Science and Knowledge

I agree with Mr. Greene that our educational system does not teach us how to apply our knowledge of science to our lives. This is the case especially in India where I grew up. Our teachers' main objective was to make sure we did well on our I.C.S.E exams which are similar to the AP's here. So we were made to memorize huge quantities of information without really understanding it or where it could be applied. So we learnt about topics such as nuclear physics,the periodic table and quantum physics without having the faintest idea of why we were doing so. It was very mechanical and boring. The only reason why I retained my interest in Biology was because of my genuine curiosity and its obvious applications to the human body. I was always fascinated by the way living organisms function and the way they have adapted to suit their environments.When I came to America for high school I noticed the difference in teaching styles. In India we were taught to pay a lot of attention to detail, but here we are taught to look at the bigger picture. It was this kind of thinking that helped me understand the interrelation between the sciences. So I think that teachers have to stress on the application of scientific concepts to help develop the interest of the student. Once the student is interested she will automatically feel like learning more.

For me, science in elementary school was a lot of fun. I may have simply been lucky in terms of my teachers and curriculum, but what I mostly remember was learning about those "big ideas"-- although in a simplified form-- for the very first time. It was in middle school that the details really began to matter, and in spite of the efforts of the teachers, the sheer volume of rote learning discouraged many of the students (including me.
I think that one of the biggest difficulties, though (and one not addressed directly in Greene's article) is the way that the scientific method is taught and labs are run. Like pretty much every students in this country, I learned the scientific method as one linear sequence of steps. You define one small problem or question, come up with one hypothesis, test it in one well-defined and very confined experiment under unrealistic conditions, and come up with an answer: true or false. Yes, teachers would mention that follow-up experiments could be made, but it was hard to see each experiment as part of a larger process, part of an ongoing search.
Labs, in middle school and high school, didn't help contribute to understanding at all. Some of them were fun to do, it's true-- but they were ultimately very frustrating, because the point of conducting experiments, in the real world, is to discover something new or at least provide support for an existing theory. The point of conducting experiments in high school was to get the results that the manual said to. The most exciting thing you could discover was a failure in the lab equipment, in which case you had to copy the "right" results from someone else to get a good grade. Yes, if your results were right you'd verified whatever theory was involved-- but knowing exactly what you're out to prove before the results come in was the exact opposite of the attitude we were taught. I'm not sure how schools with limited resources could resolve this problem-- but finding out the expected results after rather than before the lab would be a good start, and would cut down on the data-juggling that everyone engaged in at some point or another.

First of all I would like to say that I really enjoyed reading this article. I think an important point is being made. Science has forever been the subject of memorization. The cell is composed of ribosomes, mitochondria, a cell wall..etc. the article makes the point that substence is necessary for learning but so is inquiry. A student needs to be taught more than memorization. Critical thinking in science is very important. Science is a never ending blackhole of knowledge! There is always more to be learned.
I was lucky enough to have gone through high school with some of the most amazing teachers. These people lived and breathed their subject. To be honest I owe them a lot. It was there teaching that inspired me to want to know more. Challenged me to think outside the box when it came to science. It was in my anatomy class jr. year that I had my "ahh" moment. The moment I realized I was hooked. But I didn't get hooked by reading and memorizing the text alone, it was in learning the application into my daily life that caught my attention. How everything we were learning about was taking place either inside me or outside my classroom. The real world is science! The human body is a mircle. The fact that more people don't just drop dead every few minutes is amazing. All it takes is one itsy bitsy thing to go off track and the whole system can break down.

I do agree with Dr. Green in that there really isn't a lot of interest in science generated in our public school. Some teachers are there in the classroom simply because they have to be there, not because they want to share their love of science with the future generation. However, I personally was very lucky to have some of the most amazing science teachers who taught me to look at life in such an amazing way. To think that us humans, who think of ourselves as the most amazing and intelligent creatures, are just a minuscule part of this enormous and beautiful universe is just mind boggling. To be a part of this universe that never fails to amuse me is to be privileged.

Its funny that it have taken me a long time to post my comment. For some reason I was dreading having to say anything on this.However to my greatest surprise I actually enjoyed reading the article by Greene.In my country,after middle school exam those with high grades are selected and immediately put in the science classes without any consideration to what their passion might be.I always didn't like the sciences because of the way it was taught.Teachers just expected to you to know the formulas, the facts, figures and and quotes. We were not allowed to think for ourselves.If someone tried to ask a question it was seen as an attempt to distract the class from what it was trying to achieve.Questions were not always welcomed in the class room. The only science I found a way to relate to was geology.That was because what I learned in class I could always see outdoors. I could fully understand the rain formation process and the different types of clouds,etc.My interest in the other sciences came in my final year of high school.I had a biology teacher who challenged us to ask questions and to find ways of making science to relate to our everyday lives.Soon I realize that I wasn't reading Biology in order to put some more facts into my head, I was reading it because I had suddenly developed and interest in it.The article by Greene hits the mark when it says that life without science,just like life without music or art, won't be fun.

I must say that I was thoroughly intrigued by Greene's article and that I very much agree with his point. I can admit that I was not a fan of science until high school. Up until that point (with the expection of 5th grade) science was not my strong suit and I tried my past to stay away. It was in 5th grade and then again the summer before high school that I was made aware that sciene does play a role in 'real' life. In my mindset then, in agreement with Greene's article, I had been learning the facts of science like the parts of the cells and the kingdom and domains over and over and over again. And quite, frankly it was of no interest and did not stick to my memory, and until this day still doesn't stick too much. Yet, when science was finally presented to me in a life situated I grabbed on. It was when I learned about science through medical case studies and then in research that the beauty of science and the fact that almost everything is science became evident.

I do agree with one of the comments that I read above in that, in some ways, Greene does oversimplify the mechanisms employed to teach science in middle school and high school. Many school systems may not be able to afford to teach science in a 'cool' way that reveals the discoveries and insights that makes it appealing. Also, I do believe that it is important that a student be introduced to the details early in the game so that they can then put the novel ideas and discoveries into perspective.

Overall though, I can really appreciate this article in the emphasis that Greene makes on people learning science as a vital part of life and not just a subject that appears. This stands true for me because I was once a person who only say science a something that shows up sporaidically and now I am a person that sees everything through science (well not everything, but the most of it all). In short, science is life and life is science (to some degree since faith turns the ball another way).

First of all I want to apologize for making such a late entry, this is because I honestly did not think that this was going to be as interesting as it turned out to be. Its funny that my lack of interest for science sometimes is exactly what was being discussed. I found the article by Greene exceptionally true. I had always hated the sciences,biology, chemistry and physics. In my country,Nigeria,individuals who showed any academic potential were pronounced science students, not necessarily because they have this love for it. The only science that had fascinated me was geology this was because I could easily see the applications of what we learned in our everyday lives. I could relate with the rain formation process as well as the different types of clouds because I saw them everyday. My lack of interest for science continued till my final year in High school when I had a different Biology teacher. She began to challenge us to think and look beyond the text books and find ways to relate biology and all the other sciences into our practical lives. I thought this was hard to do at first but after a while i sincerely became fascinated by the sciences.Knowing the that with each step I took certain processes had to occur to make it possible and that with everything we put into our mouth certain things had to work in order to make the energy that we needed. After taking this approach, I realized as the article said Life without science is equally not fun.
I seriously believe that the way science is taught especially in the African countries need to be address. Too much emphasis is put on students being able to duplicate the thoughts and words of other people. Once you try to put something in your own perspective it is assumed that you did not fully understand the concept. When questions are asked in class, the teacher sees it as a distraction and a way to divert the class's attention from what is being taught. Science should not be so. Science should be mesh of the old as well as the new as Greene put so well in his article.

While I thought most of what Greene said in his article hit on some important points regarding the importance of science in and out of the classroom today, one quote in particular really stood out to me:
"It’s the birthright of every child, it’s a necessity for every adult, to look out on the world, as the soldier in Iraq did, and see that the wonder of the cosmos transcends everything that divides us."
Not only does Greene accurately sum up the vital nature that science should play in the lives of all humans here, but he points this out in almost a spiritually minded way. He explains in his article how science helped a soldier in Iraq develop a sense of clarity and stay sane despite everything going on in his life. The principles and conclusions this soldier drew from science can also be used by the "rest of us"- children and adults alike, to look at life through lenses created by the perspective and understanding gained through science. Despite constantly being changed and improved, science is fact and will always be there to explain life and what goes on in the world, and in fact it does transcend most all else. Should the entire human population be destroyed millions of years from now, science and the basic tenets of life will always remain. Reading Greene's argument was both comforting and encouraging for me, as a student of science, because it made me realize that I probably won't ever truly understand everything I would like to regarding science, but thats ok.. as long as I keep exploring and keep questioning.

I think it is true, what everyone is agreeing upon; that most of the time in high school education far too much focus is on doing well on exams and memorizing the content when instead it should be on encouraging students to continue inquiring about the ways of the world. However, I think students would be even more interested in science if they actually understood it better, period. Many students do well just learning dry facts and doing memorization, but not all of us learn the same way. Personally, I had some really good biology teachers when I was in high school, and the way they taught the dry content part of science is what helped me really remember it, and then stay interested in science. For example, my Bio I teacher had me and all the other students in my class become a working model of the Krebs Cycle, so we could all understand exactly how it works. I don't think any students in our class will have trouble remembering that in the future, should they need it. So I think that also simply different teaching techniques can help students understand more, and then stay interested.

"As every parent knows, children begin life as uninhibited, unabashed explorers of the unknown. From the time we can walk and talk, we want to know what things are and how they work — we begin life as little scientists. But most of us quickly lose our intrinsic scientific passion. And it’s a profound loss."."

--Brian Greene, "Put a Little Science in Your Life"

This particular paragraph in the article caught my attention though whether that was a good or bad thing I haven't decided. Dr. Greene talks about how we begin life as little scientists but quickly lose our passion for questioning what things are, how they work and, in my opinion, the most important--why. Why something is the way it is, why it works in such and such manner and so on. What he doesn't seem to realize is that this questioning, this "intrinsic scientific passion" is not generally promoted--not in school nor home. At least, not where I'm from. When you're young, asking all those questions are cute, if not a little annoying. But keep at it and as you get older, be it several months older, a year or two, you're told in an exasperated tone to just be quiet or stop bothering whoever it is you're asking. It's cute when you're three. When you're seven, eight, ten, you're disrupting a class. It doesn't matter how you introduce the science--if you teach the child that asking questions is a bad or annoying thing, or that one can only ask certain questions (and really, you can say they can feel free to ask you any question, but if you don't follow through with it, they won't) and within a very specific time frame, the child will naturally learn to curb their own questions and hide/curb their curiosity. Science becomes just another subject like math, english, or history, where things are spoken/thrown at you and you simply accept it to be 'true' with little to no questions.

