Science Spin September 2008

More specialised courses not the way forward

The Irish government's deadline to "make Ireland a highly attractive environment for high quality research careers and R&D industry" by 2010 is quickly looming. The introduction of a revised R&D tax credit system, better infrastructure and a commitment to investing 3 per cent of GDP in science and technology innovation bring us closer towards to achieving this goal.

However, when it comes to attracting more investment in science, low tax breaks and new motorways just won't cut it. The one key determinant of R&D investment is the quality and quantity of science and engineering graduates and it is this crucial factor that we are falling short on.

The reality is that Ireland's economic future is dependant upon attracting multinational research companies with a tempting pool of highly skilled science graduates. The current decline in science graduate numbers means that Ireland might fall far short of developing an advanced 'knowledge economy.'

While there has been a steady increase in students applying to third level education for the fifth year in succession the number of CAO applicants for third level science and engineering courses is on the decline. This disparity has profound implications for Irelands future economic growth.

Blame

It is my opinion that the blame for this decrease can be put on the structure of our third level science education system. The past ten years has seen the introduction of more specialised science courses in universities. Nautical science, herbal science, theoretical physics, wood science or freshwater biology are just some of the new degree options available to students on the CAO form.

At a young age, students are being asked to choose a speciality before having any kind of introduction to the subject. For a 17-year-old that prospect is just too daunting, so they are opting out of science and engineering and instead choose more broadly based subjects. Even in general science, there is pressure on students to focus without delay on a particular discipline. High drop-out rates suggest that this approach is not working.

It seems that we are unwilling to let students test the water, we are throwing them into the deep end to sink or swim. Furthermore, by pigeon-holing our scientists into scientific niches we are also making them less flexible when they take up positions in industry. The companies that are prepared to invest in innovation need scientists with a range of skills, and this brings us back to the purpose of education.

Surely the whole point of a science degree is to enable the student to think like a scientist. The focus should be on undertstanding scientific concepts from a broad range of fields and diciplines, not to focus on theory limited to one core subject.

This is the way that the American university system works, an educaton system arguably the best in the world. Science students in the USA get the option to sample and experience a diverse range of subjects, with the option to take up to 18 credit hours in non-scientific humanaties subjects. Science students in Ireland, on the other hand, are unable to look ouside their small field.

As Carl Sagan, perhaps the most famous astronomer of the 20th century said; "Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge."

If we want to achieve a "knowledge based economy" I think there will have to be a radical rehaul of our science education system. Carl Sangon's remark suggests that a more interdisciplinary approach would give Ireland a better chance of achieving the government's stated goals.

Niamh Mullooly studied science at NUI Galway where she graduated with a first in Physiology. She is currently working as a researcher at UCD.