we had when we were children.
Science is important because it encourages us to question authority and provides a means for doing so.
Science is important because it requires free exchange of ideas and information - it is incompatible with tyranny and so reduces tyranny.
Science is important because it grounds us in reality - it can challenge us and force us to change our minds.
Science is important because it helps us understand our place in the world, but more importantly it helps us actualize that place, both as human beings and as individuals.
]]>]]> Outline Lesson Plan Year 10 Core Science (From KS4 Science Programme of Study, 2006), “During key stage 4, pupils learn about the way science and scientists work within society..”This is my suggested outline of a plan for a lesson early on in Year 10, when you may have students who do not particularly see the value of Science
Aims: To build motivation for the study of Science; To clarify what a Scientist really is; To get students to think of themselves as potential future scientists.
Starter: Show the first video clip: walking on coals etc.Ask for comments. If this triggers any interest or comment, go with it.
Main
1) a) What is Science? and b) Is Science a good thing? (Groups of 4) Ask groups to discuss and report back to class. Allow each group to choose one of the questions, and a few minutes to discuss and write down their answer.(If you like, have sets of two colours of card ready, each with one of the questions on it. “Does your group want blue, or yellow?) Be prepared for some students to be negative, but ready to challenge the negativity via this lesson…. For example, if they have hated Science lessons in the past, ask “was that science?”. Also talk about Science programmes on tv eg CSI, Bones, Bang, etc they may have seen.
2) Each group reports back, which question they chose and what their answer was. Ask other groups for any reaction or comment.Allow time for class debate (one person speaking at a time) if forthcoming. Support and encourage and try to get a discussion going.
3) Show clip 2, the pgce students.
4)Explain that GCSE requires them to learn more about the way scientists work. What do you think all Scientists have in common? ( give examples on the board or on cards, with illustrations if you like…).Forensic Scientists; Dinosaur Specialists; Science professors; Sports Scientists; Space scientists). Each group to come up with their list of 4/5 things that all scientists have in common. Again, try to get each group to report back to the class.
4) Challenge: Can girls make better Scientists than boys? Ask this question, see if you can get a reaction and stir up some debate!. Show the footage of Elaine Greeney, rocket scientist (clip 4. End on the green/black “monkeys evolve” section). Ask: Do girls make better scientists than boys? (And if so, why are there more male scientists than female?)
5) Conclusion: Show clip 13, Susan Blackmore. That could actually be the inspiration to help some of the students to see the value of Science - and of higher education!
6) PLENARY:Ask: Would you ever consider a scientific career (eg vet; nurse; space scientist; forensic scientist; archeologist/bone expert; engineer; doctor; etc)
Extension tasks for fast groups: Can you think of reasons why everybody should learn some science? (3 reasons). Can you think of 10 topics everybody should know about? (cloning, radiation, climate change, DNA, electrical safety, pollution..). Be prepared to explain and justify your ideas to the class.
Possible Homework: research a scientist of your choice and prepare a short presentation (or be prepared for a balloon debate!) OR prepare a list of the top 10 scientists of all time (female if you like,,,) OR use the internet to come up with your top 10 scientific challenges of our time… OR choose a television science programme and find 5 examples of things they do which prove they are a scientist. OR find the Why is Science Important website and make your own contribution.
FLEXIBILITY : with some classes, the discussion could last all lesson. With others it’s over in 10 minutes or never gets off the ground. So you need extra activities in reserve. A suggestion would be: have a simple practical activity ready, where you ask them to think scientifically. This could be almost anything eg a fair test for how strong paper towels are. Let it have several possible stages (eg dry strength; wet strength; absorbancy) and several options as to how to carry it out (eg slotted masses AND newton force meters). Get each group to plan at least one stage, and then write down HOW they would make their approach “scientific”. Report back to class, and perhaps invite a “vote” as to how scientific they have been out of 10.
Good luck!
]]>]]>It’s very easy to put people into boxes: ‘public’, ‘media’, ‘scientists’. In April, I set out with my colleagues Arko Olesk and Graham Paterson to better understand the similarities and differences in how these supposedly distinct groups view science.
Our method called for an A3 sketch pad and fibre-tip pen. So armed, we accosted members of the public, scientists, and science communicators, and looking over their shoulders in the nicest possible way, asked them to DRAW what is important about science. We also recorded what they said while drawing, and to capture all this diversity in an intriguing and memorable way, stitched the pictures together in the manner of the surrealists’ Exquisite Corpse.
The Exquisite Corpse of Science from Tim Jones on Vimeo.
]]>We believe the technique catches those instinctive responses that might be lost in a more considered written answer. I think sketching is also a great leveler between the various groups we interviewed - as few of us are great artists!
Interest in the project has prompted me to invite literally everybody to send me a picture (and audio if they like) via the dedicated email address corpse@communicatescience.com. I am joining these into one big Exquisite Corpse of Science mosaic, which will be accessible online and also in 3D in Second Life. Theoretcially, there is no end to this piece of ‘Sci-Art’. To take part, follow the instructions here at the Zoonomian blog.