Sarah Spry
There were two points within the article that I find crucial to doing science a justice, those points being that science is another form of “perspective”, or “explanation” for the world we exist in rather than simply an answer to it. Often I feel that science is seen as a two dimensional form of question-answer, when in fact it is more akin to the study of literature or history. Literature and history are forms of explanations for the world we live in, and the two are separate “lenses” for how things came to be. Also, like literature or history science reflects the biases, limitations or enlightenments of a specific society at a certain point in time; science mirrors humanity’s social evolution. A basic (and perhaps rather obvious) example of such evolution is how the leading scientists of the late fourteen hundred all believed that the world was flat and that it was the center of the universe, reflecting the need for people to believe that human life was the greatest life for, as well as other religious beliefs of the time in Europe. Of course today we look back and say that that was a conceptual flaw due to the technological or perhaps intellectual shortcomings of the time, but I think it had to do with what was socially, and perhaps religiously need at the time and place.
The second point that I thought the article conveyed was how science (and education in general) ought to be the application of thought and reasoning, rather than memorization. I absolutely agree with that “postulate” because to encourage memorization alone implies that knowledge and “truth” and understanding are stagnant, when in fact the truth according our perception is ever shifting, forming and reforming. Like optical illusions on the site, without the disclaimer that they were all optical illusions we would have no reason not to believe that was we see is reality. In that same respect we must accept that we only have our ability to rationalize make observations and create suppositions from those observations, because otherwise we live within intellectual obscurity like one observing an optical illusion and not realizing it.

What strikes me most about Mr. Greene’s article is not necessarily his subject matter, but rather his excitement. Clearly, Greene has a great deal of passion for the world of science and all that it beholds, saying, “science is a language of hope and inspiration providing discoveries that fire the imagination and instill a sense of connection to our lives and the world.” It is because of his connections between science and the universe that makes Greene so adoring of science. So why aren’t students so passionate about science as well? In concurrence with Greene, I believe that it is the hounding of terms like ‘adenine’ and ‘mitochondria’ that inflicts with our ability to see the bigger picture. Of course, without understanding these terms, the bigger picture would be completely obscure. However, I believe that with the intention of learning about how life works, rather than memorizing for a vocabulary quiz, science can become much more engrossing and instill the fervor that Greene has. Yet it is not merely up to educators to make the “drama” of science apparent. We, as students, should not just learn things simply for a test, but should really try to comprehend how aspects of science fit into our lives: we should quench our curiosity. When we begin learning and discovering for ourselves, that’s when it becomes interesting.

It's funny, I was actually thinking about something very similar to this discussion on my way to our first bio class. I was wondering what exactly our 3-hour lab period is going to be used for, and how these labs will compare to my past "lab" experiences - the almost-always boring ones in middle and high school classes, or the amazing experiences I've had the past 3 summers working in a university research lab. It occured to me how ironic it was that I, someone who never particularly liked the labs we did in high school bio, physics, and chemistry, have fallen in love with "real" lab work. Thinking about it more as I've read these articles and all the above replies, I think the big difference is that in the lab, I'm starting with the DOING, not the understanding, while at school, labs are supposed to reinfornce some concept we're already learning. I suppose sometimes they do introduce topics too, but as someone above mentioned, there's always a "right answer" you're expected to find; you know the teacher knows how it's going to turn out; there's no real excitement or discovery; generally all the students know how it's supposed to turn out too, it's just a question of getting that to happen. In the lab, it's all "real" - no one has the "answer". Understanding what's going on, at least at this point for me, comes second to actually doing it and seeing what happens. To some extent I'm not sure that's always good thing; I'm often frustrated, wishing I had more of a framework for what I'm experiencing. I'm lucky to have worked with a very patient boss/mentor who was good at explaining things, but he also couldn't stop his work and just teach me molecular biology.

I think ideally, schools should be somewhere in between those experiences. Labs should be more about discovery, giving enough background for some understanding of what's going on but leaving that last connection up to the student, who can then enjoy the satisfaction that comes from figuring something out yourself. I'm not sure I've ever experienced more satisfaction than that resulting from days of lab work culminating in something that actually produces meaningful data, that answers a real question no one knows the answer to, however tiny and apparently insignificant. It's made me realize that whatever field I end up in (though I'm pretty sure that's going to be bio), I want to spend my life trying to answer some of those questions that no one currently knows the answers to.

One more thing I want to add - reading these comments, I'm starting to appreciate that my schools were definitely ahead of some in terms of teaching science. My teachers generally found ways to connect science to daily life, at least once in a while doing an activity or bring up a topic that would interest the more "non-science" students, etc. But I do think my appreciation for science came from sources outside of school - mostly books, and later websites too. The biggest thing though, I think, is that my teachers were able to encourage that outside exploration - from my 1st grade teacher who helped me research finches (our classroom pets), to my 12th grade teacher who was my advisor for two independent studies in science last year. This can compensate a bit for the fact that at least in the current education system, the demands placed on teachers (standardized tests, etc) make it impossible for science classes to always be as engaging as we'd like. This was very clear to me my junior year, when some of our most interesting classes took place after the AP test - we voted on what areas of bio we were most interested in exploring further, and how we would like to explore them. One class observed behavior of students in the cafeteria, while ours set up a re-enaction of a firing neuron based on a youtube video we'd been shown in our study of protein synthesis (if you haven't seen it, definitely check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9dhO0iCLww (you can skip the talking guy and just go to the action if you want)). In some ways, I think we did learn a lot less running around outside than in a "normal" class setting, and at least what my class did wouldn't have been possible without that prior class; to some extent we were just goofing off and having a good time. But on the other hand, it was amazing how much was actually reinforced and clarified through that fun - the bio teacher yelling "no no no, the sodium ions have to go back out, dont just stand there!" While obviously something like that isnt a replacement for classroom teaching, I do think everyone in our class will always remember having "K" and "Na" signs taped to their backs or tossing neurotransmitter tennis balls.

This article discussed a topic that I often think about in my spare time. I am dead set on becoming a doctor, but when I think about the Biology, Physics and Chemistry courses that I have to take, I am struck by pure terror. I do not, however, feel this same terror when I open a Biology, Chemistry or Physics textbook. Reading about science and watching documentaries about science is something I truly enjoy. It’s not until I am faced with a set of questions that I must answer, problems that I must solve, or the grade that I absolutely must earn in order to maintain my sanity, that science becomes something that I dread.

I believe that many other students feel the same way. I agree with the article when it suggests that “in teaching our students, we continually fail to activate rich opportunities for revealing the breathtaking vistas opened up by science, and instead focus on the need to gain competency with science’s underlying technical details.” In our educational system, the student is rarely left to discover laws of nature on his or her own, but is instead told what he or she is expected to discover, and if this backwards process is difficult, as it is for many, the student is left to believe that he or she is incompetent in the study of science.

I was also particularly interested when I read that the author has “spoken with high school dropouts who’ve stumbled on popular science books about the human genome project, and then returned to school with newfound purpose.” My best friend is also a high school dropout and I am always surprised to discover the many interesting books on science that she reads on a regular basis. She has such a strong passion for acquiring knowledge about science and nature, that I, the biology student among us, am truly inspired by her. I have also known other unlikely people with a similar passion and curiosity for science. These unlikely people grasp the importance of science and how it connects to our lives.

By far, my favorite part of the article was the closing lines, “It’s the birthright of every child, it’s a necessity for every adult, to look out on the world, as the soldier in Iraq did, and see that the wonder of the cosmos transcends everything that divides us.” This, I believe, is one of the most important lessons that one can learn from science. Science is not necessarily about memorizing the most facts, balancing the most difficult equations, or even getting into the toughest grad schools. Science is about understanding our selves and our place in the world.

Learning, to me, is more than just knowing what other people discovered- the great "ah-ha!"s from some other life, but is truly about understanding how someone came to the conclusions that he or she did, practicing that myself and learning from experience, from doing. Science, especially biology, in my case, is the chance to really be active in my learning, and connect what happens in the classroom or on the pages of a book to my every day interactions. This article presses each person to make science personal- because it is: it is about the life that I live and the perspective I bring to it. Science is not about "knowing the facts" or learning "the truth" of this life and the world I find place in, but observing carefully with a special kind of mindset. Science is about understanding the visceral interactions with the world to the best of my ability, and I think it gives me the chance to see through a different lens- even to look at the extensive academic information through a deeper connection to the physical and material- where it is not so in my head...it is like the first men who flew on rocket ships to the moon.
I read a book once about their trips, and every man was changed- not by the moon, but by looking back at the world, one small fragile planet- not all that vast, and easily damaged, through that small round window. I think that the author of this article asks every person to cultivate this understanding in the perspective that we bring to the world. Science is a chance- as simple or complex as we make it-to accurately understand the universality of behavior and structure, to the best of our ability. The world truly is small, and this is our chance, with each breath we take, to know how much we all share.
But I am left with the question- how to make that real through a class? It seems to me, that the basics are fundamental to understanding the newly fascinating elements of science, but there is little understanding of making the "basics" of science something that excites direct connection to my life- how do I make the unquestioned theories of old something energizing for my constant learning? Something that I do, instead of that I read? One idea that comes to me, is to make the unraveling of scientific knowledge more personal- understanding the amazement that accompanied the discovery of the cell in cork, or the massiveness of the task of naming the parts of the body- even one as simple as a worm- it is possible that that view into the birth of science, into the awe that accompanied each leap, can encourage the ability to question and understand the facts as pole-vaults of insight, can lead to synonymous moments of "ah-ha!"

Science education started in my school system at the elementary level. I spent my K-5 years constructing volcanos, eco-systems and tornados out of two soda bottles. Science education was used to engage the students' curiosity, and show them the scientific applications of what they were experiencing in real life. I believe that in the elementary years students were very "into" science. It was not feared as it was as I progressed through the education system. It was really in high school when science was broken down in to bio, chem and physics that students became aware of its "problems". Bio was too much memorization, chem had too many equations and physics had too much math. The practical applications of science had been lost by those who explored it. I believe that in HS biology if my teacher had given the class one of the volcanos we had made in second grade, the connection between science and life could have been recaptured. It is very important as a student of the science to maintain a clear connection between real life application and the concepts that are being explored. If that bridge is not being made it is easy to become lost in science and develop a negative perception of it. As a chem major i appreciate the small subtle aspects of science and I take advantage of them on a regular basis. For example just the other day i needed to get permanent mark off of a surface and just by thinking about what would dissolve permanent marker I was able to figure it out. Science is involved in everything, but it is often overlooked.

I read this article directly after reading a Raymond Williams essay called "Marxism and Literature" for my CSEM class. In it, Williams argues that the natural sciences are almost irrelevant because since God (or whoever) made nature, we can never fully understand it, whereas since man created culture, we can truly study and comprehend culture and society. Obviously, I disagree with this notion, considering I am taking a biology class. I do, however, think that looking at sciences like Physics, Bio, and Chem in an applied way, as Greene suggests, is probably the best approach. So much of our day-to-day living is dictating by scientific discoveries from only the last half century that the natural and social sciences are now incredibly connected. It's almost impossible to understand one without knowledge of the other.

If I were to design a high school curriculum, I would love to have most of the classes taught in a combined and interdisciplinary way. Science is related to literature, history, politics, and math. As someone who was never much of a "science person," I think that I would have gotten much more out of my science classes if I were able to directly see their relevance. Part of the problem is that scholars in individual disciplines tend to look at their field of choice as superior to others (perhaps even subconsciously) and don't automatically see how they are interconnected.

"We rob science education of life when we focus solely on results and seek to train students to solve problems and recite facts without a commensurate emphasis on transporting them out beyond the stars." (Greene)

My personal experience with science education, in a public high school in small town America, nearly destroyed my curiosity and desire to pursue the mysteries of the world we live. I enjoyed humanities classes because I had the opportunity to be creative and original. In contrast, my science classes were torture, and I remember hours spent memorizing formulas and numbers.

Although in-depth science is impossible without this attention to technicality, middle-school and high-school students need to be captivated by the enormous potential that science has to unravel the mysteries of the universe, in order tempt them to study science beyond the minimum number of years required for a high school diploma. Students with a true curiosity in science, will then learn to "solve the problems" necessary and perhaps their studies truly will carry them "beyond the stars."

Science is two-faced. Depending on the individual, one may encounter the captivating side of science where the pieces of information left at one’s disposal unlock an unfathomable amount of the world’s mysteries. On the other hand, one may come across a fairly dry science where one is attacked by an onslaught of formulas and long, tedious experiments. According to Greene it is up to the educational system to discover a way to put the more enchanting aspects of science at the forefront of academia. Yet I must ask how one can expect teachers to construct such a foundation in children when the teachers are given limited resources and a fraction of the school day to do so? With such limitations and the need to prepare students for both exams specific to the course as well as material covered on standardized tests it is impractical to assume that students would not become disinterested. If more focus was placed on emphasizing the connections between classroom learning and the real world instead of just making the grade I feel that one would be able to connect with the students better. As Greene stated in the article, most of us have woven science into our daily life and for many of us we find an immense amount of pleasure in our technological advancements. It only seems logical then that the science behind those “toys” would be appealing as well. However, it seems like no one has used this window of opportunity in the beginning years of science education to captivate students which leads to the years of indifference.

Greene's article is a pointed commentary on the scientific education many students are receiving in public schools. The examples he uses to illustrate how science can be a source of inspiration are often about individuals who are not in school such as the highlighted case of the soldier in Iraq. What he seems to be saying is that science is more then just an area of study,science is first and foremost a way to examine and understand the world we live in.He complains that in schools students get so bogged down with the meaningless memorization of facts and methods that they never experience the true joy of science, the joy of discovery.
In this I absolutely agree with him. Although I have gained much knowledge and wonder from my science classes in middle and high school I have always found inspiration through other means. I know that having a plan, a solid method of examination allows scientists to take advantage of their discoveries but, some of the greatest discoveries of our time happened as an accident or purely by chance. Although science is reliant on the scientific method and on an objective way to examine scientific phenomenon, scientific curiosity is the most important thing that we can learn in order to bring science into our lives. For example, look at the Hadron particle collider in Europe, although scientists do not know exactly what will happen when they turn it on they are going to do it anyway.Why? Because they have a desire to know, to learn that is so strong they will risk the unknown to find that perfect knowledge.
All science can be applied to real life (in that respect I must disagree with Mr. Greene) but if the joy of learning and the desire to explore is crushed by mindless tedium in the classroom then science will find itself being slowly abandoned by the younger generations. I agree with Mr. Greene that the science curriculum should be revised to allow for more free exploration of ideas and less memorization of methodology. After all if free thinking and exploration is not the most vital aspect of scientific advancement then I do not know what is.

The author of this article, Brian Greene, refers to science as "a language of hope and inspiration." Unfortunately, as Greene mentions, many science classes get caught up in the technicalities and unrelated particulars of the subject and thus end up with a disconnected stream of facts. Like Greene, I would encourage classes to focus more on the "language" of science. Literature classes do not focus solely on parts of speech, but rather look at the text as a whole. This gives the reading meaning (past the sentence structure) and makes it an individual and unique piece. Similarly, science teachers must try to get their students to see the larger picture and appreciate the meaning of science as a language of life and discovery. To return to the language metaphor, it is necessary to learn the basics of a language-- subject, action, and basic grammatical structure-- before reading the works of Shakespeare. However, once the foundations are laid, students are encouraged to read and write and explore the English language. Similarly, it is crucial that students in science classes learn basic elements such as the scientific process, but afterward, they must be allowed to branch out and explore what science has to offer. If students grasp the importance of science, they should be able to apply their new-found language to situations inside and outside of the classroom. Hopefully the student's bilingualism (of English and science) would accomplish what many science teachers have failed to achieve-- a conduit and a tool for looking at the world with a more critical eye.

I'm a science person, so I can understand where Mr. Greene is coming from. Yes, science is great and helps us understand more of the world around us, but that's pretty much all I agree with. For me at least, science was the one subject in elementary school that did relate to my life the most. You can't possibly learn about the cell without knowing that you are physically made up of them. I think it's hard to learn anything in a biology based class without knowing that we are directly linked to everything the teacher is saying. All the other subjects involve ourselves less, like math. What does the pythagorean theorm have to do with me? (I'm not saying that I don't like math!) Mr. Greene complains that science can be too boring for kids, when it's supposed to be exciting because it's all about the world. I think science has the same potential as any other subject to be boring. It just depends on what strengths a kid has and what he likes. Of course science is important, but other subjects are as well; Mr. Greene doesn't say any of them are too boring and should motivate kids. I think if a kid doesn't think science is interesting, there isn't much more you can do. Of course you should try to spark an interest, but sometimes things just don't click. I know for sure that I will never like learning languages, no matter what a teacher does to make it 'fun.' Just because you feel passionate about something doesn't mean everyone else has to. It would be great if kids got more excited about science, it really would. But Mr. Greene is being a little too hard on the teachers. It's amazing that Mr. Greene changed the outlook of the soldier in Iraq, but that can't possibly have the same effect on everyone. Like I said, I love science and would love it even more if everyone was as excited about it as I am. But we can't force people into it.

Greene is absolutely right that science has a profound impact on our everyday lives, especially in recent years due to the surge of technology. Even young teenagers walk around with cell phones and ipods and they never realize the science that is involved in those. Part of this lack of education is due to the eduational system. But on the otherhand, no one can expect a middle school science teacher to teach the workings of an ipod, where most likely they themselves do not understand it. The technology that children and even adults use today can not be explained unless he/she is a atleast a science major if not a graduate student. For instance, in intro bio I think it is safe to say, we won't learn the inner workings stem cell research. We cannot be expected to know what phD students are researching. However, the latest technology is the most interesting to people today, and it is so complicated an average joe on the street doesnt know the sequencing or connection of wires. They just buy it and turn it on. As for stem cell research of genomic sequencing that Greene talks about. As the elections are approaching stem cell research is a hot topic. Americans should be more educated about this topic to be able to make an informed decision. What voters hear from their candidates or new reporters on the tv is how they base our decision about these sensitive debates. We should be more educated in these topics because what the politicians teach us is not enough.

After reading these articles I come to see why many people find science scary and often boring. Science is such a broad term and has multitudes of broad topics underneath it. When people take Biology in high school it always seems to try to be all encompassing, trying to include everything deemed as Biology into 24 weeks of class. By going from topic to topic so fast many people get overwhelmed and bored because there just isn't time for them to get interested in the topic at hand before the next topic is introduced.
When people say that Science is boring or doesn't interest them how do they know that all science doesn't interest them? They could have just taken the Biology and Chemistry classes in high school and then just said no to science. They wouldn't know if physics or geology or some other "Science" interested them, each genre of science is so unique and that isn't stressed enought to our youth. All they see is the people in the media and they aren't the best role models for the future. The media focuses on watching and making observations but not in interpreting them. If we can start teaching kids to interpret their observations about general things at a very early age then their interpretations will grow in depth and magnitude as they grow older.

I must say I thoroughly enjoyed reading Greene's article because he highlights the beauty of science, in that it feeds our inherent curiosity of discovering the world around us. I know a number of people who have a severe aversion towards science because they "can't think that way." But I disagree with these sorts of statements (and I think Greene would too) because it really is more than just numbers, reactions, and probabilities. Though science is pragmatic in that sense, it is still an expression, an interpretation of how we view life, just as music and art which is why I agree when Greene says "we must embark on a cultural shift that places science in its rightful place alongside music, art and literature as an indispensable part of what makes life worth living."

To understand science means going back and reevaluating the way we view it, not just appreciating what it can do for us (e.g. higher living standards via technology) but appreciating science for what it is, learning about what is around us and remembering the grander scheme of things. It's more than just compartmentalizing our world but as Greene says, it is an empowering experience. And I think with this sort of mindset, transformation can happen in schools and children, along with adults, can go back to days when they looked around their world in awe and simply wondered.

I definitely agree with the suggestion already made above numerous times, about teaching students to think and ask their own questions, rather than simply feeding them facts in public schools. I personally found this way of teaching in my high school different and extremely effective. This way of teaching, referred to as the “Socratic method of teaching” within my high school was required by all teachers, particularly the science teachers. Teachers were never to lecture any of the information we were to know; rather, they were to provide enough information, forcing us to ask more questions and in the end coming up with the answers on our own through discussion. It was not even recommended that we read the textbook before coming to class. I remember encountering this new way of teaching my freshman year of high school and initially being extremely frustrated by it, especially in my first science course-regents level Biology. It was of course initially more difficult for me to think of the answers on my own through discussion, rather than simply being fed the facts from a textbook. However, by my senior year, I found that this way of teaching had not only helped me remember more information, but it had also changed my way of thinking. This method of teaching helps initiate discussion and helps students learn the facts while realizing on their own what science requires as well as what it can offer, while cultivating an interest in a subject that otherwise may not seem interesting.
I also agree with the point made by Mr. Greene about public schools not offering the proper foundations for students to grow to love science. I noticed, especially in NYC schools, where passing the regents is of the utmost importance, that memorization of facts is the most popular learning method. Unfortunately, although I agree with the author, I don’t think Mr. Greene pointed out how difficult it is for teachers to provide all the information that students need to know, while simultaneously sparking their interest in science. I cannot say that I can identify with this public school experience, as I attended a science high school in NYC where a majority of the students already had this interest in science. Since teachers knew that the students were interested in the subject they were teaching, they did not encounter this difficulty. Although students already had an interest in science, it was the encouragement of our teachers to participate in our own hands on research that ultimately helped most students realize what science meant to them. About a quarter of my graduating class participated in independent science research projects in coordination with science mentors and I believe that this ultimately helped students realize what science meant beyond the classroom and grew to love it. I know that this may not be a possibility for all public high schools, but I agree with a comment made above-that it is ultimately the students’ responsibility to place themselves within a scientific environment to realize what science truly is.

I agree with Anonymous’ post in that science is indeed made out to be a daunting and difficult subject. I think part of the reason that science frightens people is due to the fact that the subject’s content is primarily objective and fact-laden. Science classes— be it high school or college— are more often than not lecture style as opposed to discussion based or writing intensive. Already at this point, expressive and communicative students rule out the possibility of studying Biology. Content in a Biology course is eternal; there is no way to study the life of a leaf without explaining photosynthesis. However, I think the pedagogy, namely the strategy of instruction, of a Biology course can be altered to appeal to a broader range of students.

