Science is boring? Far from it

Is science boring? Last month, I became involved in a discussion on Twitter as to whether that statement was true. In some cases it is – experimental work isn’t all about mixing chemicals to make explosions, or smashing atoms together in a particle accelerator. It can be monotonous, repetitive and downright dull – but it’s a means to an end with an outcome hopefully more interesting than the journey. In a blog post, science writer Brian Clegg argues that the general public find science boring because comedians on QI glaze over when one of them with a scientific background offers an interesting science-based answer to the question posed. But is this really a reliable sample? The panellists aren’t the general public, and we shouldn’t gauge their interest based on uninterested comedians. The stigma that science is boring is very much experiencing a sea change; the general public are becoming interested and engaged with science. Clegg argues that science on the National Curriculum is Victorian, and criticised teachers, citing a lack of ‘inspirational teaching in the sciences’. However, rather than take the default science option required at GCSE, students are increasingly choosing to study the sciences individually. In 2000, 77% of students took the double science award according to Cambridge Assessment, with a further 10% taking the single award. Students taking individual exams in biology, chemistry and physics hovered around the 7% mark. Compare that with 2012, when 53% of students took the core science exam, with 41% taking additional science. However, 25% of students took biology, 24% took chemistry and 24% took physics – certainly an increase in the popularity of studying the individual sciences. Combine these figures with the knowledge that live shows such as Brainiac and The Big Bang Fair are more often than not sold out, the younger generations are certainly interested in what science has to offer. And the feeling is mutual; these generations will form part of the future scientific workforce, so getting younger generations hooked on STEM at an early age is essential. How science is delivered to the public is important; Clegg argues that scientists are boring and that science is not communicated enthusiastically. While he does note a small minority of great science communicators out there, he suggests that “professional communicators do the talking” – as in the business world. Perhaps these “professional communicators” are the key to spreading the scientific word, but what if we cut out this middle man, and encourage scientists to share their work with the general public – after all, they know every little detail about how it was conducted, and are best placed to field probing questions. I agree with Clegg’s suggestion that science communication should be part of a scientist’s training. Understandably, some people are terrified of having to stand up in front of a room and be judged on their work; and a few tips on how to cure the nerves and speak enthusiastically about a subject close to their heart would hopefully be beneficial. Perhaps science communication could be better, but there are a multitude of individuals and organisations out there fighting hard to tell the general public either about the science they are doing, or why they (the general public) should be interested in a certain piece of work. Take for example SoapBox Science or events like Festival of The Spoken Nerd – which Clegg does mention – and in a different vein, there is video journalist Brady Haran and his many science-based projects aimed at a broad audience. Science is becoming more mainstream, a staple in popular culture. And programmes like Dara O’Briain’s Science Club, Horizon and BBC Stargazing Live – all featuring in prime time slots – strongly suggest programming commissioners certainly don’t believe the public is bored of science. The public have come to realise that science is not only interesting, but an important part of their everyday lives. If we didn’t ‘do’ science we wouldn’t have treatments for cancer, or mobile phones and MP3 players. The world science has opened up to the general public means they are now interested in what it has to offer, and how could that possibly be boring? The scientific community was on tenterhooks as Comet ISON headed towards the Sun – would it slingshot around it as expect it, or would it disintegrate before it even got there? And what about the breakthroughs in physics made by the LHC? I‘m sure the general public were just as much captivated by the is it or isn’t it saga over the existence of the Higgs boson as they were by the Friends Ross and Rachel on-again-off-again relationship…ok maybe not that interested. Note: Brian Clegg is a popular science writer and speaker, and author of Dice World, The Universe Inside You, and Inflight Science. Join in the conversation, tweet us @laboratorynews or comment below