Verizon Ad Warns Parents Not to Squelch Daughters' Interest in Science

At a time when we are still seeing subtle and not-so-subtle opposition to fostering young girls’ interest in STEM disciplines and to women’s mobility in professional science, it’s encouraging to see this ad from Verizon asking parents to not squelch their daughters’ natural curiosity.

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


At a time when we are still seeing subtle and not-so-subtle opposition to fostering young girls' interest in STEM disciplines and to women's mobility in professional science, it's encouraging to see this ad from Verizon asking parents to not squelch their daughters' natural curiosity. Take a look at it.

The ad follows a narrative that might be depressingly familiar to female scientists; well-meaning parents (or teachers) tell their daughter not to waste too much time on a school science project, well-meaning parents tell their daughter not to get her clothes dirty poking around in a stream, well-meaning parents tell their daughter not to handle a drilling tool because it's too dangerous (and then ask her to hand it to her brother). The ad ends with the girl choosing lipstick over participation in a school science fair.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


What's striking to me is how subtle and supposedly well-meaning the parents' actions are. But the result is a gradual erosion of natural curiosity; it's the death of curiosity by a thousand benevolent cuts. The reason the ad resonated with me is that, in spite of being a man, I could actually identify very similar situations from my own childhood where my parents could have potentially discouraged my curiosity but instead chose to channel my interest in science. When I started bringing beetles and other bugs home my mother, instead of asking me to throw them out and looking disgusted, lent me her jam jars to house them and study their life cycle. When I started keeping bread out in the open to observe the growing mold - and at one point even brought home some mold growing on dog poop - my parents did not scold me or recoil but instead bought me a microscope and encouraged other, more constructive ways to indulge my interest in microscopic life forms. When I tried to perform a potentially dangerous experiment to electrolyze saline solution and isolate sodium (in the intellectual tradition of Humphry Davy), my dad bought me an electronics set that could achieve the same goal with lower voltages. My parents turned almost every opportunity they could find to potentially criticize or scold me into constructive endeavors instead.

And then there were all the books. When my dad found out I was interested in microbiology he pointed me to Paul DeKruif's famous book "Microbe Hunters" that charted the heroic efforts of scientists like Pasteur and Koch in defeating disease. Even at a young age he made his extensive collection of science books available to me, some of which dealt with aspects of human anatomy that might have been considered by other parents to be a little too, well, "advanced" for such a young boy. Those books in turn led to my interest in biomedical research, an interest that led me on to the professional path which I currently tread on. A similar attitude by her parents led my wife to pursue a graduate degree in computer science at MIT; from what she recalls, her parents treated her and her brother's curiosity about mechanical gadgets in exactly the same way.

The result of my parents' behavior was that I could let my intellectual curiosity roam wherever I wanted it to, but the key point is that I did not possess some special inborn scientific capability that was just waiting to be set free. Instead my curiosity was as natural as that of the girl in the video. Children are natural scientists who simply want to find out more about the world. I wanted to catch beetles when I saw them and I wanted to try to repeat experiments by great scientists when I read about them. But unlike the parents in that Verizon video, mine did not worry that I would bring home dirt or disease or blow up stuff. Instead they realized that this was the best possible way to let me learn science by myself, and they nonchalantly nurtured or at least tolerated this interest and led it in productive directions. Hopefully parents and teachers will take a look at that ad and consider doing the same for their kids, and especially for their daughters who already have the deck stacked against them by traditions and culture.

Ashutosh Jogalekar is a chemist interested in the history, philosophy and sociology of science. He is fascinated by the logic of scientific discovery and by the interaction of science with public sentiments and policy. He blogs at The Curious Wavefunction and can be reached at curiouswavefunction@gmail.com.

More by Ashutosh Jogalekar

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe