« Science blogging conference set for 30 August | Main | The week on Nature Network: Friday 2 May »

Bookmark in Connotea

Evolution and science education

It’s baffling to many that education reform has been so absent in the campaigns of US presidential candidates. In the 1 May issue of Nature (453, 28-30; 2008), Hal Salzman and Lindsay Lowell of the Urban Institute provide their take on US competitiveness in science and technology. Every time international testing of students on science and technology is done, pundits fret over what it means for the United States’ ability to compete. But while the mean scores place the United States as underachievers, no one seems to be paying attention to the long tails of distribution: the impressive number of high performing students and the equally impressive and dismaying number of low-performers. What do you think needs to be done? The time for discussion is ripe as the National Academies convened this week to refocus congressional attention on their clarion call for change, Rising above the Gathering Storm. Join our online forum at Nature Network and let us know whether you think we are training too many scientists.

In another Commentary in the same issue of the journal (Nature, 453, 31-32; 2008), Andrew Moore of the European Molecular Biology Organisation chides the European education system for not including more instruction on molecular evolution. Are students being shortchanged by not seeing the bioinformatics-based evidence supporting Darwin’s theory? Do you think molecular evolution should feature more extensively on the curriculum in high schools? Please join our discussion at Nature Network, which includes a lively response to Moore's piece at End of the Peer* Show blog.

*apologies, this word should be "Pier". Thank you to rpg (see comments) for pointing this out. Maxine.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 01, 2008
Categories: Education | | Comments (1)

Comments

While "End of the Peer Show" has a rather whimsical feel (and I'm miffed I didn't think of it first), Henry's weblog is actually at the end of the Pier.

best,

Richard

Maxine notes: thank you, Richard, for pointing this out. It is an interesting typo, I wonder if anyone other than an editor with her mind rather often on peer-review would make it? I think it would indeed have been a good title for the blog.

Posted by: rpg | May 2, 2008 01:02 AM

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the blog editors before being published, mainly to ensure that spam and irrelevant material (such as product advertisements) are not published . Please keep your comment brief. Excessively long or offensively phrased entries will be edited. Remember this blog is for feedback and discussion of matters concerning scientific authorship or peer-review - not for drawing attention to your research.

If you want to know if a NPG journal would be interested in your research, you will need to contact the journal's editorial office, which can be done via the authors & referees website.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. E-mail addresses are required in case we need to discuss your comment with you directly. We won't publish your e-mail address unless you request it.

Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to avoid spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can send your comment by e-mail to 'authors at nature dot com'.

please enter code

Search