[Make it Lady (OP)]

Britain is short of scientists. Richard Hammond of top gear fame is bringing out a new science program full of bangs and excitement. Can this kind of popularisation and over simplification of science encourage pupils to take up science as a career path later in life. Is Hammond a good role model for this purpose?   

[blakestyger]

It's a sad fact of life that the role of TV naturalist has, since David Attenborough started to ease back, been hijacked by a chorusline of comedians and sports presenters. They are probably perfectly OK at what they did formerly but they are really crap at natural hisory.

Look at Oddy, for instance. Have you ever seen such a tired, lacklustre performance as the one he gives with Spring/Autumn Watch? His use of language and that seen-it-all-before tone he takes is totally inappropriate and in stark contrast with Attenborough's informed enthusiasm. Not only can he not be arsed to identify some of the more significant species (he completely missed some spoonbills on Brownsea Island) but whenever Kate Humble tries to make a point he either talks over her, makes some feeble joke of it or larks about with the cameraman.

Then there's Alan Titchmarsh...a perfectly competant plantsman trained at Kew and completely at home on Gardener's World. So What's he doing introducing a Prom' or that ghastly countryside series?

The problem is everything educational has to be tainted with celebrity and no-one seems capable of absorbing an idea without it being put across as entertainment - ask those teachers who are to be scored by their pupils as to whether they are boring or not.

Thankyou.

[lyner]

Even Sir David has been know to make his own Colemanballs, on occasions.

I think we can be sure that Hammond will trivialise Science in the same way that he trivialises everything else. It may be entertaining but the odds are that, once the kids get to School next morning, there will be some serious repair work by the teachers needed for their scientific understanding.

[DrN]

An example of a fine way to encourage the interest of science in children is the Royal Institution christmas lectures. Pure genius - why are they restricted to just 5 lectures over christmas every year?! I didn't manage to see all of them this year, but loved the way he explained encryption (passwords and keys).

[blakestyger]

I went the Natural History Museum two weeks ago and beneath the tail of the Diplodocus in the main hall was a young curator, sitting on a box and dressed as an explorer, explaining to groups of school children how to tell the difference between a fossil bone and a modern one. He was doing a splendid job - plenty of interaction and not too many concepts at a time and they were all listening and getting involved. Very heartening to see.

[lyner]

The two posts, above, describe what happens when you get someone who knows what they're talking about: smashing. But they're few and far between on kids' Science progs, I'm afraid.

[paul.fr]

An example of a fine way to encourage the interest of science in children is the Royal Institution christmas lectures. Pure genius - why are they restricted to just 5 lectures over christmas every year?! I didn't manage to see all of them this year, but loved the way he explained encryption (passwords and keys).

you can buy them ondvd
http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayContent&id=00000002825

[RD]

Can Richard Hammond bring children into science?

 
At least the Hamster will not talk down to children, (not possible as he is the same height  [] )

Is Hammond a good role model for this purpose?

Richard is a model presenter, (about 1:10 scale [])  

[LeeE]

Any enthusiasm has got to be better than apathy.

[lyner]

Enthusiasm is just not enough.
The problem is that there seem to be two forms of Science.
There is one which  appeals at a superficial level and which, apart from being entertaining, it achieves very little. It merely states the exiting bits of Science and makes extremely good TV. This is more or less all that the media give us and it now permeates higher and higher up the Educational  scale. It is one of the things which are responsible for the MMR thing to have happened and for Creationism to masquerade as Science.

The other Science is the one which actually gets results and gives us the real progress. It is hard and unforgiving but, ultimately, totally worthwhile. The mantra of 'comprehensive Education' is imposed where it is just not applicable - life is not comprehensive and nor are the demands of the world. There will always be an elite needed in Science, just as there is an elite in Finance, Football and Film. How come it's not PC to acknowledge that fact and to allow that elite to develop? It's still only in parts of the Independent Sector that it can happen.

