The continuing fall-off of interest in science and engineering subjects at second level is alarming, especially since interest was never all that high in the first place. The problem is an interesting example of the clash between national needs and individual preferences. From a national viewpoint, the need is stark: we simply cannot build the kind of economic future we now envisage, and presumably desire, without a strong backbone of people trained in the sciences and engineering.
Nonetheless, however pressing that national priority may be, the unfortunate reality is that not enough individual students and their parents think that way. From the individual perspective, these subjects are not attractive enough when compared to the available alternatives. Individuals are quite happy that there should be more scientists; they just don't want to do it themselves.
In one sense, the drift away from these subjects is a rational response to the structure of our existing points system. Subjects that are perceived as "hard to do well in" will tend to be chosen less often than subjects that are seen as delivering points with less effort. However, while this is an issue, it is not the whole story and possibly not even a really important part of it. In my view, the malaise is more fundamental: it reflects our traditional lack of a scientific culture. Compared with the arts, science lacks a central place in Ireland's view of itself.
Changing that is not an overnight task. Some of the things that need to be done involve making further changes in a second-level curriculum that is already showing stress from having had to cope with successive waves of change over the past decade, and having had to do so with overstretched resources.
But yes, we do need to change what is taught in science and engineering. We need to shift away from a crafts-based view of engineering to a more modern one, particularly involving electronics. We need to make the curriculum more relevant to the scientific world of today, rather than relating so heavily to the past. And in the way we teach these subjects, we need a much greater emphasis on practical, laboratory-based work.
Realistically, it is all the harder to make these things happen when demand to do science and engineering subjects is relatively weak, and getting weaker. Ideally, what we need is change within the schools that is driven by student and parent demand. How can we bring that about?
A national science centre
In fact, there is one major project that could have a dramatic effect in turning the tide of public awareness, in a relatively short period of time. This is the creation of a national science centre which would act as a living showplace for the world of science.
In a country where almost every boreen seems to have a museum of some kind, it is surely revealing that we have no equivalent for science. But what I have in mind is not a museum in any traditional sense of that term.
A science centre, on the model that is now well proven in many places around the world, is a place where one can see science happen - and even more important, experience science by doing it. Interactivity is the key word in successful science centres. A world-class centre of this kind could put science on the map for the Irish public. Done well, a science centre provides a spectacular public attraction. It could be the essential foundation-stone of a national campaign to make science and engineering more attractive as school subjects and as career choices.
It could, in a phrase, glamorise science in a way it never has been in Ireland before.
And if glamorising science sounds a rather undignified activity for the State, we should remember that our problem in recruiting students is precisely related to the subject's lack of glamour.
The benefits don't stop at the public-relations level. A science centre is more than an excursion for families on Sunday afternoons. Much of the time, science centres act as a supplement to teaching in schools - providing facilities that no school could ever offer, and structured experiences that can be directly tied into the curriculum. As a way of bridging the gap from where we are now at the school level and where we need to be, a national science centre could be an invaluable aid.
Science centres don't come cheap. They are expensive to build, and expensive to run, because unless all the exhibits work all the time, the overall message is dangerously undermined. This may be the reason why previous attempts to promote the idea did not find favour with government.
The situation now has changed, however. Money is somewhat looser, for a start. But more important, the falling-off in student numbers in science has now made urgent the need to foster a scientific culture. A science centre will not be a magic wand, but it could well be the factor that turns the tide.
