Reflections on choosing not to study natural sciences

Discussions of science have recently come to dominate the news agenda. With the coronavirus pandemic sweeping the world, the words of doctors and scientists are of increased importance. From understanding the virus and how it spreads; the risks to humans; the potential response, medical and scientific advice has been at the forefront of tackling coronavirus. News channels and talk radio stations are full of scientists and doctors taking calls from the public desperate for answers and information. 

It is both a scientific response – a vaccine – and a political response – effective infrastructure and testing – that will bring the UK out of lockdown. 

This is a brilliant thing. Just as it is elected politicians who should make decisions about the coronavirus response, it is scientists who ultimately hold the expertise in understanding the virus. They can, therefore, offer advice, based on their knowledge, about how individuals should behave.

It is both a scientific response – a vaccine – and a political response – effective infrastructure and testing – that will bring the UK out of lockdown. 

Despite this pressing role of science within the UK’s political discussion, individuals do not see science as important within their lives. According to LinkedIn, only 41% of young people between ages 11 and 18 thought science bought values to their lives while just 56% aged 14 to 18 believed science was importance. 

a clear gender divide for those who do take natural sciences subjects: females choosing biology for post-16 education while males are more likely to choose engineering

It is surprising that these statistics are so low. Given the pursuit of knowledge, whether for natural or social affairs, is built around the scientific method, one would have thought those at schools would appreciate natural science’s importance for understanding the world. The report also highlights a clear gender divide for those who do take natural sciences subjects, with females choosing biology for post-16 education while males are more likely to choose engineering and computer science. 

I don’t take any natural science subjects. It’s unclear what precisely put me off taking any of those subjects – biology, chemistry or physics – at A-level. Maybe it was the compulsion of GCSE science. I was forced to spend hours revising away for topics I had little interest in. Much of the lessons also felt very theoretical and abstract. I struggled to see either their relevance or how I could change them. Despite science never being fixed, I didn’t feel I could contribute to its development and progress. 

Having said this, I regard Politics, my degree of choice, as both a social science and intrinsically built on the scientific method. Social scientists can pose a hypothesis, research society and through investigation have their hypothesis proved true or false.

In social sciences, people, rather than plants, animals or materials, were investigated, which interests me far more. It is why scientific experiments at secondary school never interested me, with the bunsen burner providing some temporary, trivial excitement in an otherwise dull hour. 

Sadly, the divide between those who do pursue science academically is not simply related to gender. According to the report, children from lower-income families have fewer opportunities to progress their interest in science. This is because of little self-belief, not taking triple science at GCSEs and their families not having connections that provide broader scientific opportunities.

The report states 40% of children with no family science connections regularly attend science museums compared to 65% for those with connections. Similarly, 42% of children with no connections are interested in a STEM career compared to 68% for those with connections. 

Every child interested and driven by the pursuit of scientific knowledge shouldn’t be prevented from exploring that field further. The report, however, doesn’t simply provide problems, but, like the best scientific reports, offers solutions.

By seeing science in the ‘real world’, I could have been inspired to pursue the subjects further. 

For students across age groups, more practical experience is necessary. Whether it’s younger children undertaking scientific experiments in the classroom or older children taking part in work experience, their interest will inevitably increase. Maybe if I had spent time working in a laboratory with a company shaping research, I may have been inspired to take a natural science further. By seeing science in the ‘real world’, I could have been inspired to pursue the subjects further. 

The year I most enjoyed learning science was when I had a fantastic teacher. For some subjects, my passion was such that it didn’t matter how awful the teacher was. I would always be interested in learning more. However, science was not one of those. My enjoyment depended on whether the teachers were inspiring. One year, the teacher was fantastic. The content was explained in a helpful, understanding manner, the class behaved themselves and I genuinely wanted to do well. If they’d been my teacher during my GCSEs, who knows whether I would have taken the subject further. 

Science will always be part of the school curriculum. That is only correct; it is a subject and discipline that impacts all our lives. To have a basic knowledge of the subject is useful for a meaningful life. However, the way it is taught must reflect this.

The importance of the scientific method based on evidence, repetition and falsifiability must be made obvious across all science. Teachers must be inspiring, lessons must link to the real world rather than just the textbook. Maybe then the interest of young people in science, along with a wider gender and class intake, could increase. That will only benefit us all.