CCBC-Net Archives
Biological versus Physical Science
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Sneed B. Collard III <collard>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:02:24 -0600
The points about the dearth of physical science books are very interesting and apt. Kids DO love critters, whether they are brown and furry or loaded with fangs, claws, and scales. I also think, however, that there are more difficult problems here. One is that is there are many more people competent to write about biological sciences than physical sciences. Being primarily a life sciences writer myself, I am loathe to admit this, but it's true. It's much easier to understand predation and camouflage than it is to understand geosynchronous orbits and radioactive decay.
A second problem, though, is that writers find it much more challenging to bring physical sciences to life. Humans relate much better to other animals than to rocks without personalities. Even a lot of our interest in space is generated by the possibility that LIFE exists elsewhere, not on the inherent fascination of planet formation, string theory, and pulsars. Many times, I have toyed with writing about physical sciences--and I greatly admire everyone who does?but I have a hard time coming up with a story that I think kids will fall in love with. I'm guessing other writers run into the same problem.
I would love to see some special grants or awards available for people willing to tackle the physical sciences--and more incentive for teachers to learn more about them. Which raises a third problem: if teachers are not trained and motivated to teach physical sciences, book sales will directly reflect that and eliminate the incentive for writers to pursue physical science books. Science in general is woefully underutilized in most classrooms, not only because of the lopsided mandatory testing in language arts, but because most teachers are afraid of it. This problem has to be ten times worse in physical than in life sciences. I do sense that this is changing slowly, but we've got a long way to go before science is treated as a core subject?one that is essential to our society's survival?instead of the elective it is now.
Sneed B. Collard III 526 East Pine Street Missoula, MT 59802
(406) 721'83 email: collard at bigsky.net Website: http://www.sneedbcollardiii.com/
Received on Thu 14 Jul 2005 10:02:24 AM CDT
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:02:24 -0600
The points about the dearth of physical science books are very interesting and apt. Kids DO love critters, whether they are brown and furry or loaded with fangs, claws, and scales. I also think, however, that there are more difficult problems here. One is that is there are many more people competent to write about biological sciences than physical sciences. Being primarily a life sciences writer myself, I am loathe to admit this, but it's true. It's much easier to understand predation and camouflage than it is to understand geosynchronous orbits and radioactive decay.
A second problem, though, is that writers find it much more challenging to bring physical sciences to life. Humans relate much better to other animals than to rocks without personalities. Even a lot of our interest in space is generated by the possibility that LIFE exists elsewhere, not on the inherent fascination of planet formation, string theory, and pulsars. Many times, I have toyed with writing about physical sciences--and I greatly admire everyone who does?but I have a hard time coming up with a story that I think kids will fall in love with. I'm guessing other writers run into the same problem.
I would love to see some special grants or awards available for people willing to tackle the physical sciences--and more incentive for teachers to learn more about them. Which raises a third problem: if teachers are not trained and motivated to teach physical sciences, book sales will directly reflect that and eliminate the incentive for writers to pursue physical science books. Science in general is woefully underutilized in most classrooms, not only because of the lopsided mandatory testing in language arts, but because most teachers are afraid of it. This problem has to be ten times worse in physical than in life sciences. I do sense that this is changing slowly, but we've got a long way to go before science is treated as a core subject?one that is essential to our society's survival?instead of the elective it is now.
Sneed B. Collard III 526 East Pine Street Missoula, MT 59802
(406) 721'83 email: collard at bigsky.net Website: http://www.sneedbcollardiii.com/
Received on Thu 14 Jul 2005 10:02:24 AM CDT
