Top Advisory Panel Warns Erosion of U.S. Science 954
fbg111 writes "From the NYT: A panel of experts convened by the National Academies, the nation's leading science advisory group, called yesterday for an urgent and wide-ranging effort to strengthen scientific competitiveness. The 20-member panel, reporting at the request of a bipartisan group in Congress, said that without such an effort the United States 'could soon lose its privileged position.' It cited many examples of emerging scientific and industrial power abroad and listed 20 steps the United States should take to maintain its global lead."
Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Biology and any other field of science dealing with the age of the Earth are destined to decline in the US. The balance of power has already tipped decidedly to non-US schools in technical training in these fields and will continue. This report will be ignored because Congress owes too much to the religious right to do anything that advances knowledge in human evolution or radiometric dating.
Any student of history knows that Scopes lost his trial. Things haven't changed that much in the US in nearly a century.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Funny)
I really don't think thats it (Score:4, Insightful)
Realistically, the reason is the almighty dollar. Everything revolves around it, it always has and always will. In the US $$ speaks more than any religious morals.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:5, Insightful)
Realistically, the reason is the almighty dollar. Everything revolves around it, it always has and always will. In the US $$ speaks more than any religious morals
How is it profitable to lose your leading standing in scientific fields? Who would want such a thing? No, I think the original poster was bang-on. Superstition is killing your country.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Interesting)
Spend 500 billion a year more than you make, you end up with nice large debts (like we didn't start out with a big one). Spend hundreds of billions in "service payments" to this debt, and that is money you can't use for building schools.
Promise ever 65 year old that he can live on social security till he's 10
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:5, Insightful)
Well...it's not - on a national scale. On a personal level, however, it can be very profitable. Unfortunately, from what I have seen, project managers and middle management in general make higher salaries than the engineers who are actually doing the work. I've actually seen engineers who got an engineering degree, only to be a mediocre engineer for a few years while they part time for an MBA to move on into management where they can make "real money" and work their way up the executive ladder. Heck...alot of people don't even bother with the engineering degree as an ungraduate - they go for business and go straight into an MBA program. I honestly hate MBA's, but the salaries I see them getting can be tempting.
This is my opnion, but they tend to be the same people who valued high scores over actually learning and understanding a given subject in college..YMMV.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Insightful)
Also good engineers generally enjoy what they are doing and don't want to change to managment
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I'm footing the bill, along with every other working American who pays taxes. That is, after all, where the Navy gets its money from in the first place.
And frankly, I'm not in favor of my tax dollars being used to support the education of people who can't manage to get a scholarship to Carnegie Mellon on their own. I managed to (turned it down) and if I can do it then so can a fair number of other works who don't have rich parents. And this is back i
Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
You are wrong, as are the people you cite who are "not anti-science." Even if they dispute natural selection and genetics, they of course are pro-science when they are taking an ibuprofen or getting their children vaccinated or getting their yearly flu shot. And no one with a job or an investment portfolio wants to see America lose its technological edge.
But you, like these people, are not drawing the connections between their actions and the results. Science is not just a collection of facts. You cannot just choose to support the knowledge that benefits you (flu vaccines) and fight against the knowledge that disagrees with your beliefs (carbon dated fossils, genetic evolution). Science is first and foremost a PROCESS (not a collection of "facts"), and if you attack the process you are attacking the development of the knowledge that benefits you as well as the knowledge you don't like.
Developing an effective flu vaccine every year is absolutely impossible without basis in the theories of genetic inheritance and natural selection. These theories were not just proposed and voted on by scientists--they have resulted from and withstood investigation from the process of science, conducted by millions of independent scientists over decades.
Attacking the theories in the way that many conservative religious groups have, is to attack the validity of the scientific process itself. It's pretty hard to do a good job educating and encouraging future scientists when the very concept of science is being subverted for religious or political ends.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, the reason science is on the decline is largely because politicians in power have devalued the work of scientists. Scientists work based on grants from governments in probably 75% of their research. Cutting funding not only means that there's less money for individual scientists, it also means that there's less room for new scientists in the field.
As it is, there's absolutely no reason for a scientist to realistically pursue research that doesn't have a high payout factor. Looking into a field that has no tangible and direct marketability, meaning that the tech industries will ignore your results, is moot. Why bother if you can't work and make even a modest living?
(It also doesn't help that scientists are disillusioned from teaching science, much in the same way an english teacher would be if they were told "Shakespeare was just a writer, and his works are viewed by some as offensive. We recommend the latest bestseller, available at Borders and Barnes & Noble for $19.95!")
Seriously, though, if you want to look at what commercializing science leads to, you need look no further than the glut of copycat drugs on the market. Tons of allergy medicine, stomach medicine, and sex medicine. Nothing that really cures a problematic disease -- it's all comfort medicine that sells very well.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is not what people think they believe, but what they actually do.
Just as the problem is not people's morality that is wanting: it's the way they act.
By the way, when we speak of the Religious Right, we are talking Christians of a certain stripe. Christianity is a very old religion. In its time frame, Right and Left as we know it are ephemeral: at various times in the last few centuries is found going along on either side of the road. In the era of William Jennings Bryan it was on the left; in the era of the Temperance Union it was allied with the (or a) women's movement.
In the end though, it won't really fit for long on either end of the spectrum, and will in time go its own way. In the mean time, unfortunately, it seems to infect it's political allies with its least attractive attributes (the paternalism on the left and the self-righteousness of the right) and few of its virtues.
