That cannot be said of the comedian Frank Skinner, who launched a tirade against science and scientists recently (“Einstein’s tongue – or why science is tedious”, The Times, 30^th April 2010, link). And probably, not many scientists were laughing as they read his piece.

The natural reaction of many was to recoil in horror, and even suggest that the “scientific establishment” should write – no doubt a very earnest – joint letter to The Times, representing the collective views from the chemistry, physics, biology and mathematics communities.

But there is more to this than meets the eye. In this month’s Spectator which was published the very next day, Melanie Phillips has penned an article entitled, ‘Welcome to the age of irrationality’, which suggests that the Western (scientific) mind is snapping shut, and queries whether we are entering a new era of anti-enlightenment.

Skinner’s view is that science is not fun, and implies that scientists are detached from the wider community. Engagement is constrained by fundamental differences in thinking and empathy. Phillips goes further, saying that science is now assuming the rigidity of the very ideological framework that the Enlightenment sought to challenge.

The public perception that climate scientists were unwilling to countenance any questioning of their data has fuelled scepticism over the fundamental methodology and ethics of science, and placed in the minds of many that, in the extreme, self-interest can take science to the level of religious dogma.

Frank may not have had the inspiring science teacher that triggered in many of us a fascination for science. Or maybe he did, but was making up jokes, instead of doing the experiments he could have done before the health and safety thought police arrived. Melanie is wrong to say that “man-made global warming theory is totalitarian gobbledegook”, because the basic science is not disputed.

The atmosphere will heat up with additional greenhouse gases; what is the subject of uncertainty and much teeth-gnashing is the timing and magnitude of change, and the way this translates globally into trillions of pounds of investment for alternative fuels and mitigation, or not.

Despite what many would see as exaggeration or faults in the arguments of the two articles, however, there is more than a kernel of truth in these comments, which the scientific community and the future government would be unwise to ignore. Science has given so much of what we see around us, from vaccines to hybrid cars, from clean water to solar cells, and the quality of life that we enjoy today. But the way we communicate this, and prepare schoolchildren through education is dangerously flawed. And the UK is not alone in this.

At a time when solutions to societal challenges are more complex and multi-disciplinary, the gulf between those who understand science and those who don’t could not be greater. The small proportion of the population undertaking scientific research in our universities accounts for around 10% of all the papers published in the world, although the UK represents barely 1% of mankind. We punch well above our weight, but more widely nine in ten of this country’s population stopped studying any science or mathematics beyond the age of sixteen.

This has had two profound consequences. Our record of innovation is poor, as this process relies on the transfer of knowledge from the leading edge of science to practicable, commercial outcomes. If the majority of people have only a limited understanding of science, even at its most basic, this presents a serious impediment to progress, and to the scrutiny and challenge of a scientifically literate society.

Secondly, it develops a cultural divide with two camps: scientists and non-scientists, with the lack of mutual understanding being reinforced by polarised assertions, coupled with distrust and exaggeration, rather than constructive dialogue. This is what we are seeing increasingly.

But educationalists and scientists are sometimes their own worst enemy in all this. Secondary schooling is dominated by educationalists with little reference to universities or the needs of industry and business. What science that is taught through the National Curriculum is largely mathematics-free, and in some cases science-free, as examining boards try to make their wares as attractive as possible in a weakly regulated market.

Markers are instructed to accept scientifically incorrect answers to boost pass rates, and quangos then change grade thresholds if the pass rates are seen to be, politically, too high or low. All this leads to the toughest question in a recent GCSE Higher Tier mathematics paper for our brightest 16 year-olds, in terms of marks awarded, being solely to calculate the surface area of a cube of edge length 5cm. Some other questions on the paper were easier than those that 10 year-olds were doing at primary school fifty years ago.

It also leads to a “good pass” (or grade C) being obtained in one chemistry GCSE paper in 2008 with a mark of 18%. If there are, rightly, calls for reform in all this, bear in mind some examining boards are dragging their feet, because change to the curriculum will mean cancelling or amending lucrative book deals, where the senior examiners themselves have a commercial interest. Welcome to the world of secondary education!

It is the users and deliverers of education who, thankfully, are most resolute in condemning these outcomes. The Times published a letter (“Challenges for our education system”, 3^rd May 2010) from leaders of schools and academies that further encapsulates the issues we face. Industrialists have made similar comments regularly from their own perspective.

Scientists, themselves, need to understand and challenge more effectively the framework within which science is delivered and used, and adopt a vocabulary that is more engaging with the non-scientific world. That, combined with raising the standard of science education in schools, rather than too many in the system pandering to politically-driven pass rates, rote-learning and tick-boxes, will begin to address the cultural void.

Rather than the unimaginative examination questions we boringly prepare our 16 year-olds to take, perhaps we should spice them up with something really testing, such as an essay along the lines of “A well-known comedian launches an attack on science and scientists. Write either a) a stern letter to The Times, or b) a 300-word essay acknowledging some important issues to be addressed. Marks will be given for creativity.”

No longer should the government be paying 18-year-olds to start courses on celebrity journalism, drama with waste management, or international football business management. These courses should be kicked into touch, especially at a time when the UK is desperately short of funding research into Alzheimer’s and other diseases of ageing, alternative energy sources and wider, more effective health care provision, all of which depend on leading-edge work in the fundamental sciences.

Massive cuts in the science budget have already been announced in this country at a time when President Barack Obama is seeking $66bn, an increase of 5.9% over 2010 levels, to address the strategic priorities on the other side of the Atlantic.

The number of undergraduates studying chemistry, physics, biology and mathematics here had stayed relatively constant over many decades, and the enormous expansion witnessed in tertiary education was largely in the non-science sector. This sector, too, played a vital role in the development of the country, and our future relies on exploiting the synergies provided by a workforce with a wide range of skills, but we now need some realism over the way ahead.

We need a population with an enduring set of skills, such as an understanding of the physical world around us, literacy and communication, numeracy, how to function and continue to learn in a complex society, and above all creativity, rather than an ability to satisfy some ephemeral demand that in ten years time will be viewed as a curiosity.

To take a leaf out of the US’s book, that means that science must not be cut in the same proportion as other subjects at university, but its central role for the future of this country recognised, and funding effectively ‘ring fenced’, so that in effect it becomes a more dominant component.

This is not a question of pleading a special case; such a move is essential if we are all to enjoy the lifestyle we have become accustomed to, and to ensure that we are prepared for the changes that will affect us all in the future.

I’m very concerned about the disappearance of problem-solving, critical thinking and mathematical manipulation from school science examinations, and am campaigning to raise awareness of, and ultimately reverse, this unacceptable trend.

In June 2008, we launched a competition - The Five Decade Challenge – to test school pupils’ ability to answer chemistry questions from the 1960s to the present day. As it happens, the older questions involve a number of steps for their solution, although the individual steps might be quite simple. The real challenge was to get pupils to think logically. This contrasts with current questions that are often single-step, and have clues to the solution (eg what is the metal in sodium benzoate? – with Na given in the formula).

The results showed a serious deficiency in the problem-solving and mathematical abilities amongst pupils in UK schools. This adds to a growing body of evidence that dedicated teachers are working under a system which encourages teaching to the test and which fails to meaningfully differentiate pupils’ performance.

I have set up an electronic petition on the 10 Downing Street website to demand that the government reverse the decline in standards of school science examinations.

The report and the exam challenge it is based on are contentious issues, and have attracted much praise and criticism. Below I’ve decided to post some of the feedback as comments to this post – both the good and the bad.