I believe that children are our future
I only have time for a quick post, as I'm about to run off to a meeting - but I was in a baby gear/toy store yesterday, and I'm sorry to report that the children's chemistry sets were in the "Science & Magic" section.
That pairing really threw me for a loop - I guess any sufficiently advanced technology really is indistinguishable from magic...
Joshua
Joshua Finkelstein (Senior Editor, Nature)

Comments
Light a match - that's science. Demand it inflame a second time - that's magic. Some would get a second match, some would wait in faith - and demand the first group charitably share during the intervening interval. Then, burn the witches with their own Devil's wands.
Posted by: Uncle Al | October 22, 2007 01:50 PM
Bah.
But on the plus side, my youngest was trying to decide what she wants for her 8th birthday. I suggested a chemistry set.
*BEAMS* all round. Then when we were in a craft shop last night she was whining because there was so much cool stuff, and could she buy *this* now, and have *that* for her birthday?
"I thought you wanted a chemistry set?"
"Oh Yes!" *smiles*.
And yet she wants to be a surgeon when she grows up. I'm keeping this one, she's special.
Posted by: Richard P. Grant | October 22, 2007 08:45 PM
Maybe we should be glad that there is still a chemistry set available, magic or otherwise. Is there a physics set or a geology set?
Posted by: Revathi Bacsa | October 26, 2007 04:00 AM
Revathi, it turns out that the 'best' one we could buy is little more than a glorified microscopy primer. It comes with a microscope (which looks to be the coolest part of the kit) and citric acid, bicarb and pH paper. Sigh.
I see a great need for proper children's chemistry sets for discerning parents, like what we had when I were a nipper.
Posted by: Richard P. Grant | October 29, 2007 11:33 PM
Dear Richard,
Tell me more about this chemistry set that you had.
What experiments could you do with it?
Posted by: Revathi | October 30, 2007 11:41 AM
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd of prediction. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke's_three_laws)
Weren't the original chemists called magicians or alchemists?
So if my 7 year old nephew has a tendency towards magical thinking, why not give him a chemistry set and let him start from the beginning? I suspect that most chemists had similar dreams when were young and become skeptical because their imaginations were squashed by the limitations of scientific thinking.
Posted by: Selma Holden Einstein | February 1, 2008 05:44 PM