Skip to main content

The Curiosity Box

 There's been something of a thing in the UK for boxes that you get sent regularly through the post, whether it's food, flowers or beauty products. But a new Kickstarter appeal is raising money to send out much more interesting boxes - boxes of science fun.

The Curiosity Box, described as 'seriously sciency fun for families' is produced by Renée Watson, founder of the Oxford-based science education startup WATS.ON, and her expert team of science communication specialists. It's described as the first monthly subscription service in the UK for 7-11year olds, bringing science to life through hands-on activities and lots of extras to inspire creative and curious minds.

The team is looking for £4,000 to kickstart their idea and achieve their vision of disrupting education and making science happen in every home across the UK and beyond. 

The Curiosity Box has been specially designed to get the whole family involved and to encourage kids to learn about science by developing their creative thinking and problem solving skills.

Renée says: "I want kids like me who don't fit the scientist mould to realise that STEM is absolutely for them too, I believe that the next Ada Lovelace or Emmett Chappelle is just waiting to be found and we want to find them! I am so excited to be launching The Curiosity Box, our future relies on the next generation of innovators and I want to get cracking igniting as many sparks of interest in STEM as possible!"

Pledges range from £5 to £1,000 with the usual range of goodies for those who contribute. The smallest contribution to receive a box (hopefully in August) is £20.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Everything is Predictable - Tom Chivers *****

There's a stereotype of computer users: Mac users are creative and cool, while PC users are businesslike and unimaginative. Less well-known is that the world of statistics has an equivalent division. Bayesians are the Mac users of the stats world, where frequentists are the PC people. This book sets out to show why Bayesians are not just cool, but also mostly right. Tom Chivers does an excellent job of giving us some historical background, then dives into two key aspects of the use of statistics. These are in science, where the standard approach is frequentist and Bayes only creeps into a few specific applications, such as the accuracy of medical tests, and in decision theory where Bayes is dominant. If this all sounds very dry and unexciting, it's quite the reverse. I admit, I love probability and statistics, and I am something of a closet Bayesian*), but Chivers' light and entertaining style means that what could have been the mathematical equivalent of debating angels on...

Brainjacking - Brian Clegg *****

Brian Clegg's Brainjacking is a captivating exploration of the subtle and pervasive ways our minds are manipulated in today’s world, offering readers a blend of scientific insight, cultural commentary, and even speculative fiction. Clegg deftly tackles a wide range of topics, from artificial intelligence and deepfakes to psychological nudges and subliminal messaging, weaving them into an engaging narrative that prompts us to rethink how much of our thinking is truly our own. One of the book’s standout strengths is Clegg’s ability to make complex and often unsettling topics accessible and engaging. Whether he's discussing the dangers of AI-generated deepfakes or the psychology behind targeted advertising, Clegg brings a clear, conversational tone to subjects that might otherwise feel daunting. His approach to brainjacking  -  the subtle art of influencing thoughts and behaviours  -  bridges scientific facts with everyday examples, showing how we’re often nudged or ma...

Should we question science?

I was surprised recently by something Simon Singh put on X about Sabine Hossenfelder. I have huge admiration for Simon, but I also have a lot of respect for Sabine. She has written two excellent books and has been helpful to me with a number of physics queries - she also had a really interesting blog, and has now become particularly successful with her science videos. This is where I'm afraid she lost me as audience, as I find video a very unsatisfactory medium to take in information - but I know it has mass appeal. This meant I was concerned by Simon's tweet (or whatever we are supposed to call posts on X) saying 'The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder: if you are a fan of SH... then this is worth watching.' He was referencing a video from 'Professor Dave Explains' - I'm not familiar with Professor Dave (aka Dave Farina, who apparently isn't a professor, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate for someone calling out fakes), but his videos are popular and he...