There was a great Op-Ed in the New York Times yesterday about the transformative power of science. I am clearly preaching to the choir here, but it’s worth a read – author Brian Greene makes an argument for changing the way we teach science in order to make it more applicable to our lives. As Greene suggests, there is a real dichotomy between how students view the “big questions” of science and how they view their day-to-day experiences with science.

From my own vantage point with respect to space exploration, the public is thrilled by rocket launches – they attract millions of viewers and are often replayed on nightly newscasts as the single most engaging, inspiring manifestation of the space program. Yet the chemistry and physics of what is actually going on, that much-dreaded subject of “rocket science”, is the epitome of an inscrutable, specialist-only field of study. How can this be? Why are we so bad at connecting the details of the process to the thrill of the end result?

As Greene points out, much of the problem stems from the vertical approach of teaching science, the notion that in order to progress to the next concept, you must master the previous one. This often morphs into a chronological approach, meaning that when students are selecting their field of study, they are likely years from studying, much less contributing to, the cutting edge. Suddenly the allure of international banking becomes a little clearer when the alternative is looking at old black and white pictures while discussing how the periodic table of the elements was developed.

So what is the solution? How can we have it both ways: the excitement of hands-on, cutting edge science and the rigor of theory development and historical perspective?

As a final side note, I also thought Greene raised an interesting point regarding the branding of science. We are brought up thinking that science is a neatly compartmentalized entity – one of four or five subjects we study in school that only applies during the 45 minutes between social studies and recess. Needless to say, it’s so much more than that – and its central tenet of using observation and evidence to guide decisions is something we can all agree on regardless of our ultimate professions.