Osud pointed me to this article in which a scientist writes about the importance of a science education. The article focuses mainly on the romantic notion of a scientific approach to the world, and I'm pretty much entirely sympathetic to his claims. He also notes that the engaging and inspiring mysteries of science get entirely overwhelmed in the classroom by the details of working out this or that equation or memorizing this or that fact. I became much more interested in physics from reading popularizations of quantum mechanics than I did in taking a class on it at Princeton -- even at the collegiate level, the mystery was often sucked out of the problems.

But the writer doesn't address the most important reason for a science education, which also happens to be a big part of the reason science isn't taught the way he would like. We need a scientifically literate electorate even more than we need a mathematically literate one because the electorate is somewhat responsible for how we as a society allocate research resources in science. They are responsible for allocating these resources in mathematics, but not nearly as many resources are needed there.

A scientifically illiterate electorate is much more likely to get our government entwined in scientifically disastrous policies, as when the Soviets stomped genetics out of their agriculture. So, why isn't science taught in a way that entrances and intrigues students, the way the author would like? Partly because many, if not most, of the big questions of science touch on very politicially actionable issues such as the beginning of the universe and evolution. So, a teacher who wishes to tantalize students with some of the sweeping epic tales of science runs the risk of being embroiled in controversy, and that's a shame... But I'm guessing that maybe the writer can't mention that in the NYT, either.