Thanks to one of my colleagues for bringing to my attention an article in the education supplement of today’s Guardian in which chemistry Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto expresses grave concerns about the future of British science. The piece contains some strong stuff, and here are some quotes I wanted to share with you:
About how the numbers of young people choosing a scientific training are in decline across the developed world, not just the UK, but some countries find other ways to cope:
“…over decades, the US has been spectacularly successful in making up its own homegrown science and technology shortfall by draining first western European scientists, and now eastern European and Asian scientists.”
About the consequences of university vice chancellors – “who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing” – dispensing with science departments in favour of other courses:
“Just as cheap fast food has resulted in unprecedented levels of obesity, so this McDonald’s approach to cheap, trendy, seductively soft courses designed for mass consumption in tertiary education has resulted in a plethora of students trained for non-existent jobs.”
About the teaching of ‘intelligent design’ in some British schools:
“State funds are also being used to support some schools that abuse impressionable young people by brainwashing them into believing that non-believers will burn for all eternity in the fires of hell.”
About the future of British science:
“Do panic!”
So, what do you think – is he right?
Stuart
Stuart Cantrill (Associate Editor, Nature Nanotechnology)
Mediocrity is a vice of the doomed.
Words of wisdom, man, words of wisdom!
Al-
I prefer:
“Mediocrity is a handrail” -Charles Louis de Secondat
But the point is the same 🙂
I’d like sit down and ask Dr. Kroto what he meant when he said nationalism is a cancer.
The nationalism is cancer comment is probably a very clever one. If one thinks about how cancer happens – by a healthy cell becoming defective and multiplying unchecked, then the parallels between the healthy pride in one’s country mutating into a force that harms is a little more obvious. I took this comment moderately – to mean that extreme nationalism was a bad thing. He’s just written an article in support of UK science so clearly he is a little nationalistic himself (despite working in Florida).
Science is, at the end of the day, a global humanitarian endeavour. It should transcend national interest and be for the benefit of all people.
As a British scientist I can say that Kroto articulates many of the sentiments I feel. I believe that the British government is currently extremely shortsighted in it’s vision. Science education is only one manifestation of the Prime Minister’s myopia; there are many social issues that are equally important and equally neglected. Science is the one that concerns me most. The one question I would like to ask of Prof. Kroto is where he sees all these science educated persons employed. As a postdoc hoping to return to the UK and a science career, preferably academia but I would equally love a teaching position at a university (or some other science communication role), the job prospects are quite depressing. So what must come first? An increase in jobs for scientists (not just jobs that require science training) or an increase in science education? I sometimes wonder if it is cruel to encourage young people to pursue science, knowing the difficulty in finding a job at the end of many years of training.
We need basic science funding, not just targeted initiatives aimed solely at the most popular (to the public) fields such as medical research. We need to fund the chemists and physicists and earth scientists who advance our knowledge of the universe. We need to fund the biologists and the medical researchers who advance our knowledge of the life on our planet. I think we could all live with out more media studies graduates. Science is about life not election votes. It never has, and never will be a political popularity contest.
(sorry for the long comment – feel quite strongly about this!)
UPDATE***
The Guardian has published letters in response to the piece written by Kroto – you can find them here and here.
Hopefully it’s not too late to make a comment. One question that doesn’t seem to have been raised in discussions is what proportion of science students in the UK take up careers in their chosen sciences? Could it be that studying a single subject for 3 or 4 years is not seen by today’s students as optimal preparation for a job market where lots of people of have degrees? Is the proportion of science students leaving their disciplines on graduation remaining constant or changing with time?
One difference between the UK and the US is that specialist undergraduate teaching institutions have an important and valued role in the US. When I worked in a large state university, I remember that graduates from the these specialist teaching institutions were enthusiastically sought as graduate students.
Propter Doc notes in a previous comment that job prospects are depressing. Currently to embark on a scientific career involves significant risk which is amplified by debt that students typically have to take on. Entry level is typically a PhD and frequently a post doc (6-9 years). Pick the wrong area of science and you end up with unvalued expertise and viewed as suspiciously overqualified by many employers. The rules of the casino can be cruel to individuals.
Meanwhile even science jobs are moving overseas. Take a look the composition of a typical UK or US pharmaceutical company collection in 1980s. Most compounds would have been made in house. With the advent of high throughput screening, comnpanies started to buy in compounds for general screening. Soon they were having compound libraries made to order for random screening. Today project compounds are being sythesised externally and frequently not in the US or UK. Be afraid. Very afraid.