“Those of us who have chosen science as a career, recognize it as a really fun job,” Herzog said. “We recognize that we can make a difference in people’s lives and how things are done around our communities and our country, and I want to be able to share that message with students.”
I found this quote from Dr. Erik Herzog particularly gripping. After reading it, I immediately thought of Max Weber's famous lecture/essay "Science as Vocation", where he urged the idea that science should go beyond execution of the "work" but should improve our understanding of the world and not be a source of value claims made by professors (or at least this is what I took from it). I wondered if Weber would support this way of teaching "science". Is he pushing his values on to the students that he works with when he says that "neuroscience) is naturally interesting to students regardless of their science background." How can he know that? What social factors affect/limit a students desire to love & appreciate or hate science. He encourages students in the St. Louis region to "think, learn and move (neuroscience) " which is a great act of service but does Herzog believe his students should value science in the same way he does? I personally think that what Herzog is doing is great for the community but couldn't help but think of his actions as a "scientist" after reading Weber. The article is below!
http://schoolpartnership.wustl.edu/2015/09/wustl-professor-brings-neuroscience-to-area-students/
It does seem to me that Herzog wants his students to value science in the same way he does and I agree that his work is incredibly valuable to the community. The way I think I look at it, though, is that getting students involved with neuroscience isn't necessarily the goal. Instead, he is attempting to teach students to have a love of learning, develop a sense of curiosity about different things in their world, and refine set of skills that are important not only in scientific endeavors but also other aspects of their lives. It is highly likely that my reading of the article reflects my personal beliefs that more learning often occurs outside of the specific classroom subject than within it's context. It may very well be that Herzog really only wants to get students deeply interested in neuroscience and that he perceives all other outcomes as failures. While Herzog's ultimate goal may be to make students passionate about neuroscience, I personally think that the byproduct of a love for science and learning in general is an aspect of his work that is just as productive.
ReplyDeleteAnother quick note. The scientist I interviewed for my life history project placed much more emphasis on reaching people outside of science via personal relationships and discussions about non-science topics than by directly engaging them with his research. I'm not quite sure what to make of this difference and what it may say about each individual, but I think it's a contrast worth noting. I wonder if perhaps each approach misses a certain portion of the population; for Herzog, he might not be able to reach those students that have no interest in pursuing science, for Dennis (the subject of my project), he might have difficulty connecting with people that think in a more purely science oriented manner. How do they overcome these gaps, if they exist? Is one method more effective than the other at achieving certain goals?
ReplyDeleteI hear you Roo. But do you think that in a way, he's still creating a "classroom" just at the Science Center?
ReplyDeleteI hear you Roo. But do you think that in a way, he's still creating a "classroom" just at the Science Center?
ReplyDelete