Reading the morning paper I came across the results form a recent study on the knowledge of and interest in Swedish science among Swedish high school students. (The study was initiated by the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research and is available in Swedish here). As it turned out, only one out of six students claimed to know the name of any scientist alive today. Most of these then went on to name Alfred Nobel. I like the irony in that they name him as a “scientist alive today” because they know of him, and they know of him because of the Nobel prices that were instigated in his will. However my imagination got the better of me and the idea of Nobel as “alive today” got me picturing him in an “Elvis-legend” – maybe the students think that he didn’t actually die, but rather retired to a tropic paradise island hanging out with “the king”? Or perhaps he was abducted by aliens?
Nobel, still among us?
Nobel’s whereabouts aside, the study also got me wondering about the importance of people knowing the names of scientists? Is the namedropping crucial to awake interested in science? I can’t remember knowing the names of any contemporary scientists when I was in high school. Maybe the students know about the science but not the names? This question was also addressed in the study, with an equally depressing outcome. More than 50% of the students claim they know “almost nothing” about Swedish science, and only 3% think they know “quite a lot”. How can we improve this? There is quite a bit of discussion on how people perceive scientists and how to reach out (for example, at Alyssa’s blog here and here), but I really don’t have a good answer. Still, on a more positive note, around 30% of the students said they could imagine science as a future career, so even though they don’t know how we are or what we do, they want to come work with us!
How much is taught about Swedish science in schools? In Finland they teach about the Saimaa seal, do you have anything similar and scientific in Sweden?
Hm. Does Carl von Linné’s work still count as science, or are they thinking of more contemporary work?
It’s disappointing but not surpising did the survey compare with other disciplines? I’d be surprised if the numbers were any higher had the students been asked to name a living lawyer, surgeon or economist.
In my school days I would have been hard-pressed to come up with many names I think. The curriculum didn’t really emphasise current science. I don’t think I’d have really thought about whether the people whose names we learnt were alive or dead – they were just old, innit? I think I’d have known the name of Watson Crick (sic), and perhaps people who gave Royal Institution lectures or who appeared on TV (Magnus Pyke, anyone?).
I don’t think I could have named any current scientists in high school either. Like Frank said, the curriculum doesn’t focus on current science, especially in physics where we were learning about Newton’s laws, etc.. I don’t think I learned anything “new” (say, post 1950) until the 4th year of undergraduate.
I have lots of thoughts (regularly) about this (scientists not being known by name, etc.). Will come back later with a longer comment (or ask me if I forget!)
@ Bob: There was actually a question in the study on this: “Has the school done anything to improve your interest in science?”. 58 % said no, and only 9% said “yes, definitely”. Room for some improvement, I’d say. When I went to school there wasn’t any particular focus on Swedish science, except for a little bit about the Baltic sea and how seriously bad things are with it (is that the kind of thing you meant with the referral to the seal? It was real cute, by the way). I guess that it is easier to have local focuses when it comes to environmental issues, there is a clear link between the science and the place.
And I would say that von Linné’s work counts as science, but then he is even less contemporary than Nobel :)
@Matt: no, they did not compare it to any other discipline, but I’m sure you have a point. Usually in studies where they ask high school students about the name of the prime minister there is a fair amount of them that don’t know…
@Frank and Alyssa: My memory of science in school (biology, physics, chemistry) was that you where taught a set of “truths”, and you more or less took them for granted, without reflecting on that someone actually had gone through the trouble of thinking up the ideas and then proofing them. Perhaps with the exception of a cartoon of Newton getting hit by an apple (and a side bar stating that probably he didn’t really get hit by that apple, he just went on and figured out gravity anyway). Definitely nothing on contemporary scientists.
@Eva: Looking forward to it!
I doubt that most high-school kids here in the US know the names of contemporary scientists, either. If they do, it’s more likely to be those who are on TV or otherwise in the public spotlight.
There was in interesting article in Science recently about an EMBL initiative to help science teachers “modernize” their curriculum. Maybe that will help.
Sure, being “famous from tv” would help – does that happen every now and then in th US? I can’t really think of any Swedish scientist that shows up on TV regularly enough for anyone to remember him/her. Perhaps the ones that will inspire an interest in science nowadays are the science journalists (quite a few would be able to name someone like David Attenborough, I think)
There are a few scientists who have become public figures, largely thanks to PBS. Carl Sagan is perhaps the best-known example, but these days Neil deGrasse Tyson is filling that role pretty well.
Ok! We don’t have anything like PBS, I can see how that is helpful. I wonder why both of your examples are astronomers/astrophysicists though – do they have a special thing for media attention :)
They probably reflect my bias (since those are the shows I tend to watch). Tyson has done shows in “straight” astronomy and astrophysics, as well as string theory, quantum mechanics, and other fields.
I’m late to this discussion, but David Suzuki is another well-known scientist-turned-public figure, as, I suppose, is Stephen Hawking.