Slashdot Mirror
Top Advisory Panel Warns Erosion of U.S. Science
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."
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 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, 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.
Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
In response to a radio programme about Intelligent Design, I wrote the following, concerning the potential erorsion of science in Saskatchewan classrooms:
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.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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.
Let's get something straight. The pending doom of American science has very little to do with our political climate.
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.
If you invest a quarter of a million dollars into a foreign student (that's roughly the cost of a phd these days, at least at my university), sending them back to their countries is plainly dumb. Sure, they may out-compete Americans in the States, but that's still better than out-competing Americans from abroad.
The Raven
From the FA:
"...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 (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
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.
In Asia, India, Japan (to a lesser degree), many parts of eastern Europe its prestigeous to be a scientist or engineer. Parents still push their sons in that direction. The president of China is an engineer, the new German leader has a PhD in physics.
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.
Most people, even the so called religions right are NOT anti-science.
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
At the core, religion teaches you to venerate the unknown, and treat it as unknowable, while science teaches you to investigate it.
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.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
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.
IF (and in all honesty I don't believe it) what you are saying is true, then this "silent majority" of Christians had better start speaking up for what they believe in. The guys getting all the airtime and press are busy furiously digging a trench back to the fourteenth century, and yelling at full volume about how great the view is from said trench.
:)
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.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?