Skip to main content

Why is science boring?

Making science more approachable?
(Photo of The Big Bang Theory cast courtesy CBS)
I think science is wonderful, fascinating, life-enriching, and generally the best thing since the big bang. So it may seem odd to head up a post 'Why is science boring?' - but the fact is, like it or not, the majority of people consider it to be so. So those of us whose job is communicating science need to be aware of this and its implications.

Despite occasionally enjoying pointing out its failings, I am quite fond of QI, and have observed something quite interesting about the general attitude to science there. If there is a guest with a science background like Dara O'Briain or Ben Miller, then whenever that person answers a science question with a little bit of detail the other team members glaze over and generally act bored.

So why does this happen, and how can we get around the issues? Here's a few thoughts, which I can guarantee aren't comprehensive, but are a starting point.

  • A lot of science teaching is boring. If you are a science teacher, I'm sorry, but this is true. A fair amount of the blame is down to the curriculum - it is still essentially Victorian, and ought to be re-written from the bottom up, as at the moment it ignores most of the really exciting bits of science like relativity or quantum theory or epigenetics. Some of it is down to the teaching itself. It doesn't help when, say, a biology teacher is trying to teach physics. But we definitely need more inspirational teaching in the sciences.
  • A lot of scientists are boring. Actually most of them. Of course there are wonderful exceptions who are great communicators, but they are still in a tiny minority. In part the answer here is more teaching of science communication. I really believe it should be a standard part of a scientist's training how to communicate to the general public, as in the end, continued funding often depends on public support. One problem scientists face is that they are too picky about accuracy, which means they are always qualifying their answers or making them far too detailed. Sometimes you have to smooth things over a bit to get the point across. Think of it as rounding. Another issue is that they have usually forgotten the difference between jargon and normal English.
  • A lot of science is put across without enthusiasm. There seems to be a strange leap made from 'We are doing a serious piece of work' (true) to 'We we need to come across as serious people.' Take a lesson from business. Business people are serious about their work, but when they are telling people about their products and services, they make it interesting, enjoyable and sometimes even fun. That's why I like things like Festival of the Spoken Nerd which puts across science with enthusiasm. Another lesson from business is they use professional communicators to do the communicating. Science should do more of this too.
  • Give context. Science is generally very focussed on the experiment or model or theory. That's fine, scientists could learn a lot from popular science in that context - history, (potential) applications, stories about people all helps to make the science itself more approachable.
  • Challenge the glaze. If someone you are talking to does the QI glazed boredom bit, ask them why it's happening. You're a scientist - do a bit of research.
  • Politicians don't care. Our politicians are largely ignorant of science or even science-phobes. We need more people in parliament who understand science and its importance to the country. Without a political backing it is difficult to get money behind the right initiatives. 
... I'm sure you have thoughts too. Feel free to add them!


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope