Is school caution killing science fun?

School kids aren't experiencing the fun of science because schools are deeming classic experiments -- think thermite reaction and ammonium dichromate volcano-- too dangerous for the classroom, an article in the UK press says.

Teachers say that the fun of doing those experiments is what gets a lot of kids hooked on science, and learning to handle dangerous materials is a crucial part of the process.

The story has an interesting comment from the head of one school, though, who says that while safety concerns have put the kibosh on some lab experiments, "…we're moving on to different ways of teaching science -- with videos, and on the web with virtual learning environments which are quite as interesting."

Is virtual learning really quite as interesting? How much of a role did experiments you did in middle school and high school lab classes play in building your interest in research?

-Alla Katsnelson, news editor, The Scientist

Bring back the dangerous chemicals and the animals floating in formaldehyde! Recently, in middle school, my kids had to dissect jellybeans. I'm not kidding.

What does the inside of a jellybean look like? Who ever thought that one up is not much of a teacher.

What really sparked my interest in science was an excellent teacher, not really the labs. I think this was because the labs we actually did were boring, and I couldn't really see their relevance. Now, as a teacher myself of a general biology class (undergrad level), I am doing my best to make the labs fun, to try to generate more interest in science. For example, if a student asked a good scientific question during the lab, I try to incorporate a short experiment to answer the question.

At the undergrad level, there isn't as much worry about safety, as my students are adults and supposedly responsible. I could see where teachers and administrators might be concerned about safety when children are concerned, but if the appropriate safety equipment (showers, eyewash stations, fire extinguishers), I think this shouldn't be a serious issue.

Don't blame the school, blame the large cash settlements.

I have a 2 inch scar on my arm from a lab explosion in junior high. Today, I am a chemist.
Enough said.

When I went to High School the demonstrations and experiments were mostly on the safe side. Although I remember the electrolosis experiment where we separated hydrogen from oxygen in glass test tubes then ignited the hydrogen, explosively, with a flaming popsicle stick. No injuries! During those days helmets were not required for bicycles and I had to ride one nearly two miles to and from school. As a small child my parents' vehilcles either did not have seat belts or we never used them and I was in an acident where the car had flipped over, with my dad, we both walked away (no seatbelts).

As Darwin predicted the stupid ones will be sorted out of the gene pool, don't depend on your state and local governments to work this one out for us. As you can see they haven't done a very good job so far anyway.

hands-on experiments are absoultely critical for experiment based sciences. The lack of hands-on work, as opposed to virtual experiments may be one reason that students are loosing their interests in science. Now if I caught a frog and dissected it in class, I would probably be asccused of animal cruelty.

We as a society are generally risk averse. We are easily scared - politicians know that and use it all the time. However, in science, we want to learn new things, take risk, and push our boundary of knowledge. This causes conflict in the school. Legal issues are paramount too. School is afraid of lawsuits from the parent. Parents are the back seat drivers for teaching in the school. And the third cause of no-excitement-science class is the ignorance. Once I volunteered to do some fun stuff during Halloween at the school with dry ice. I was told by the principal that dry "smoke" will activate the fire alarm and I was not allowed to bring dry ice to school. I tried to explain that not much smoke will be produced and whatever is produced will stay on the floor and would not float up to the smoke alarm detector in the ceiling, but I was not successful. The bottom line is that we need a massive dose of science education

My lab partner caught my sweater on fire in chemistry class once. Didn't bother me a bit, nor my mother who had a background in biochemistry herself. My (lawyer) father almost had an aneurysm until my mother pointed out that I hadn't been burned even a little because the sink had been right there. But I've never forgotten chemistry class as a result, even though at the time I loathed it (I feel differently today and wish I had known then the things I know now!)

The one experiment I still remember from med. school, 20 years ago, was a physiology demonstration at the end of which we actually got to hold the beating heart of an anesthetized beagle, before it was sacrificed. At that moment I understood that this was not all just fun and games, but we were dealing with real, living entities. Today, such an experiment would never fly. Instead educators propose that video games can substitute. Ms. Jane Lees should know better: rational analysis is no substitute for emotional experience. Either is incomplete without the other.

Whoever says that videos and computer simulations are more fun than real experiments has listened to too much trash-talk about younger generations. If it's too dangerous for the kids to do, the teacher can demonstrate it for them. What's better-- watching a video of pure potassium being dropped in water, or watching it happen live? What's more engaging-- a computer game where everyone has the same idealized frog, or the teacher offering bonus credit to the student with the longest frog bowel (I won that one, btw)?

Looks to me like the answer to the question offered in the subject line is "Yes", emphatically.

I am a high school Science teacher in Australia.
Ammonium dichromate volcano? That has been banned for about 30 years. Formaldehyde? No way.
We are no longer allowed to let students touch van de Graaf generators. We can not let them make slides of cheek cells. We can only let them see the action of saliva on starch if we can guarantee that no student could possibly come in contact with another student's saliva. We cannot let them grow microorganisms on agar plates unless we know the name and characteristics of every species present!
Fun? What's that?

When I had to dissect a cockroach or an earthworm, I hated it. I still don't like that. One and half years of anatomy dissection working through three volumes of Cunnigham page by page was not highy pleasant either but habituation was faster and less objectionable. By the time I graduated to research, several kinds of biological experiments, particularly animal surgeries were a cinch and I never had to depend on any one else. I understood the impact of experience only when I started full time teaching in a University to science students. What was most pathetic about most of them was the near total absence of hand skills. I had to spend a great deal of time teaching how to hold even a pipette or a pair of scissors and a forceps. The eleventh commandment was" thou shalt not stab thy partner

".Applying a stitch on the (animal) skin was only some thing to dream of. After teaching the priliminaries, I still could not get them to higher level of accuracies. By introduction of statistics using just an excel sheet while doing something and also measuring something simultaneously nearly catapulted their skills sky high. That is when I learnt the meaning of the phrase, 'never say die'.
The bottom line seems to be that earlier we learn the skills the better. School education has many possibilities most of them ruined by adults... Open ended learning, non-interference by parents are needed. ( a bad teacher in pharma was largely responsbible for my avowed interest in the subject as I was sure that the subject cannot be that bad :lol

. Ususally, to share good ideas, thoughts and experiences, one should have had prior experience. That is difficult at school level, but that is where it is needed. Even if the bus is missed, there are many ways one can make up.
I have stopped all blood experiments in the lab based on one question. I asked the students, do they feel confident that it is safe? The unsaid statement related to AIDS and Hepatits. The students rejected the experiments unanmously.We substituted rat blood and carried on. Human body fluids are best not used. May be. But making the students participate in the decision was immensly useful rather than a dictat from powers that be.

StephenTS452251 wrote:I am a high school Science teacher in Australia.

We are no longer allowed to let students touch van de Graaf generators. We can not let them make slides of cheek cells. ..Fun? What's that?

Luckily, the school where I did some substitute teaching for a few weeks hadn't gotten to that point. For a class that was at the lowest level in high school, and had the lowest motivation level, it was fun to let them explore science with a static generator and discover new paths that would conduct electricity. For a group that had no interest in science, it was the only time they got to actually explore, even if it just meant learning that the human body can conduct electricity, the strongest athletes could not stand the shock, and that the chalk tray was gounded. No one got hurt but they learned a lesson in electicity that no book or demonstration could teach.

I spent my entire senior year in high school dissecting a cat for Anatomy and Physiology, from skinning it to examining its bone marrow. One cat for 10 months. My lab partner and I named it Big Red. There is no way that would fly in today's schools. That cat, however, was the reason I got my BSc and MS before switching to journalism.

This comment thread seems to be unanimous that hands-on labs can't be replaced by virtual learning, but does anyone have any suggestions on how to go about reinstating experimental science in our schools?

-Katherine Bagley, Editorial Intern