Realistically, the reason is the almighty dollar. Everything revolves around it, it always has and always will. In the US $$ speaks more than any religious morals.
Well put. And like the medieval Christians who enganged in acts of unspeakable cruelty and violence in the name of the Prince of Peace, it strikes me that many of our era endorse a life of materialism and greed, serving Mammon and God, except Mammon gets eight solid hours for five days a week. It also strikes me that in some ways the idea of "The Market" has taken on Godlike characteristics: benevolent, and of unquestionable, all-knowing divine wisdom. Not that I don't think the Market is an amazing thing, but there's a difference between advancing the welfare of Humanity and advancing the welfare of people. No form of robbing Peter to pay Paul can be theft if it serves the Market because the Market serves Humanity.
Alan Watts once insightfully remarked that the most insidious idols are made of ideas.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Insightful)
big business CONSTANTLY makes accusations that environmental protections and other things that "cost money" and "reduce profit" are impacting america's ability to remain competitive in the world marketplace. they cite the lack of regulation in countries like China, 'Nam, central and south america, etc as reasons we'r
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:5, Interesting)
Then you're wrong The far left always proves a point by stereotyping the "religious right" into thinking they are a bunch of bible thumping granny's
The "religious right" they are talking about is *by definition* bible thumping. If you aren't a bible thumper, then you aren't included, so quite being offended
The truth is, it has nothing to do with right or left. The far left has "tree-huggers" who want to get rid of industry, dams, power generators, cars, etc.
Thats an objection to *industry*, not to *science*. The two, while often interrelated, are not the same thing at all.
Fact: Religious fundamentalism exists in America, and is growing.
Fact: Religions fundamentalists, because they are (by definition) vocal and passionate, command a very strong political powerbase
Fact: The Bush administration, more than any president in recent memory, caters to and sympathises with religious fundamentalists.
Fact: There is a long-standing and fundamental disconnect between religion and science, and while it can be and has been crossed many times, it is very present. At the core, religion teaches you to venerate the unknown, and treat it as unknowable, while science teaches you to investigate it.
Fact: Religious motivations have already affected public policy in several areas, including science.
The far left (and what you're talking about is the far, far, far left) has practically no political power in the US. Claiming that there is some secret cabal of hippies keeping us from investing in science is ludicrous. It is a simple fact that the religious right has a great deal of political power, and they have an opposition to many forms of science, and that is affecting the quality of scientific education in America. The whole "intelligent design" thing, an exercise in justification and hypocrisy if there ever was one is only one example.
It's not the only thing driving that of course - the current business climate, with it's emphasis on short term profits, definitely affects it. A n adminstration hostile to pure science (as opposed to military or readily commercially exploitable science) is another. But the religious right absolutely is a factor, no matter how much you want to pretend otherwise.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:4, Interesting)
As a christian and a scientist (not to be confused with christian science), I can tell you that this isn't completely accurate. Christianity and science are no opposites that are somehow diametrically opposed. I think that christianity teaches that some things are unknowable. But there's nothing that says that fire or natural disasters or the phases of the moon for example, are unknowable mysteries and the study of them is heresy. This view is somewhat medieval. I don't know any christians who think this way.
The entire point to christianity is faith. And you can't have faith in something that you can scientifically prove. Otherwise, what's the point?
I think that today, the vast majority of christians believe that nature and christianity fit together in some elegant, unknowable fashion. Many don't believe that humans first appeared 6000 years ago, or that the universe was created in exactly six days. These are most likely metaphores, as is much of the bible. While other parts of the bible are clearly intended to be taken as fact.
I think a lot of my views would surprise you. You may not want to paint christians with such a broad brush.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:5, Interesting)
For what it's worth, every Christian that I've met here in lovely San Diego DOES believe that evolution is a lie, that the Earth is 6000 years old, and they greet every press release from the Institute of Creation Science with joy - and then they promptly shove it in my face as "proof" of whatever lunacy they're promoting this year. They've recently taken to asking me why I don't talk to them anymore
It wouldn't be that big a deal, but they (fundamentalist Christians) now own most of the school boards here in town, and as per standard operating procedure, are now trying to cram creationism or ID into all the science classes. This has fairly predictable and disastrous consequences when these kids hit college.
I'm sure your views would surprise me. You post on Slashdot and work in the sciences, which already makes you a member of a very, very small group of the population. Were I you, I'd beware of extrapolating your own personal religious beliefs onto those of Christians in general. You already sound a lot smarter and far more tolerant than most that Christians I've met.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3)
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't really any different from, say, peta or greenpeace. You're only hearing from the most radical with an agenda.
For the record, I am very opposed to t
literal imterpretation of the Bible (Score:4, Interesting)
Many don't believe that humans first appeared 6000 years ago, or that the universe was created in exactly six days. These are most likely metaphores, as is much of the bible.
Ah but many Christians take the Bible literally. Years ago a friend became a "born again" Christian after an experience, er relationship, she had went sour. She frequently quoted her Bible, a King James version, and said what is said was fact. When I tried to point out that for instance the Hebrew word used in Genesis that was translated in English as "day", the world being created in 7 of these, the Hebrew year actually has more than one meaning with one of them I think was "eon" she kept making declarations that about how the tranlations were inspired by "God". Or that during the various councils such as the Councils of Constantinople in 381, 553, and 680-81 the books were chosen to be combined into the Bible while other were left out and the ones so chosen were edited. She wouldn't except any of this or that any translators had any political agendas.
And she wasn't the only one like this, I've talked with others that believed the same. As for me, though I used to believe or had a set of beliefs, after I had a bad accident I lost those beliefs and am now agnostic, "a" without, and gnosys, "knowledge". I am without knowledge of any supreme being or any soul or spirit. I am jealous of those who have faith.
FalconRe:literal imterpretation of the Bible (Score:3, Informative)
Gen 5:5 (NASB) (using earlier, pre-KJV, documents)
God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.
Gen 5:5 (KJV) (translated from newer documents)
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Hard to understand, eh? Is an evening an eon to? How about morning?
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Insightful)
The left has prevented any nuclear plants from being built in over 20 years. The left has prevented any oil refineries in 30 years. The left has prevented any new highway construction in California of 30 years. Sounds like some sort of power, though I suppose you could argue it's not political.
The left does try to prevent certain scientific endevors - animal testing for drugs, or other
are they really left? (Score:3, Informative)
The left has prevented any nuclear plants from being built in over 20 years. The left has prevented any oil refineries in 30 years. The left has prevented any new highway construction in California of 30 years. Sounds like some sort of power, though I suppose you could argue it's not political.
Is this because they, the people opposing these, are leftists or because they are concerned about the environment? And as far as nuclear power plants, if you get rid of all government subsidies and laws protecting
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:5, Insightful)
ID is simply the most recent example, the examples from history are countless. Gallileo is another classic example ("And yet, they move"). And thats without even bringing in the real loonies, like the ones who are convinced that the Earth is 6000 years old, and all the animals that exist today have always existed, and no other animals ever have, and all evidence to the contrary has been *placed by God specifically in an attempt to fool people*.
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. You can have a scientific mindset about science and a religious mindset about religious topics, without being in conflict. The problem is when you have a religious mindset when dealing with scientific topics (age of the earth, etc.)
Oddly, you cannot have a scientific mindset about religious topics. If you try to (for instance) deny the existence of a deity because of your 'scientific' mindset, then you are not in fact exhibiting a scientific mindset. Science has nothing to do with the supernatural, for or against. Science by definition deals with the natural world (and would that people restricted their religious views to the supernatural!)
Re:I really don't think thats it (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a little strong; censorship efforts also come from the left, but more around issues of race, gender, and religion. Zealotry is an equal-opportunity annoyer.
What? And join the "intellectual elite"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Getting 10,000 new teachers into the school system isn't going to help if they have to teach religion in their science classes. Welcome to the US where 1 in 5 people believe the Sun revolves around the Earth.
Our problem isn't that we don't have enough teachers.
Our problem is that being smarter than the average makes those average people hate you. Most of them don't want to know that what they believe is wrong and they'll oppose anyone who tri
Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Nazi Germany
Facist Italy
Rawanda about 10 years ago
A real "who's who" amongst nations to be sure. I sure am glad my country ranks amongst them.
Stop stealing my punch lines! (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, it seems that they all declined pretty quickly and either vanished or are still on the bottom of the heap
You got two options people:
Either wise up and realize that being smarter is a good thing
or
Practice sucking up to whatever country will surpass us.
Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're a good second example. (Score:3, Insightful)
So ... what you're saying is that opinion doesn't match the opinion of people who have mod points right now. That's understandable.
Because that is an emotional reaction. If those people who still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth have a problem with someone telling them they're wrong and using them as an example of why the US is losing in this field, why
Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares how much of an asshole somebody is when you are talking about the truth. Seriously, what is more important to you? Knowledge or not being offended?
Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's often nice, thinking you live in a country where the touchy-feely value of everyone having an equal opinion theoretically takes precedence over more qualified people making the decisions. Of course, the people in power to make the decisions have historically not been the most qualified anyway, so I don't think it would work out otherwise.
Very out of character for me, wow. I like democracy. But on the average, people really don't understand a
Thanks for being my example. (Score:4, Interesting)
Evolution has been tested and verified. Check about it in reference to the common fruitfly. If you don't believe that, then it is your understanding that is in error.Why would you have to?
That's only necessary with Intelligent Design because that cannot be falsified in any other manner.Re-read your statement. Here, let me clarify it a bit for you:
"What pisses off a religious group is when people try to prevent the teaching of their religious beliefs in science class."
I can see why that would piss them off
Again, thanks for volunteering to be my example.
The reason not to teach a religious belief in a science class is because the two are not the same.What is the "philosphy" behind "gravity"?
How does that compare/contrast with Nietzsche's philosphical approach?
Because A is somewhat like B
But it is not correct.
For "Intelligent Design" to be considered scientific, it needs to be falsifiable without the need for time travel or for God to put in a personal appearance.
Until it is falsifiable, it is not referenced in a science class.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
China already produces 800,000+ graduates every year with technical degrees. That's faster than we can produce McWorkers and we wonder why jobs are going overseas. They can say whatever anti-foreign slogan, "Made in America" speech they want. At the end of the day, the jobs will go to the qualified people who can do it the cheapest.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
I see two problems:
The first is education - the crap that is called "science education" in the schools in this country is raising idiots. They are taught to regurgitate "facts", and the definition of "fact" has changed from "what is provable" to "what we tell you". Critical thinking is discouraged, experimentation has no lab budget, and standards are dropping wildly. I read once (can't find source) that several decades ago most middle school girls could tell you what an aileron was. Today I'd be surprised if more than a few percent of high school graduates have a clue.
