• Introduction:
  • Even the most recalcitrant Luddite must admit that science and particularly technology have been paramount forces for economic progress around the world in the last century. The cost has been a degree of social malaise, especially among older folk.
  • Since 1900, science has revolutionized human existence. In the early 1900's Much of the world was agrarian. Poor food output, widespread spoilage, low life expectancy due to disease, but also due to tainted food were problems in 1900. Ignorance due to poor communication was a widespread problem. The human race experienced two major wars in the 1900's, but in 2000's, the prospect of global war is too horrible, and its chances seem to be receding. Many local conflicts remain to vex the human race. The "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" were very much in evidence in 1900, but less so today.
  • Today, some of the earlier problems have been alleviated, but others have appeared, the Luddites remind us.
    • Most of the growth in job availability is in fields in some way related to science and technology.
      • Agriculture and "smoke-stack" industries remain important, but represent lesser segments of economic life than in 1900.
      • Fields such as biotechnology, satellite technology, and the information revolution represent the future.
      • Chemistry continues to play a strong, if under-appreciated role.
    • Environmental problems receive much attention in the media. These problems require scientific input as well as social readjustment for their resolution.
      • In some respects, environmentalism is the last refuge of the Luddites.
    • Despite its huge impact, which is likely to continue, in many countries, including the US, basic science is not well supported. Technology is unevenly supported.
      • The pipeline of advances is taken for granted.
      • A huge challenge looms for ca. 2005 regarding petroleum availability. It's real, this time, people!
• Students do not choose science for a career! We all know this. The question remains: Why?
• How can the progress the media and the public have come to expect be sustained without new blood?
  • Perhaps if we agree on the origin, perhaps we can also agree on effective measures to counteract this trend.
    • I will provide some admittedly very personal ideas on the sources of the problem.
  • An even greater problem is that the average citizen in the next century MUST be scientifically literate.
    • Serious questions of science/technology vis-a-vis the environment, public policy, and many aspects of modern life will arise that must be judged on a factual, not emotional basis.
      • Science education, only, will provide the facts; the media, although improving, are still not reliable as a source of information.
      • The media, still guide public opinion on a "scare" basis. Citizens must have a strong basis for personal judgement on questions of science and public policy.
      • Major policy decisions will continue to be made by politicians, who, as a group, remain poorly trained in science or technology.
• So, who am I? Why should you "listen" to me?
  • I am Charles A. Kingsbury, Professor of Chemistry at the Univ. of Nebraska- Lincoln for the last 31 years.
  • I have been Safety Director of our Department for roughly 10 years
  • In recent years, I have visited roughly 75 schools in the area to try to promote scientific literacy and/or careers in science by young folk.
    • In these visits, I have gleaned something of the feelings and attitudes of young people, at least in the central US.
  • One of my greatest personal disappointments has been that none of my children chose a career in science. My colleagues have not fared much better.
    • My children, particularly the girls, seemed to dislike the "total personal commitment" necessary for a career in science, which to them seemed like an obsession.
• Science/technology is a victim of its own success.
  • I will venture an unsupported personal judgement at this point. It is based on off-hand comments by students, teachers and others during my visits to high schools.
  • Due to the rapidly changing world of science/technology, students are apprehensive that during the long period of training/education, major changes will occur rendering the direction of their training irrelevant.
  • Younger people have never been known for their patience. But, in particular, the present younger generation has grown up in an atmosphere of "instant gratification"-whether it be dope, booze, sex, violence, or entertainment, e.g. television. Happily, to their credit, most young people do not widely participate in these negative aspects of modern society. However, the mood is pervasive.
    • Self-discipline or self-denial are not part of the "youth culture."
    • Young people are impatient with long drawn-out programs, of study.
      • PhD granting institutions in chemistry in the US "shot-themselves-in-the-foot" when the time span for a PhD moved from four to five plus years in the 1970-80's.
      • Yet, colleagues profess puzzlement why students do not enter chemistry for a career, while wreaking out more work per graduate student.
  • The necessity for long grounding in the basics before the interesting facets in science/technology are reached, tends to kill interest
    • In the humanities, students often are introduced to the most cogent question in beginning courses.
    • Besides, any twelve-year-old can reach as many "gee-whiz" topics as he/she wants on the internet or in video games.
    • The "gee-whiz" aspect of science has lost its appeal.
      • Many of the "neat" demonstrations I tried to present to high school classes were met with polite, but mild interest.
      • But, almost any demo to grade school students was met with high enthusiasm.
    • In the US, the career field of business remains extremely popular. Students are literally "in business" after four years, and the program of study is not very demanding.
• The object of this presentation will be to pose a moral dilemma in efforts to recruit students for a career in science/technology, in particular to chemistry.
  • This dilemma concerns the erosion of one of the major advantages of a career in science-the loss of freedom of action--often due to environmental or safety concerns.
    • I am not saying that environmental or safety concerns are wrong or should not be in effect, merely that they can adversely affect recruitment for science.
    • There is a grim joke among chemists in the US--that their science will be carried out elsewhere soon, perhaps in a third-world country, if one can be found with less restrictive policies.
• A second objective will be to explore attitudes of students toward science.

• So science/technology is not popular as a career choice among young people! Yet, we persist in trying to interest them in science as a career.
  • Have we been honest with them?
    • In my own case, the answer must be "No, not at all."
      • If the young people learned of the restrictive climate that has now grown to encompass laboratory science in recent years, not one would choose this path.
      • It is simply too distant from the "instant gratification" atmosphere that prevails in the "youth culture."
      • Our recruiting efforts would be self-defeating.
  • One of a host of possible examples:
    • It is the present requirement in the US that laboratory doorways must have a list of chemicals present, amounts, and other information. Since this changes minute-by-minute, almost every chemical laboratory is formally in violation of this requirement. It is an enormous bother to try (but fail) to keep the list reasonably current.
  • In recruiting young people, we try to emphasize the joy of discovery in science, and freedom of action in pursuing discovery, but much of the new reality lies in keeping accurate lists and records.
    • This seems like "busy work" to most of my colleagues. To older scientists used to a less restrictive atmosphere, it is hard to enforce.
  • With regard to safety, many recent changes have been needful. Yet, many other protocols are unrealistic.
    • Another "down home" example concerns what to do if you catch on fire (say, due to a spilled chemical that ignites). What action is considered proper?
      • You are supposed to "drop-and-roll." Your lab mates are supposed to ignore the fire blanket and fire extinguishers present in each lab.
      • There is not enough aisle space in most labs to "drop-and-roll." This could be a problem if there is also broken glassware.
      • This rule seems mainly designed for gasoline fires, diesel fuel or grease fires, not fires from highly volatile organic solvents in a laboratory setting. In the last case, you need cooling action, not smothering action.
      • A safety shower may be used, however.
  • Many safety rules seem to have been made for a heavy-industry setting, and they are inappropriate for a laboratory situation. Yet they are advanced by safety professionals as the only true course of action.
    • The dilemma: strict enforcement of national rules, no matter how obtuse, or chose a more realistic stance.
      • We are loathe to suggest to students that safety rules are not to be strictly followed.
        • Another local example of a conflict over safety rules:
          • Our "University Health" medical people constantly crab at us because we tell students to "wash-it-off-immediately" with tons of water, if they spill a chemical on their skin.
          • The Health Center people want students to leave the chemical on the skin, until they have an opportunity to telephone around to poison control centers to find the proper course of action. They say: "Don't you know that some chemicals react violently with water?"
          • If the spilled chemical was concentrated nitric or sulfuric acid, a major burn could result for the student during the delay.
          • In this case, we are obdurate. Our policy remains "wash-it-off!"
  • All this conflict detracts from "DOING SCIENCE"-our business.
  • To make a long story short, in recruiting visits to high schools, my conscience is bothering me for not better informing students of what might befall them should they choose a career in chemistry (or laboratory science, in general).
    • There are four possible responses to the moral dilemma:
      • The dishonest route: Say nothing: let them find out on their own.
      • Middle ground: Gloss over the regulatory climate situation. State that things are not so bad, if they work for a large industry or large university with funds to hire people to diminish the impact upon individual scientists or engineers. Further state that many fields, e.g. theoretical chemistry, much of physics, engineering, and geology, and many of the biological fields have no such problems.
      • The moral high ground: Go over the present regulatory situation and the problems with inappropriate safety rules, and the fact that regulations seem to be multiplying in number and severity.
        • As stated above, if the choice is the moral high ground, you might as well not try to recruit for chemistry.
      • Fourth Option: A route similar to the middle ground, above. See conclusions.
  • I would be pleased to learn how colleagues in other institutions have faced this problem, and to know any solutions they may have found.
    • No solution seems obvious. Personally, I have followed the dishonest or the middle ground in previous visits to high schools.
    • Teachers, in particular, are incredulous to learn of present regulations or practices. An unpleasant awakening awaits them.
      • Then, more negative publicity will greet high school students.
  • Turning to the subsidiary question of the attitudes and feelings of younger people toward science.
    • In my visits to over 75 schools, I did not perceive a "mood against science/technology".
      • If anything, there was mild gratitude.
        • This did not translate into any apparent desire to enter science as a career.
          • Students seemed to be concerned whether they could make it in science, and whether the long program of study would be worthwhile, personally.
          • I am reasonably sure that students were concerned about status and salary, although few were crude enough to ask.
          • My visits were largely to rural areas. The benefits of science toward agriculture have been very significant in the last 30 years, and were viewed with favor.
          • In fact, students in large metropolitan areas seemed to have more of a "don't-give-a-damn" attitude.
          • One or two students of each class were "up" on current topics in science and on environmental questions. Generally, student's attitude was "wait-and-see," about most questions regarding science vis-a-vis public policy.
          • Generally, students seemed to agree that scientific literacy is a must for all citizens in future years.
          • However, the main problems in student's eyes remain the effort to establish an identity, and questions of personal status in the group.
            • The media have made much of the occurrence of low self-esteem. This is a real phenomena, but it seems to stem from their treatment of each other, which is generally horrible.
            • Even at a late date in their high school career, the question of career choice seems to be subsidiary in their minds to these pressing personal concerns.
          • Young people did not value the wisdom and experience of their parents or teachers (or people who come to talk to them about careers in science) very highly.
            • The students seemed to value the advice of their peers, good or bad.
        • The quality of science education seemed to be reasonable and in many cases quite strong.
        • Certainly, the subject material being taught to students is far more significant than when I was in high school.
        • Computers were available and used by students with obvious enjoyment, but equipment for science education was very often lacking.
          • Even a pH meter is scarce.
        • "Science Fairs" loom large in both students and teachers eyes, and much concern was devoted to developing a topic to present.
        • A question frequently encountered from students with regard to some pronouncement was "How do we know that?"
          • There was some confusion in students' minds whether they were supposed to take the pronouncement as a "given fact" (that they should accept for the present), or whether they should be able to understand the pronouncement based on previous material, or to be able to use logic to clarify the pronouncement.
          • This problem is well-known to high school teachers, but less in evidence in college teaching (and thus disconcerting, when you visit high schools).
        • The main problem for students entering college from high school seems to be lack of retention of the material. Students definitely are in a short-term memory syndrome. It is interesting to find that high school teachers complain about the same things that college teachers do.
          • Namely, students have poor math skills and do not write well.
  • There is much commentary and criticism in the media because girls are "turned off" from careers in the physical sciences.
    • Based on my visits to high schools and personal experience with my own family, I would cast a somewhat different view of the question.
      • Science education in the grade schools of the central US is occasionally good, but most often weak, and sometimes non-existent.
        • This has persisted despite the efforts of school boards and a host of other groups to improve this situation.
      • In my opinion, this deficiency stems from a basic dislike of science by the type of person who becomes a grade school teacher. This includes male teachers.
      • The teacher is an extremely important person in the life of very young girls, and the subtle impressions against science imparted during these formative years have a lasting negative effect.
        • Sometimes, these impressions are not so subtle.
        • To their credit, some high school teachers are working with grade school teachers to overcome this phenomenon.
  • Conclusion:
    • The take-home-lesson, in my opinion, is to forget presentations to high schools.
      • Attitudes are set in stone by the time students get to be juniors, due to the dominating influence of the peer group.
      • It is counterproductive to challenge the "youth culture." Societal changes may not go in constructive directions--witness the hippie revolution in the 1970's. This resulted in the dismantling of educational standards.
      • Presentations to younger students will be much more appreciated and much more effective in advancing science as a career.
        • Safety/environmental issues can be included at a more basic level as a natural "part-of-the-business."

