Colman Noctor: Understanding science starts with moments of wonder, not in our genes 

While almost every secondary school offers biology, chemistry and physics remain largely confined to more advantaged schools. Fee-paying schools typically offer all three sciences, while Deis schools serving disadvantaged communities are far less likely to do so.

ENCOURAGING children to engage with science isn’t just about closing skills gaps — it’s about preparing them for an AI future created in code, measured in data, and driven by discovery. Yet despite various campaigns and scholarships urging students to ‘choose science’, an Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) report published last week reminds us that the roots of scientific curiosity or disinterest are planted long before a student ever fills out a CAO form.

Drawing on data from more than 6,000 children tracked in the Growing Up in Ireland study, the findings are fascinating and somewhat frustrating. While almost every secondary school offers biology, chemistry and physics remain largely confined to more advantaged schools. Fee-paying schools typically offer all three sciences, while Deis schools serving disadvantaged communities are far less likely to do so.

The report paints a picture of a system where access and aspiration are shaped not just by talent or interest, but by Eircode, school culture, and a student’s early experience with maths. If a child has had a negative experience of maths in primary school, they are less likely to take up chemistry or physics in secondary school.

While maths and science are of course different disciplines, an ability in maths plays a key role in a student’s decision to pursue science subjects. Since maths underpins many areas of science, such as physics, chemistry, and even biology, students who feel confident in their mathematical skills are more likely to find these subjects accessible and enjoyable. Conversely, those who struggle with maths may perceive science as too difficult or abstract, leading them to avoid it altogether. As a result, mathematical competence often directly influences students’ interest in and willingness to engage with science-related fields.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard parents say, “She’s just not a maths person”. We don’t say, “He’s not a reading person”, yet it’s somehow acceptable to suggest a child’s brain just doesn’t “do numbers”. With the obvious exception of children with dyscalculia, one of education’s most persistent myths is the belief that some students are mathematical and others are not.

While natural variations in aptitude exist, decades of research, including work by renowned Stanford University professor Jo Boaler, consistently show that mathematical ability is not fixed but highly malleable.

Brain imaging reveals that effort and practice strengthen the neural pathways used in problem-solving. In other words, the ‘maths gene’ doesn’t exist; what does exist are differences in confidence, encouragement, and opportunity. When children believe they can improve, they tend to do so. When they’re told they can’t, they often don’t try.

Experiences of maths

The ESRI study highlights the harm in telling children they are not good at maths. Early negative experiences with maths, which incidentally are often formed in primary school, can steer children away from science subjects years later. By contrast, studies have found that a positive experience, or a teacher who makes numbers come alive, can open doors that stay open for life.

By age nine, many children already hold fixed ideas about their abilities, not only in maths but also regarding what kind of learner they are.

Renowned US psychologist Carol Dweck’s work on the growth mindset shows that children who believe their intelligence can grow are more likely to persevere when faced with challenges. However, in both classrooms and homes, subtle signals like “you’re good at English but not at numbers” can quietly influence how children perceive themselves.

The problem isn’t that children stop liking science — it’s that many never see themselves as the kind of person who does science.

There is a saying that states: ‘Where you learn matters as much as what you learn,’ and this is echoed by the ESRI study findings that suggest not all schools are created equal when it comes to science access. The researchers found that students in Deis schools are less likely to take physics or chemistry, even when these subjects are available. This finding suggests subject choice is not just about curriculum, it’s also about culture.

Schools differ in their facilities, teacher availability, and timetable flexibility, but they also differ in how they talk about subjects. In some, science is presented as an elite pursuit for the ‘smart kids’; in others, it’s part of the everyday language of learning.

French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu referred to this ‘cultural capital’ as the unspoken knowledge that influences how we navigate systems like education. In families where a parent works in a science-related job, discussions about experiments, lab coats, and data are everyday. In others, those worlds can feel remote. The ESRI study found that having a family member in a science field increases the likelihood of taking science subjects later in life. It reminds me of another saying: ‘You’re more likely to enter a room you’ve already seen the inside of.’

The report also confirms what many educators have long observed: gendered assumptions still shape approaches to science education. Girls' schools are less likely to offer physics, while boys' schools are less likely to offer biology. This bias doesn’t reflect ability — girls perform as well as, and often better than, boys in science at junior cert level. Yet something shifts when subject choices are made. A 2023 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) study found that girls were significantly less likely to see themselves working in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Stem) careers, even when their grades were high.

Part of that comes from cultural messaging. But, interestingly, there is evidence that single-sex schooling can reduce these stereotypes. Girls in all-girls schools are more likely to take physics, while boys in all-boys schools are more likely to take biology.

Learn science through play

One of the strongest messages in the ESRI report is that the road to science doesn’t start with a lab; instead, it begins with Lego pieces, magnifying glasses, and messy kitchen experiments. The foundations of scientific thinking, which are curiosity, pattern recognition, cause and effect, are built through play.

Yet we often rush to formal learning before nurturing those skills. When maths becomes about tests rather than exploration, the joy of discovery fades. A child told they “must” learn fractions is likely to be less inspired than one who uses fractions while baking.

We need to permit children to enjoy maths before they’re assessed on it and give teachers the confidence and resources to make maths accessible, not intimidating. A widening gender gap in attitudes to maths at primary level is particularly worrying. If girls begin to feel less capable early on, we lose potential scientists before they even start secondary school.

By the time formal career guidance is introduced in fifth or sixth year, many students have already made the subject choices that influence their futures. The ESRI study notes that science career aspirations can develop as early as age nine, but such aspirations are seldom supported unless a parent or teacher recognises and encourages them.

Maybe we should rethink when and how we discuss careers. Instead of waiting until adolescence, could we introduce primary school children to real-world science stories, like engineers and food scientists, in ways that feel relevant to their lives?

I often observe, mostly from TV shows, how in American schools, parents visit primary schools to discuss their jobs. While this may occur in some Irish schools, I don’t believe it is a common practice. But consider the effect if children heard from parents who use science daily in hospitals, on farms, in technology companies, or in kitchens. If we want children to see science as a career option, they need to see people like themselves doing it.

Ultimately, the ESRI findings challenge us to change the stories we tell about science. We often frame it as difficult, exclusive, and abstract, or the domain of high achievers. But at its core, science is structured curiosity: asking questions, making mistakes, and understanding how the world works.

When we tell children that science is only for the elite or the highly intelligent, we deprive them of that wonder. And when schools don’t provide access to all three science subjects, the gap widens. Perhaps the real question isn’t how to get more students into science, but how to prevent pushing them out through age-old stereotypes, the scarcity of teaching resources, and self-fulfilling expectations, such as labelling a child in primary school as ‘not a numbers person’.

As parents, we can support our children by responding to their learning process. When your child asks why the sky changes colour, don’t rush to Google the answer; instead, wonder with them. When they struggle with long division, remind them that struggle is a natural part of learning, not proof of inability. When they say they’re “not a maths person”, tell them no one is born a maths person; it’s something we become through persistence and curiosity.

We can also foster curiosity ourselves. The next time something breaks at home, watch the YouTube tutorial together on how to take it apart and fix it. Discuss how things work, not just that they do, and show your children that you, too, are still learning.

Nurturing a love of science isn’t about producing more scientists; it’s about raising children who think critically, ask questions, and aren’t afraid to explore the unknown. And that, surely, is a future worth investing in.

• Colman Noctor is a child psychotherapist