In my Philosophy of Mind course, we are discussing whether consciousness is a brain process. Is it? Well, the mind (not brain) is intangible, something like the soul. If we cannot see the mind and we have no scientific evidence of the mind, how can we say that consciousness is attributed to Biology? What does it truly mean to be conscious? While it would be ineffective to spend a day in a Biology course on such mind-boggling discussions, I think it is nevertheless important to address such questions, even if it is to a class full of future Biologists. The debate of consciousness is a very relevant discussion in the study of Philosophy and of Biology. So, why not include it in a Biology class? This approach, I think, will represent Biology as the comprehensive subject it truly is.

As another example, my Critical Feminist Studies class (an English course), is discussing the effect Biology has on sex and gender of human beings. Biology in an English course? Yes. Why? Because Biology is an integral part of studying practically everything. In other words, it is evident that Biology (a natural science) is vital in answering life’s most important questions; this fact I will not deny. It is clear to me that Biology is interdisciplinary and so Biology should become a more inclusive area of study. If Biology can be the topic of discussion in an English course and in a Philosophy course, why can’t we use English and Philosophy in Biology?

While it cannot be taught as a subject that is as writing intensive as an English course or as freethinking as a Philosophy course, I strongly believe that Biology should still include different perspectives from various ares of study-- from English, from Philosophy, from Sociology, from Anthropology—-into course content. Obviously, the extent of discussion and the type of discussion should be the discretion of the teacher/Professor of the course. In my opinion, the approach would make the idea of taking a Biology course less stressful and more attractive to all students, to every student.

I agree with Mr. Greene's position that science isn't taught to students in ways that they can and want to incorporate it into their daily lives. Until recently, I admit that I'd always thought of science as a subject to study in school. I even felt this way about labs which, though they allowed me to put the principles I learned into practice, weren't really useful in my everyday life. However this past summer, I did research at a college of medicine and it definitely opened my eyes to how powerful and influential science actually is. When I was working on my research project, I was eager to learn more, anxious to perform the procedures, and excited to interpret the data. Even though I didnt get the results I was looking for, I was still motivated because I felt like I was working on something that was useful and I was excited to be a part of it. I had never felt this way in any of the science courses that I had taken, but I think that if more people felt this way about science it would be much more popular and its importance would be much clearer to all.

Yesterday I was talking to my brother, a college junior, about why university-level education has to be so demanding and stressful for students. I just don't see how stretching (to the point of breaking) one's physical, mental, and even emotional capacities can possibly be a successful educational pedagogy. While it may teach skills like prioritizing and stress management, it also has the potential to breed a resentment of the educational process within students.

My brother sympathized. He said that he had read an article in the New Yorker several weeks ago about studies that show one's most brilliant ideas come at moments of complete calm. "This physicist who won the Noble Prize came up with his most imaginative theories when he was at his favorite strip club," said my brother, paraphrasing the findings of the article. (I'm trusting my brother on this one... also, please pardon the crudeness of mentioning a strip club in a homework assignment).

With this in mind, I think that is why I enjoyed General Chemistry lab as much as I did. Not only was I working with my hands, but my mind was engaged in a way that was calming, relaxing. I respect the efforts of scientists like Greene, who strive to make education, and especially science education, creative, magical. Science classes should be taught in that manner, and with real life examples. I experienced the success of this kind of teaching last year in gen-chem lab. One of my favorite labs was a three-week project in which we made biodiesel fuel. Not only was the lab topical to environmental issues, but it was also fun. Get-your-hands-dirty fun. The production of biodiesel is something I now grasp and understand, if only on an elementary level. Still, over spring break I talked to my uncle, a lobster fisherman in Maine, about the advantages of biodiesel over regular fuels, as well as explaining to him why, when producing biodiesel domestically, it is easy to botch a batch.

However, I've seen the pedagogical idea of synthesizing the "fundamentals" with a student's own imagination/innovation back fire. I cannot stand when teachers play the "guess what I'm thinking game" with their students. It seems that often, in an effort to spur a student's imagination and investigatory thinking, a teacher will FORCE them to be "creative," to try to find the solution to a problem before they are equipped with the proper tools/knowledge to begin to tackle it. The results can be humiliating for the student, who feels inferior for not "coming up with the most creative answer," and instead begins to feel the same kind of resentment toward a subject that I feel overworking creates.

So, how does a teacher teach well? And more specifically, how does a science teacher not only teach well, but also inspire his students?

I don't think anyone can answer that question, because like science itself, it has an ever-evolving answer. I do know that seeing the love of science about which Greene talks so personally in his article--the deep satisfaction that comes from discovery (and often it is merely a personal discovery, not an earth-shaking one, that is the most profound)--reflected in one's teacher can be truly inspiring. Having that joy demonstrated and reinforced helps me become more deeply engaged in a subject. Activities that promote such emotions are bound to triumph in the mind's of students. But to force the issue, to make a student feel he could never arrive at such a discovery because he simply "isn't smart enough," will immediately extinguish any spark of interest in the sciences, or any subject for that matter.

As a final thought, again involving the idea of joy involved in investigating the workings of the world, is about how I arrived at my interest in medicine. My interest in becoming a doctor is primarily about being a healer, an active servant to others. But, I could not choose such a path without a keen interest in understanding the human body, a subject I know next to nothing about. I can only assume this interest arose thanks to my mother and father, who both worked in the medical field, and who always took the time to explain to me when I was sick WHY I felt sick. Their teaching, but through explanation and mere example, supports that the best teachers are the one's who are passionate about their subject and patient enough to explain it in an encouraging, nurturing manner.

When I was in Middle School, we only had "formal" (in the very loose sense of the word) science classes about two times a month. Instead, once a week, the class would go on a day long field study, in order to better understand the natural world and its forces. Using this method, biology, chemistry and physics were mashed together to create one overlapping sense of "Science" and what it means to the world around it and everyone in it. We learned about Dissolved Oxygen and PH levels at the banks of actual rivers, and saw how it affected the fish and other animals there. We studied the velocity of the water rushing past, and were required to memorize native plants. For Geology, we would visit sites like Mt. Saint Helens and the museums and wildlife areas there. This approach was definitely infinitely more engaging than watching PH change colors in a test tube in a sterile classroom environment, without watching what it might mean for whatever's living in the water, all for the sake of a grade or test scores. Not to say that science cannot be engaging in the classroom (it usually is) but I think that people need to see how much science is integrated into our daily lives and the world around us by actually going and observing it outside of a textbook and a controlled classroom.
To me, science seems to be only one of many different ways of knowing. If the perspective of science is limited, what does that mean for a person's perspective on the whole world, and how they interact with it and the people, plants and animals within it?

As many have said before me, science is a process. Through scientific inquiry, one is not searching for "truth" because such truth is unattainable. An observation, that birds fly South in the winter, is the beginning of such an inquiry. But it is not truth that birds fly South every winter-- we have no way of knowing whether or not some variable will change: climate from Global Warming, the switching of the poles (North and South), or some other unforseen change that skews the path of the birds that seek warmer environments in winter.

Science is a process. One of the biggest problems I had with adjusting to college-level biology was the fact that there was not always an answer. My middle and high school, where my love for science developed, taught science as a series of textbook problems that always had textbook answers... And this is clearly not true. (Hah). Teaching science this way, that you have to find an answer, ruins the beauty of observation, of trial and error, and of the continuing curiosity expressed by students interested in science. As Professor Greene stated, students have little sense for the "big questions," being made to focus on the more technical details.

How can we expect students to enjoy science when they think all of the answers come from a book?

This article got me thinking about the state of science education and education in general, in the public school system.

Coming from a family full of elementary school teachers I understand both sides of this issue. As a high school student I was constantly frustrated by the lack of interest and attention that was paid to the sciences. I was also bored by the courses because they all seemed to be just readings straight from the book and the labs that were never innovative or "cool" enough to really keep me interested. I was especially miffed by the AP sciences courses I took because everything we learned was taught so that we could get a better grade on the exam and raise the school's statistics. I can understand why sciences are getting lost or forgotten by a majority of teenagers and I wish that everyone could appreciate what science has given us.

On the other side of things, I know the struggles that the teachers in public schools are going through. Teachers become teachers because they're passionate about their subject and they really want to educate the future of this country. Unfortunately, money and politics are getting in the way of our teacher's ability to teach. The sad truth is that most schools in this country do not have enough money to invest in science courses and make them inspiring and engaging. It is also difficult for schools to get science textbooks and lab supplies because they are very expensive. There's also standardized testing that restricts most teachers curriculums. When the money a school receives is based on a set of numbers, the teachers have to teach to that test, which is sad.

I hope that in the future, the school system in this country will change drastically because it would be devastating if our generation grows up and forgets about the importance of science.

I completely and totally agree with Anonymous above. In India, Science is given a completely different approach. Till the 10th grade, we learn the very basic principles of science, and without even bothering to understand them, we're made to write exams, which are so objective, there's no way of telling whether the child has understood the concept or not. Science is a chore to most children, but some, like myself, do develop a deeper interest in it. So what happens to these children? I, personally, hated the Indian system of education, so I transferred schools, and joined the International Baccalaureate, where my whole perspective to Science was changed. My Chemistry Higher Level teacher actually told us to forget everything we had learned till the 10th grade, because it would not help us at all, and now I'm here, in the USA, a potential Biology Major. I have friends back home, who are equally interested in Science, and their career path is set for them. They went to "junior college" where one learns nothing in the classroom, and relies on help outside the college professors and then goes on to study Engineering or Medicine. Some people get into these professions only because they are under pressure from their families to do so. They have no idea about how interesting Science could be, if only taught correctly, or taught the right things. I have no idea how Science is approached in the USA, but I speak for India when I say that Science is way more interesting than it's made out to be in India, and if people don't realize that soon enough, India may have hoards of engineers and doctors who don't even like the profession they're in, and that would be a shame, since Science can change the way we view the world we live in.

I really liked the article about putting science into your life. Mr. Greene has written what many believe, that science is not being given the acknowledgment it deserves. Today students are required to take science but are only taught the basics and not why they need to know about plants growth or the stars, just that their there and cool to look at. Along with science in schools being looked over society has also forgotten the importance. Today on TV, it is the celebrities that receive recognition. There are no scientists dressed in the latest fashion, getting their pictures and gossip stories placed in 17 magazine or vogue. Children only see actors, models, etc. going to parties, buying a large house and latest technology. It's unfortunate that all kids want to be an actor or singer and live a life where they entertain instead of helping change the world. It is only when a potential problem to life like global warming or nuclear wars where science is even given some recognition and it is only people yelling at scientist to fix the problem instead of trying to help. It is already known that other countries are way ahead of the United States in math and science and that needs to change. It will not be easy to make science popular because most children and myself included sometimes look at a math or science problem and groan. We just have to try and bring back a spark of excitement to science and hopefully people with grasp that importance of pursuing a science career.