The other problem is money and the absolute focus most entities (commercial and educational) now have on short-term profitability. Real science means taking risks, thinking about the long term, spending time on basic science so you can reap the rewards of understanding new principles, then discovering how they may be applied. Today any idea that looks unlikely to be signifigantly profitable within 18 months has almost no chance for funding. This is a good part of the reason why basic progress is stalling in most areas of science that do not have immediate commercial applications.
Fixing either of these requires fundamental changes in the mindset. Neither are likely to happen anytime soon, mostly for the same two reasons...
Re:Not Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
All the math classes I have seen or heard of in the US are all about learning the "designated correct" way of doing things. If you came to the right answer using sound mathematical principles that differ from the procedural manner taught, you are marked wrong. It's as if learning about mathematics and learning how to do well in math class are two entirely different subjects.
The current system teaches following directions at the expense of critical thinking. Learning to follow directions is certainly useful, but it shouldn't be the entire point of math classes and the educational system as a whole.
What we have is a system that turns out automatons, not intelligent people capable of *using* math (and other education) as a tool. Here is an inside opinion on what our school system really teaches, from the state of NY's Teacher of the Year:
http://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html [cantrip.org]
Testify, brother! (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, my kid listed "air" as part of his answer to "name four natural resources" and got points marked off (air, despite being a non-synthetic commodity resource, was not listed in the book).
I should mention that just outside of town the local gas company has a tower where they compress air to extract oxygen, nitrogen, and argon for commercial sale.
The same teacher marked "fuel" as a correct answer to the same question. When I pointed out that many fuels are synthetic, and thus not natural resources, it became apparent that the teacher did not know what natural resources actually are, and was simply parroting an incorrect textbook.
I know plenty of religious people who would never make such a stupid mistake; but the next generation is having all this wrong information drilled into them in lieu of actual education.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
This doesn't have anything to do with our scientific advances *now* as opposed to how it's taught in school. The "religion right" has no influence in our schools (thanks to the Supreme Court).
So if the religious right is so bad about science, how do you explain the better scientific education of kids coming out of religious private schools? When I graduated, I had taken both Chem II AP and Physics II AP, and got my college credits. Did my local public school even have similar courses? No.
Let's talk about the real problems with public education, and we will find an answer to our problems. How am I authoritative? My girlfriend and father teach or have taught middle school.
Problems:
Social promotion. Yes, it exists. My father was threatened with being fired for not promoting a kid to the 9th grade after failing his social studies class. The reason? The principal "wanted to get rid of the troublemaker".
Parental duties. I hear stories from my girlfriend all the time about the parents who don't care. I hear the "yups" and "uh-huhs" from my father who got the same thing 30 years ago. Parents are caring less and less about the education of their children. When kids get a bad grade, parents call to complain about how the teacher is offending their kid. When kids act bad, parents call to complain about how the school is insensitive.
Education funding. Huge problem in many states, but mostly only in the poorer areas of the state. My girlfriend works in a school district that belongs to the poorest area of Maryland. The state and federal government provides some relief, but the real problem is that the money is being wasted (given the previous two problems) on many students. The students who want to learn can not because they are being held back by the students who do not want to learn. Attempts to get kids into private schools via vouches hit a big road block when democrats objected to it. Despite the fact it would both 1) reduce the number of students per class and 2) provide more money per student; seems irrelevant to Democrats who rather keep a socialist program alive and well, even if it means dumbing down the children.
Community Support. What have you done for YOUR local public school? I like to provide some money and have even offered to help with some computer learning (rejected everytime, it seems that the elitests only want people with college masters degrees). Bt I still give money to the schools during fundraisers and actually vote for members of the school board. Considering I do not have children, this is the best I can do. But then again, even if I did have children, they probably would go to a private school where science and mathematics doesn't lag behing as much.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think this is the root problem. I think the root problem is teachers unions. If we truly rewarded excellent teachers in public schools, I think taxpayers would be more willing to fully fund public education. If you switch parents for teachers' unions in your problems list, then it would read the same. Teachers unions do "social promotion", and in fact care about little else from what I see. Even an extension from 2 to 5 years to a tenure position
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
Because in religious private schools, one of the required classes each year is Theology. When you have an entire class period each day to devote to religious education, you don't need to cram it into other classes, leaving more time in those classes to teach what you're supposed to. At least that's how it worked in my (private, catholic) high school.
Surprising you've never heard of "Texas" (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, but you're both wrong and naive here. There are quite a few Wingnut-Americans on local and state school boards, and school boards have a strong influence on schools. The state of Texas has done a lot to water down science and health education by refusing to buy 'unacceptable' textbooks [nsta.org], and Texas is such a large market that most publishers don't bother making a second edition that leaves the science in. It's not just
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
Socioeconomic level, the single greatest positive indicator of educational acheivement. By definition, someone who can afford to attend a private school is of a higher socioeconomic than someone who cannot. QED.
Re:Not Surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
In a more perfect world, the Supreme court would hear the challenge within days and the proper science ciriculum would be restored before any damage to kids was done.
With Roberts and Miers headed to the court though, it remains to b
Re:I am surprised (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently, you're missing the whole point of a _Creator_.
I'll buy into the possibility of evolution being an Origin of Species when someone can document a series of reactions starting with non-organic, naturally-occurring compounds that results in an organism capable of spontaneous, sustainable reproduction, and documents a statistically significant possibility of conditions capable of producing that series of reactions occurring in the history of t
Re:I am surprised (Score:3, Informative)
You have completely misunderstood the term 'Origin of Species'. No one is suggesting that evolution explains the origin of Life! After you have life (through divine creation or big fat spark hitting primordial soup), then evolution kicks-in. Evolution explains how the world's different species evolved from early life.
yeah we may be slipping in real science (Score:5, Funny)
Erosion of intelligence in general (Score:3, Insightful)
It's red pill vs. blue pill, and now that everybody has seen how the trilogy ends, blue pill wins every time. Want to change it? Take the Nazi out of Amerika and put forward a vision of where this country is going to be in twenty years that doesn't involve killing and torturing innocent people around the world.
Really it comes down to this: the propaganda being dished by The New York Times/CNN works well, but only for the retards. The kids you want to see building tomorrow's superweapons can think for themselves, and therefore see this shit for what it is.
And when you think about it, would you really have it any other way?
--
You didn't know. [tinyurl.com]
Re:Erosion of intelligence in general (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think those are the only two choices, you're copping out. There is a third choice: work hard at making the world a better place. Yes, it can be done. Yes, you can pretend it's impossible, if you want an excuse for not doing anything.
Re:Erosion of intelligence in general (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes I think this world needs another regime like that because so many have forgotten how bad they were. Then I come to my senses and realize that reading a million stupid statements like yours above is a great thing. It's go
not true in other countries (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:not true in other countries (Score:3, Informative)
As I said often last year on a trip to the UK (Score:3, Funny)
It worked well as an introduction.
Teh pain! (Score:4, Insightful)
Copied verbatim from TFA:
If nothing else convinces you of the magnitude of this problem, consider the fact that The New York Times confused "lose" and "loose."
People get scammed now (Score:3, Interesting)
Hundreds of years ago the most read books were written by scientists like Newton. Now that anyone can write for the world to read it, it only stands to reaso
Dear Process Of Erosion; (Score:3, Funny)
Keep a sharp watch!
signed,
Advisory Panel
Expected (Score:3, Interesting)
Wait, shouldn't this be "lose" and not "loose"? It's in the NYT article too, and I would assume they can spell.
One major question is why the Panel didn't mention the fact that religious fundamentalists are trying to legislate science out of the classroom, as illustrated by the Intelligent Design lawsuit [nytimes.com] going on in Pennsylvania? If you're not allowed to teach biology in science class, but instead, you must give "equal time" to "creationism", doesn't that tend to degrade science, too?
It's not surprising that the U.S. will lose its scientific dominance. It's a combination of the guns versus butter argument [wikipedia.org], an alarming increase in the politicization of science, and the general retreat of science in the face of religious zealotry in this country. Overseas outsourcing of technical jobs isn't helping either.
I imagine that after three more years of Bush being in office, we should be ecstatic if the majority of the population is still toilet trained.
Yeah, right (Score:3, Informative)
> more rigorously prove
One cannot "prove" in science. One can only disprove a falsifiable hypothesis.
> they probably never would have even bothered to address irreducible complexity issues
Biology has and continues to progress quite well without religious fundamentalists trying to legislate their way into the classrooms.
> creationists hadn't mainstreamed discussion of evolution
Yes, and I imagine what the world would be like if the
Current administration is working on this... (Score:4, Funny)
When the label finally sticks, we'll be in the lead again. YAY!!!
Kansas will be the new MIT.
I wrote this yesterday (Score:4, Interesting)
John Gormley of 980 CJME.com had two guests debate Intelligent Design, and sadly almost 2:1 callers thought that ID should be in the science classroom. Every one that gave a reason why they thought that, presented a flawed understanding they held about a scientific concept. As one caller pointed out, only the United States is looking at this debate seriously, and every country in Europe is laughing at it because it's so stupid. Intelligent Design is an attack on science by Christian fundamentalists who want to get their foot in the secular school door. An understanding of science is a blow to the culture of ignorance that a few of the fundamentalist leaders count on to maintain control over a bewildered and sheep like flock.
Here's what I wrote to Gormley, but he was only taking calls so it wasn't read on the air:
Thank you for having a discussion about Intelligent Design today. Your guest Larry Krause put it so well when he said that the effort to insert creationism into the science classroom is a perhaps "well meaning attack on science". Intelligent Design makes no sense in Saskatchewan, where it's apparent that we'll have a half Aboriginal population in a few decades. If we're to require a creator to initiate our earth's development, why should it be a Christian God that puts it all in motion? There are a number of creation theories, and I've seen nothing that the Intelligent Design crowd has put forward that discounts a mythological figure from Aboriginal history being the earth's true creator.
-
I don't think it serves our children any better to have Aboriginal creation myths taught in science class than it does to teach them God created your little bits and it wasn't the laws of the universe that did it. But I wanted to make the point that this is about religion, and if someone who's for ID is against Aboriginal creation myth, then they show their true stripes. It isn't about an "intelligent designer" it's about Christianity's God. It isn't about the "science" behind ID [which there is none], it's about injecting Christian myth into a class that our future drug designers, and doctors rely upon to be effective professionals.
Re:I wrote this yesterday (Score:4, Interesting)
I was at a conference recently where we were discussing the state of science literacy in the US, and a leading authority on the topic (Jon Miller from Northwestern University) showed the results of a survey conducted in the US and in Europe.
I don't have a copy of his numbers, but I recall that his results showed that in the US, approximately 50% of those surveyed believed that evolution really occurs on the Earth. In Europe, using the same survey, the results for the same question were closer to 90% of those surveyed believe that evolution occurs.