Acknowledgements:

S. Tobias, "They're Not Dumb-They're Different," Research Corp., Tuscon, AZ, 1990. Some of the conclusions given in the above presentation were presaged in this fine work by Tobias. In particular, Tobias alludes to the dislike of "total committment" to science by female students. Tobias contrasts the hard-edged world of education in the sciences with the more civilized "personal growth" approach of education in the humanities. The humanities approach IS better. Unfortunately, science is a huge field, and we are forced to move rapidly through dismal beginning subjects, like it or not.

Jane Healy, "Endangered Minds: Why our Children Don't Think," Simon and Schuster, New York, 1990. Healy attributes the failure of students to develop cognitive skills to unresolved reading problems. Many subsidiary conclusions presage conclusions in this presentation.

The Chemed Network: Discussion of the "How do we know that?" problem was aired at some length, as are many other cogent points.

The media: Scientist's love-hate relationship with the media masks the fact that the media get things right much of the time. In particular, articles have appeared on the "instant gratification" aspects of modern culture.

G. Bodner, J. Chem. Educ., 1992, 69, 186, and references cited: Bodner points out that there have been 300 major policy studies on math/science education in the US since 1983-averaging one per week! At some point, scientists will be forced to consider cognitive relationships. It is no longer merely enough to rearrange the material and depend on the beauty and richness of the concepts to inspire students.

Copyright © 1998 by C. A. Kingsbury, all rights reserved.