The problem is that those who have never tasted the real thing seem to think there is no distinction between the two. Unfortunately, at School, students are not exposed to the level of demand of proper Science until it is too late. They have decided that they 'like Science' without knowing what it's really about and then they resent or even ignore, the sudden rigour to which they are exposed. Further education has to be more and more diluted to allow 'good grades' to be achieved until Universities have to spend at least one whole year putting things in some sort of order before they can teach some serious Science.
Complain about standards and you get told off of for devaluing the students efforts but it, of course, isn't their fault. I can't see how this is to be remedied until Science education (and the whole of Education, actually) is removed from the political arena and until the politicians can bring themselves to increase the timescales of their interferences and judge the success of  educational strategies over at least a generation. One Government term of office is far too short a timescale.  That would very soon cause the 'political Educationists' to move their attentions elsewhere and let the system be regulated in the shorter term by people who actually have an idea what it's all about.

[neilep]

Hammond already presents a Science show somewhere.

I suppose the numbers will determine how popular he is.

It would be better, in my opinon, if he shared equal billing with a true scientist too.

Bring back Magnus Pyke !

[dentstudent]

Hammond already presents a Science show somewhere.

Brainiacs, I think. And I would not really call it a science programme, either.

Bring back Tomorrow's World!

[LeeE]

Sophie: Enthusiasm may not be enough for a full understanding but you're only aware of that with the benefit of your hindsight.  I'm sure it was a long road that got you to where you are now and there's no way that that road, in all it's detail, can be compressed in to a TV series.  I just think that anything that may get someone started on that road is a good idea, even if it's not perfect.

[lyner]

I take your point, to some extent. But I'm not complaining about the lack of detail- there are  many very un-detailed aspects of proper Science. My problem is that the attitude of many presenters devalues the whole thing. They are in it, of course, not for the good of Science but because it is a vehicle for their egos and carreers. Next week they could be doing a gardening or cooking programme.

I am generalising, of course, and there are exceptions like Adam Hart Davis, for instance, who can ham it up with the best of them and yet still get some worthwhile Science and Engineering ideas across.
Hammond has found a 'Science is fun slot' and, as in Braniac, the message will be lost in the presentation.
In any case, where does the idea come from that "Learning must be Fun"?  Is that really the only way to get people to 'try'?  There is no true gain without pain - we soon find that when we grow up, so why is that ignored in School?
Making an effort and getting a good result really is 'fun'. Learning to have that sort of fun - active fun - would be a good idea for everyone. Passively watching a movie of someone blowing up a caravan is hardly any better than watching Tom and Jerry.

My appreciation of this is not only based on hindsight (not decades of it). It was equally pleasing when I got some in depth understanding of simple circuits or heat transfer experiments during O level lessons. Left to myself, I would never have made the mature decision to make the effort in those days. I needed to be prodded (as ever) to get there.
'Prodding' is out of fashion, nowadays.

[LeeE]

Hitting people with the 'pain' side of things just when they're starting is only going to appeal to masochists.  Everyone else needs a bit of reward before realising that there may be something to be gained on the other side of the pain.

Besides, I just don't agree that pain is necessary for gain, which isn't to say that it often is that way, just that it's a posteriori truth and not an A priori truth.

[lyner]

Perhaps not pain. But perspiration is essential.

[LeeE]

Oh yes - sweaty can be fun  []

[lyner]

To much information, I think. (In School, too!)

[daveshorts]

I think that reward (eg bangs, pops, slime etc) is very important when trying to get people interested in science, but rewards teach people how to behave. If you attach the reward to learning interesting things then people will start to like learning things even without the reward and go on to be fascinated by science for the rest of their lives, and some of them may go on to discover/invent loads of exciting new things.

However if you just associate the reward with watching TV then people will just learn to watch TV. A far less useful thing for society. And if someone else then tries to use the reward to teach them something it won't have nearly as much effect.

This is why I don't like Brainiac and similar shows, they may make the results of science fun, but they don't make the learning and exploration of science fun and that is what is important.

[lyner]

Yes; passive watching doesn't encourage 'thinking' or enquiry.