]]>Science is important because it creates opportunities in life that make us who we are. Science has given us choices that we now take for granted.
For me, this is particularly relevant because I was born partially deaf and wear hearing aids. Both the advanced medical techniques that identified which frequencies my hearing lacks and the innovative engineering of hearing devices that reinstated these frequencies meant that I now have the same opportunities as hearing people throughout my life. My peers forget that I am hard of hearing and think of me as the same as them. I also take my ability to hear for granted, but without the science behind my hearing aids, I wouldn’t even BE the person that I am today. Similarly, if it wasn’t for the scientific research and development behind eyewear, artificial limbs, pacemakers, hip replacements and so on, most people would be struggling with life as they know it now.
Even the lucky few of us who are fully able-bodied have had opportunities elicited by scientific innovation, shaping them as individuals. Thanks to progressively more sophisticated transport and communication technologies, we can talk to someone on the other side of the world just by logging onto the internet, and we can immerse ourselves in an entirely different culture thousands of miles away within just a few hours. Without science we would all still be limited to talking to locals in villages on our small island, but now we have a choice between that life and a life of meeting people from different backgrounds and appreciating the great diversity of cultures on this planet.
The opportunities presented by science also extend far beyond our personal boundaries. As many have said before me on this website, humans as a species are intrinsically curious and science provides us with increasingly more advanced tools for exploration. It allows us to look at the interactions of human societies in the world as well as investigate the non-human aspects of nature, and to try and answer the core question about our existence: “where do we fit in, in the big picture?”
We’ve even extended this curiosity to realms outside of Earth: stellar systems that may house Earth-like planets have already been identified, and radio signals are being emitted deep into outer space in the hope that an intelligent life form will communicate with us. Perhaps this scientific exploration will eventually lead to us having a choice of either remaining here on Earth or moving to a new planet with an entirely alien ecosystem, which will open doors to a whole host of new opportunities for us.
]]>As well as his work in television, Nigel has written 35 books and over 1000 articles, which have been translated into 27 languages. He is a columnist for The Independent newspaper and BBC Focus magazine. Asteroid 3795 is named “Nigel” in his honour; and he is enrolled to travel into space with Virgin Galactic in 2011.
]]>It’s taken me some time to come round to answering this question; not because it’s difficult, but because it is too easy. After all: Why is music important? Why is breathing important?
Trying to understand the world around is, I believe, hard-wired into human nature. And “science” is just that process of understanding. Yes, you can interpret nature in terms of gods and demons. But, sooner or later, you are likely to move on. The mind is finely tuned to pick out patterns in the world around us; and once you have the leisure - as the Greek middle classes did in the first few centuries BC - you begin to see how the world is set out on rational principles.
And that rationalism is based deep inside us. When non-scientists profess to me that the scientific method is divorced from everyday life, I like to point out what I learned when acting as the foreman on a jury at the Old Bailey. What struck me then was weighing up the evidence in a law-court is, basically, the same as doing science. It’s looking for a pattern in pieces of evidence that may be, superficially, contradictory; and finding a conclusion that meshes all the lines of evidence together.
For those who find science intimidatingly complex, I’d suggest following a case of serious fraud, where juries are often flummoxed by the devious nature of the evidence and the finer points of criminal law. I think the case for the Earth orbiting the Sun, the atomic nature of matter or the evolution of life on Earth is actually easier to understand. And, to the human mind, it’s a fitting verdict on the evidence.
]]>]]>I see science as a vision. As a landscape. As a perspective for us to reflect on the events that are happening in the world - and how to see a way ahead.
I’ll take the last statement first. Currently, science doesn’t have a great press. Stem-cell research, genetic modification and cloning are looked upon as unnatural. But science has the power to change lives, and to help humankind move forward. However - the bottom line is that I believe science underpins our whole existence. It’s the driver behind our culture, our mores, and our beliefs.
It’s incredible how science has gradually replaced mythology with rational explanation. The god Thor used to hurl thunderbolts; but now we know the reasons behind our electric skies. Deities - like Mars and Jupiter - used to grace our night skies. In the 21st century, we know that these are fascinating worlds in their own right: two of millions in the Universe.
When it comes to culture, I find it amazing that in just over 500 years, humankind has dethroned Earth from being the centre of the Universe. It’s become a mere blob circling an average, suburban, middle-age star in an unremarkable galaxy. And that says a lot about us. By discovering our real place in the cosmos, we’re now motivated to explore. And soon we will have people - who may even live next door - realising their dreams to travel into space, on to the Moon, and beyond.
When I think of the future, I wonder what those new cosmic visions and landscapes will open up for generations to come. And where it all might lead?
]]>]]>I run science.TV. When someone with as little scientific background as me finds himself in such a position, it’s clear something is wrong. I think that the role found me because science does a terrible job of promoting itself and, if you don’t mind, I’ll use this site to share my ideas why.