Scary.
International Students (Score:5, Interesting)
This is sort of already in place. Every international student, who graduates can apply for a work permit known as OPT (Optional Practical Training, I believe). This allows that student to seek employment in a field that is relevant to his/her education and or qualification. It is not automatic but nonetheless I have yet to hear a student get rejected for it. But it ends right there. After the year is over the individual already has to have a work permit or have a petition for it to stay legally in this country. I have personally seen couple of brilliant students leave this country because they couldn't get the work permit in time. Thus this suggestion of "expedited residence status" could be a very benefecial.
But now comes the ugly side of it. I bet the locals will not approve of it immediately, for very good reasons. Now they have to compete with potentially very hard working and probably smarter people for the same job. And I have seen instances where an American has been passed on for an Asian because they believe that person is going to work harder for less pay. But this new suggestion, if it becomes law, tilts the balance in favor of international students a bit. They can bargain for higher pay and will that cause any difference is to be seen. Now, IEEE was really campaigning hard to curtail H1B a year or so ago. We have to see how they react to it.
investment (Score:4, Interesting)
Clasic solution to the perceived shortage (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Pay More
2. Pay More
3. Pay More
4. Pay More
5. Pay More
6. Pay More
7. Pay More
8. Pay More
9. Pay More
10. Pay More
11. Pay More
12. Pay More
13. Pay More
14. Pay More
15. Pay More
16. Pay More
17. Pay More
18. Pay More
19. Pay More
20. Pay More
The free market works. That's why our best and brighest are leaving Science. Dumbsh|ts!
Re:Clasic solution to the perceived shortage (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Clasic solution to the perceived shortage (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Pay More
2. Pay More....
Yes, yes, yes!
I desperately want to continue doing science for the rest of my career. I can easily get such a job. But the pay is just too low. The guy building my deck makes as much as a tenure-track professor, and he works fewer hours, too. I'm probably leaving for law or industry.
It's feels like our society actively discourages science.
It's not political. (Score:5, Interesting)
It has far more to do with school administrations, culture, and parenting.
#1 Tenure needs to be removed. Peer reviews need to be implemented. Salaries should be review / performance based. Schooling for teachers needs to be DRASTICALLY improved. Remove all the buzzword-techno-political crap that's found it's way into teaching and just TEACH.
#2 Kids who aren't in school to learn need to be removed. Yeah, so be it, some kids don't get schooled. If they nor their parents can put forth the effort, then that's too bad. Sure, we'll hear sob stories about how some are going to get left behind. Let me clue you in to a little secret. If you hold back our best and brightest to make sure no one is "left behind" then you're going to DESTROY the best and brightest. Or at least you'll have managed to severely inhibit their potential.
#3 Parenting. Why aren't parents do "fun" things like having foreign langauge weeks where they all try to speak different languages. Turn the fricken TV and computer off. Interact. Socialize. Take your kid out in the f'in garage and fix the car with him.
Finally, TECHNICAL EDUCATIONS. Go to despair.com and read the quote that states not everyone grows up to be rocket scientists. It's true.
Re:It's not political. (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree wholeheartedly with #2. #1 and #3 are problematic.
#1 fails because teachers are not completely responsible for the results they are expected to achieve. Students must want to learn in order to display testable results. Also see #2 for part of why #1 fails -- re-evaluate your "very little to do with our political climate" with respect to what the teachers are expected to teach each year. Consider that the agenda changes with each administration (all levels from school to county to local to st
Re:It's not political. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think you're giving the political climate due consideration. While its effects are largely intangible, there's a creeping contempt for science that's gaining ground at all levels of government. What does your typical individual going to think about the value of science in general when a person no less than the president himself routinely and blithely disregards solid scientific findings in favor of ideological beliefs?
We are watching a slow and painful relegation of science to the role of munitions manufacturer for various political interests. When was the last time you heard a major political figure say, "You know, I always thought that X was the case, but recent studies have led me to believe otherwise"?
Remember, too, that school administrations and school boards are political institutions and have become increasingly politicized over the years.
Re:It's not political. (Score:3, Interesting)
From TFA The panel cited many examples:
Last year, more than 600,000 engineers graduated from institutions of higher education in China, compared to 350,000 in India and 70,000 in the United States.
Recently, American 12th graders performed below the international average for 21 countries on general knowledge in math and science.
The cost of employing one chemist or engineer in the United States is equal to about fiv
Ending tenure to help science? You are an idiot! (Score:4, Insightful)
When every other country has a cushy tenure system and you're a top scientist who can work anywhere, why would you refuse tenure? You must think top scientists are stupid. Do you really think they like constantly updating their CV and preparing for, and doing, "productivity reviews"? Fornunately, what good scientists like is doing science, not constantly elbowing for position with their peers. That's a part of the whole point of tenure.
The other part is that tenure insulates the scientist from the political fashions. Scientists research what they like, and whether or not it's popular with the current administration, their position is secure. If it weren't for that security, do you really think they'd work here?
Re:Ending tenure to help science? You are an idiot (Score:4, Insightful)
Teachers are LEAVING the profession. After investing years in preparation, they are leaving when they find out the system they are expected to work with. There's no trouble getting rid of the bad ones, they don't want to stick around either.
The feds have designed a "testing" system that guarantees that all schools will fail, because they must do better each year than they did the previous year. This can only be done for a few years, and it's already claimed a huge number of casualties. Some of which are students that nobody wants to take, because they don't want to risk dragging their scores down. In programming something much milder than this is known as a "death march".
