Why Bother with Science Anyway. (April 19, 2006)

    The causes of disinterest by secondary and tertiary students of science is engaging David Symington, adjunct professor in the education faculty and Russell Tytler, Professor of science education at Deakin University . In an analysis written for The Australian's Higher Education Section they ask, "Why are students fleeing from science?" And reply, "Research at Deakin University in Melbourne offers a fresh perspective. It does this by asking the question: what do we want of our science graduates, and why should we be concerned about their diminishing numbers relative to other areas?"

They make the initial observation, "A modern, post-industrial society requires not just an adequate workforce in research and development, but scientific literacy in the shaping of public opinion and the making of public policy."

The remarkable paucity of parliamentarians sporting a science degree in the federal government borders on the legendary but this, per se, is not what concerns Symington and Tytler. Nor is the "common lament... that Australia is not producing enough quality people to keep up the standard of research and development."

The issue is we also need people with a background in science to be employed in government and management, wherever important decisions are being made about innovation and policy, about our future. [It] is not simply one of the numbers enrolled in science programs. It is also about the social purposes of an education in science. A modern, post-industrial society requires not just an adequate workforce in research and development, but scientific literacy in the shaping of public opinion and the making of public policy.

 

Year 11 science students were asked to identify the features that would encourage them to enrol in a science degree. The majority indicated they would be attracted to a course that gave them the chance to "have a variety of career possibilities" and "get a job where they will be working with people".

 

The features of a science degree course least likely to encourage student entry are that at the completion of the course they would have a chance to "become a science teacher", "work in a laboratory" or "become a science researcher".

What Symington and Tytler are addressing is not the matter of recruiting "top students" to science as researchers or laboratory personnel but "scientific literacy in the shaping of public opinion and the making of public policy."

[W]e should also aim to attract good students who are not interested in this option [of research] but who could contribute to ensuring that Australia is successful in its economic development through their role in management decisions, agenda setting, and advising on science-based issues confronting industry and government.

After "gathering data from people operating in research and development in important fields, as well as from about 40 per cent of science graduates who work outside their field of disciplinary expertise" they found a consensus suggesting that,

...analytical skills developed in their science education [were] crucial to their effectiveness, and... an important element for public engagement with science-related issues. Both groups pointed to the importance of an ability to communicate with multiple audiences. An ability to cross disciplinary boundaries was also seen as essential to those working at the forefront of their discipline as well as to those working outside their specialisation. An appreciation of the social and economic contexts of contemporary science was also identified as critically important.

If Symington and Tytler's analysis is to come to anything worthwhile, a initiative must be undertaken by the federal department which is charged with the responsibility of both science and education. Is it really beyond reason that Ms Bishop, as minister, develop a comprehensive program (action plan?) to put bones and muscle into the skin of the suggestions of the Deakin researchers?