Have you ever been to see a film that everyone is raving about? Slumdog Millionaire springs to mind. Not a bad film in the grand scheme of things - but I hated it. Why? Because people were so keen to tell me how brilliant it was. It is human nature to be sceptical of evangelism. This scepticism is particularly true in kids. As adults, we’ve mostly given up on honesty and accept a level of positive spin as the norm. Kids haven’t, so when we lie to them we shouldn’t be surprised when they react negatively. There are, it seems, two main lies in science communication. Firstly, science is ‘exciting’ and secondly science is ‘good’.
Ok, so the first isn’t a lie. Science is, of course, exciting, but not in the same way that penalty shoot-outs or casual sex are exciting. Bits of it are painfully tedious, mind-numbingly slow, difficult, threatening. But the rewards of applying the scientific method to a problem are huge. The excitement of finally getting data from the LHC, for example, must be immense - but a hundred times more so if you’ve put the effort into constructing the experiment. Most kids understand this. Things are exciting in different ways and have different patterns of effort and reward. There’s really no sense in explaining one in terms of the other. This leads on to another favourite of science evangelists which I think does more harm than good: expecting a positive reaction when telling a child that his or her iPod wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for science, that everything is made by science - isn’t it wonderful..? This is a patronising and very boring thing to say and I don’t understand how anyone could expect a positive response for this pearl of banality. What’s the logic?
The second lie about science - that science is ‘good’. The example given is almost always medicine. As a child I remember thinking that keeping old and diseased people alive was a stupid thing to do. That was a while ago, but the World was already overpopulated. The consequences of overpopulation are much clearer now. Fortunately, my thinking is less clear so I am not so rabidly pro-euthanasia. My point (bear with me) is that whether science is ‘good’ or not is a complex issue. Trying to argue that it is good because a human life has been saved is a pathetic lie which kids can see right through.
Science is neither good nor bad, it is morally neutral. What science is - undeniably - is powerful. So my tip for getting young people into science: remember the brutal honesty of your audience. Calmly - and without spin - demonstrate the power of the scientific method in tackling the unknown and there will be no need for people like me to be involved in science communication.
]]>Taxonomy is the field of research devoted to naming and describing living organisms - everything from bacteria and viruses to whales and flowers. It is an essential yet much underappreciated aspect of scientific research and without it huge branches of biology and other sciences would be near impossible. Taxonomists provide the basic vocabulary of biology if you like, defining each new species (individual words) and making sure there are accurate definitions of those species (like a dictionary) and records of those species, as DNA or actual specimens in museums so that everyone knows exactly which species is which and what other species it is related to. Without this kind of knowledge we cannot begin to do the simplest things with any degree of accuracy - if you do not know what species any given organism belongs to, then it becomes very hard to say anything meaningful about it.
How do you protect a given species if you don’t even know what is, and what is not, a member of that species? Want to treat a snake bite? What species was it? Got a new drug from a rare frog, great! What frog was it? Are there any realtives that might yield similar compounds? Are you working on a single species of a bunch of them in your lab that are very hard to distinguish? A new insect is eating your crops? What is it? How can we kill it? Are there any close relatives we might kill by mistake that are actually beneficial? Want to track extinction rates over time? You will need to know what spceis can be identified in the fossil record. We can use some species as indicators of clean water, or to track global warming but only if we can reliably identify them and tell them apart from others.
Taxonomy is therefore an integral part of biology and science as a whole, reaching out into other fields almost unnoticed, but most especially medicine. As a subject it is fundamental to our understanding of the natural world and critical to future research. We must know what speices we have and what they are to be able to continue to study everything from infectious diseases to pollution and the history of life. If we are going to save our planet, we have to know what is on there to start with.
]]>]]>Science is simply the human attempt to understand the world, the better to use it for our benefit. In order to pursue science effectively, we have to do two, apparently contradictory things which illuminate what science is.
Firstly, we need to learn and understand the gains of science to date. Science is a social and historical activity. To see further, to paraphrase Newton, we must stand on the shoulders of giants. This is true of almost every field of human endeavour from music to cookery - the great innovators have usually started by engaging fully with what has been developed before. There’s no inspiration without the perspiration.
Secondly, we need to be sceptical and questioning of everything that has been said before. When scientific conclusions are accepted as unquestionable facts handed down to us from on high, we can never make progress. My favourite example of this is the discovery of the bacterium H.pylori by the Australians Robin Warren and Barry Marshall. If they had accepted the received wisdom that bacteria cannot survive in the acidic conditions of the stomach, they may not have discovered that this bacterium causes the majority of peptic and duodenal ulcers.
Science is an object lesson in the necessary skills to grapple with a great variety of the problems facing society today.
And yet, we should also ask ‘why not science?’ The conclusions of scientific research are essential to inform policy, but science cannot decide policy. To understand that the world is getting warmer does not determine what we should do about it. To know that smoking can be bad for you doesn’t demand that smoking should be banned. These are complex political, social and moral questions. If we tackle them in the spirit of informed scepticism that science demonstrates so well, we are more likely to come to better conclusions. That is one reason why an understanding of scientific method, and the gains it can bring, would benefit everyone.
]]>