Currently the only people even considering becoming teachers either have no alternative, or have blinded themselves as to what they are getting into.
Thank you for that piece of Republican dogma... (Score:3, Insightful)
You'd be surprised. A full professor is pretty well paid at the moment anyway. A lot of them have explicitly chosen to stay in academia because they prefer the assurance of being essentially unsackable rather than a huge pay packet. If tenure was removed, you'd have to radically in
Re:It's not political. (Score:4, Insightful)
And besides, it's incompatible with your point #2. If a kid fails a class, who gets to decide if it was because he couldn't handle it or because the teacher was incompetent?
Re:It's not political. (Score:3, Insightful)
See? So it is political. #2 Kids who aren't in school to learn need to be removed. Yeah, so be it, some kids don't get schooled. If they nor their parents can put forth the effort, then that's too bad. Sure, we'll hear sob stories about how some are going to get left behind. Let me clue you in to a little secret. If you hold back our best and brightest to make sure no one is "left behind" then you're going to D
wingnuttery IS political (Score:3, Interesting)
That'd sure make it easier to get rid of all of those stubborn jerks that don't want to teach creationism in their classes.
#2 Kids who aren't in school to learn need to be removed.
Yeah, if little Joey hasn't figured out by the second grade that he loves school, kick him out. Let him push a broom at the mill for a few years. That'll learn him.
#3 Parenting. Why aren't parents do "fun" things like having foreign langauge weeks where they all try to speak different lang
A scientific study was done, results inconclusive (Score:4, Funny)
Item #21 (Score:3, Insightful)
Science takes a back seat to profit (Score:5, Insightful)
How many corporations have scaled back or even eliminated their R&D departments because they won't turn a profit next quarter?
How much money does big oil spend to suppress new technologies?
Overly restrictive patents bar research by all who can't cough up the money to expand on somebody else's work.
Kids are actively discouraged from tinkering for fear of hurting themselves or hurting somebody else's bottom line. Want to experiment with chemistry? Here's some lemon juice and baking soda - but we'll arrest you if you put it into a plastic bottle. Want to play with model rockets? Prove you aren't a terrorist. Want to hack your X-Box and see how circuits work? The FBI'll be knocking on your door. Biology? Take pictures of a worm, but make sure it isn't endangered. Engineering? The city'll come and fine you for not building your treehouse to code.
When you get to college... how many professors actually teach science and how many spend all of their time seeking new grants to ensure the university can afford a new football stadium?
And of the precious little research that actually is happening, how much is classified and never sees the light of day
Re:Science takes a back seat to profit (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF are you talking about? You do realize that research grant money goes directly into research, and that things like building football stadiums come from a completely different pot, mostly from alumni contributions ...
I really don't know how to respond to this. Your post makes me think that you have been near a Universit
decreasing engineer wages !?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
"...The cost of employing one chemist or engineer in the United States is equal to about five chemists in China and 11 engineers in India."
And how exactly will increasing the number of chemists, engineers and scientists graduating each year increase the appeal of this career to students currently choosing careers in business and law?
My thesis is that in increasing the amounts of graduates in sciences and "lowering prices" they will fail to actually improve the situation.
Microeconomics [wikipedia.org] (oh yeah... THAT natural law) says that increasing the supply of these graduates will DECREASE the price they cost -- in other words by training more... they get cheaper!
College kids are choosing business and law because (a) there are more jobs and (b) they pay better. Decreasing the pay chemists and engineers receive won't improve employment in this area. Why are there less computer scientists these days. Oh yeah, no jobs.
Hence I posit that: Decreasing the cost of engineering and chemists will do nothing to increase the United States' competitiveness in these scientific endeavors
m
Give up (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, I'm absolutely not one of the US-haters common here, but I can see what way your contry is heading. Things like general education has a huge social inertia or whatever you want to call it. Changing the course of a society takes a huge, concentrated effort over a long period of time. Thats not gonna happen, more like the opposite.
(and spare me the comments about my spelling)
Or ... it is 'globalization'? (Score:3, Insightful)
Changing the course of a society takes a huge, concentrated effort over a long period of time.
This is certainly true, and points out one reason why the U.S. is sliding in science and other countries (primarily in Europe and Asia) are reaching and passing contributions U.S. science has made. By "U.S. science" I mean companies that are essentially headquartered in the U.S. and are supported by U.S. universities. That doesn't matter to science - but it's salient here because we're talking about the state o
In a world... (Score:5, Insightful)
Other problems include:
- poor pay
- an increasing tendancy among scientists to take theory as fact
- increased outsourcing by american business
- unmotivated and/or knowledgable teachers(see poor pay as the reason for that)
- Greater competition by other countries
- The fanatical religious destruction of the scientific community.
Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who cares (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, management can easily be outsourced. The only thing that can't be outsourced are service jobs. Want to be sure of having a job in the future? Become a teacher, pharmacist, plumber, doctor, lawyer, fireman, policeman, or any of the many other jobs that one can't telecommute to because they are required by the laws of physics to be in physical proximity to their clients.
Legal outsourcing -- especially to India (Score:3, Informative)
A pharmacist in India could fill your prescription in Poughkippsie. A layer of telecom for reading the prescription, and running the machine that picks the pills off the shelf an
Re:Who cares (Score:3, Informative)
Other countries can compete for now on the basis of lower labor costs, and lower cost of environmental and other compliance. You can afford alot of waste and mismanagement in that stage, but when you're
A Raft of Intelligent Design in Education Bills (Score:3, Funny)
Suggested Names for Bills Requiring Intelligent Design in Schools:
Trofim's Law
Global Laughingstock Initiative
No Child Left Secular
Equal Time for Unbelievable Bullshit Measure
Last Nail in the Coffin for Public Education Act
Irreducible Complexity Sophistry Initiative
Created for Excellence and Metric Elimination Bill
National Irrelevance Act
Folly of Rewarding A While Hoping for B (Score:4, Insightful)
bad in the long run (Score:3, Interesting)
But one has to ask: if the US sucks up many of the smartest, most rational people in the world, how are nations like China, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan ever going to advance politically? They need an educated middle class, because it's the educated middle class, not the wealthy and not the blue collar workers, that drives nations towards democracy and freedom.
The best thing the US can do to fight terrorism and totalitarian regimes in the world is to educate people from around the world and then send them back. Of course, realistically, that's not going to happen.
It's a non-problem (Score:3, Interesting)
Law of Supply and Demand at work (Score:3, Informative)
This is being driven by labor costs. Technical workers in China and India work for a fraction of the pay of US technical workers. So the work is done there. Less manufacturing work and engineering work in the US means fewer technical workers are needed in the US.
During the recession of the early 90s, US companies laid off employees by the thousands ever other week. During the past 5 years, US companies having been laying of employees by the tens of thousands. This means there are lots of unemployed and underemployed technical people. Prospective students see this and reconsider their field of study. Technical curricula are hard and required lots of work. The reward for obtaining an engineering degree has been dramatically reduced.
Anything done to artificially stimulate the graduation rates of engineers will only add to the numbers of unemployed and underemployed engineers. Just because you graduate more engineers does not mean companies will spring up to employ them.
the panel of "experts" has lost its mind (Score:3, Interesting)
And on the other hand, they advocate a massive program to train many more engineers and scientists than we already have, but to what end?
If there is no neutralization of the cost of labor differentials between the United States and India/China, all of these newly created scientists and engineers will be unemployed. How is THAT going to help things?
In theory, in the fullness of time, the third-world economies will expand and their costs of labor will rise, as ours is falling due to inability to compete. Somewhere in the middle things will meet, and we will be able to sustain a population of technical workers.
But in the interim, I see nothing being proposed by the panel of "experts" to prevent careers in technical areas or the sciences from being stigmatized as "loser" careers, good routes to unemployment.
Keynes said "But in the long run, we are all dead", meaning that one cannot only plan things based on a long term point of view. The short term must be also accommodated, else we'll never make it to the long term goal.
Somebody needs to devise a plan that will preserve a national capability in the sciences, and will be not make our economy non-competitive in the process. It's certainly not going to be the Republicans, as they represent only the rich, with the rest of us as a resource to be plundered, and it's not going to be the Democrats, as they see business as a resource to be plundered.
George Bush doesn't care about scientists (Score:3, Funny)
Neal Stephenson on science in the U.S. (Score:3, Interesting)
The success of the U.S. has not come from one consistent cause, as far as I can make out. Instead the U.S. will find a way to succeed for a few decades based on one thing, then, when that peters out, move on to another. Sometimes there is trouble during the transitions. So, in the early-to-mid-19th century, it was all about expansion westward and a colossal growth in population. After the Civil War, it was about exploitation of the world's richest resource base: iron, steel, coal, the railways, and later oil.
For much of the 20th century it was about science and technology. The heyday was the Second World War, when we had not just the Manhattan Project but also the Radiation Lab at MIT and a large cryptology industry all cooking along at the same time. The war led into the nuclear arms race and the space race, which led in turn to the revolution in electronics, computers, the Internet, etc. If the emblematic figures of earlier eras were the pioneer with his Kentucky rifle, or the Gilded Age plutocrat, then for the era from, say, 1940 to 2000 it was the engineer, the geek, the scientist. It's no coincidence that this era is also when science fiction has flourished, and in which the whole idea of the Future became current. After all, if you're living in a technocratic society, it seems perfectly reasonable to try to predict the future by extrapolating trends in science and engineering.
It is quite obvious to me that the U.S. is turning away from all of this. It has been the case for quite a while that the cultural left distrusted geeks and their works; the depiction of technical sorts in popular culture has been overwhelmingly negative for at least a generation now. More recently, the cultural right has apparently decided that it doesn't care for some of what scientists have to say. So the technical class is caught in a pincer between these two wings of the so-called culture war. Of course the broad mass of people don't belong to one wing or the other. But science is all about diligence, hard sustained work over long stretches of time, sweating the details, and abstract thinking, none of which is really being fostered by mainstream culture.
As a far left socialist my take on it is: (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism has a slight case of ADHD, and companies are no longer worth more than the margin of profit you can rake home in between buying it and selling it. Whatever they produce is irrelevant, as are their workers.
Thus, capitalism is killing itself, because it promotes short term goldfish-like behavior. Investors invest in a range of companies, out of which a certain % is doomed beforehand and the loss is regarded as natural.
What does this mean in the long term? well for one thing it stiffles innovation, no incitaments for long term research, those who holds the whip and wrings results out of the peons (scientists and engineers) becomes far more important. In the long term brands are also becoming irrelevant, as the market moves faster and faster and no-one has a personal vested intrest in them they just dont have continuity or stability. Here one day, gone the next.
Re:Simple reasons. (Score:3, Insightful)