Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Top Advisory Panel Warns Erosion of U.S. Science

Posted by Zonk on from the raise-your-hand-if-you-are-surprised dept.

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."

134 of 954 comments (clear)

  1. Not Surprising by geomon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Considering how the attack on science by religious conservatives has reached a fever pitch, I am not surprised that fewer people are entering the hard sciences as a career. When every scientific discovery is met by screeches and howls by the religious right, the general public is left with the impression that scientists are just another protected minority who are forcing their views on the rest of society. There is little to no discourse on *how* these scientific discoveries are vetted; but even if the scientific method were explained in detail, the public has shown it still wants to believe in magic.

    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.

    --
    "Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
    1. Re:Not Surprising by LeonGeeste · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wait: you're linking Cato, and you're not even mentioning the malign effects of a whole state having to obey religious conservatives, rather than parents being able to send their kids to a private school that reflects their beliefs?

      --
      Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
    2. Re:Not Surprising by cparisi · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, let's pray to God that people come to their senses!

    3. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Any "student of history" also knows the Scope's conviction was later overturned.
      Any "student of history" also knows that the courts have ruled it is illegal to teach creation science and also illegal to prevent the teaching of evolution.
      Any "student of history" also knows that the courts have ruled that teaching "intelligent
      design" is tantamount to teaching "creation science".

      The courts have had our back time and time again.

      The problem isn't that things haven't changed. It's that they have. Fundamentalist nonsense is heavily influencing mainstream Christians. It is influencing the legislative branch of our government more than ever. And now it may influence the Supreme Court as well.

    4. Re:Not Surprising by Comatose51 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "The balance of power has already tipped decidedly to non-US schools in technical training in these fields and will continue."

      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.

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    5. Re:Not Surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is little to no discourse on *how* these scientific discoveries are vetted; but even if the scientific method were explained in detail, the public has shown it still wants to believe in magic.

      It's not just religious belief--this also points to a certain anti-intellectualism in a country whose public education system has been gutted. Ignorant people don't like people who correct them, and we're in danger of churning out more ignorant people than ever before.

    6. Re:Not Surprising by kbonin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to agree with the other posters here that this isn't about religion.

      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...

    7. Re:Not Surprising by isa-kuruption · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think placing the blame simply on the "religious right" is a little biased. It is obvious you are not religious, and it seems like you may even fear religious people, but to blame the lackluster teaching of science in schools on the "religious right" is simply wrong.

      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.

    8. Re:Not Surprising by dancpsu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Education funding. Huge problem in many states

      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 is being fought tooth and nail in an all out television and radio ad campaign in California. The teachers unions don't care about if a teacher is failing. They want them to keep their job, and have pay raises early and often for even the worst teachers.

      One of the problems is how one can evaluate how well a teacher can teach. The students probably know, but wouldn't be trusted to give an honest opinion. Principals don't spend much time in classrooms. Parents don't either. The ideal would be to have a good Principal to be able to select and trade teachers across districts, hiring new to replace the worst performers, and offering more money to proven good teachers. The problem would be getting rid of teachers union limits, and tenure in order to make that possible.

      Vouchers would essentially provide this, and the group most against vouchers are the teachers unions, who have the democrat party in their pocket. And the unions are able to sway votes by using union dues to make misleading advertisements and fund democrat campaigns. All laws promoted to limit union sponsorship of political campaigns with dues they have essentially extorted from their members have failed because they already have so much power.

      --
      "Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
    9. Re:Not Surprising by the_real_bto · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It isn't just science education. It's the math education, too. Math education in this country sucks. Really sucks.

      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

    10. Re:Not Surprising by saskboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe he's talking about things as if it were a perfect world. Obvously the religious fundamentalists do have significant influence on schools as indicated by the number of states like Kansas that adopted Intelligent Design, or stickers questioning the validity of evolution.

      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 be seen if science is safe even in the long term challenges we face.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    11. Re:Not Surprising by Ragesoss · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yes, there are major flaws with the way science is taught, and also the attitudes kids have toward science. Ironically, Intelligent Design and even straight-forward creationism (at least in places where the accepted science is actually taught) are probably doing more good than bad. I remeber reading an article several years ago from an education journal that showed that kids who engaged with the conflict, particularly the ones who took the creationist side, actually knew evolutionary biology much better than those who did not.

      The way I see it, anything that gets kids to ask question and find something interesting in science, even if what gets them interested is a theory that is completely wrong, is a good thing. (I'm definitely opposed to teaching Intelligent Design in high school, or in any circumstances as being better than or equal to the evolutionary story, but I think it might have long-term benefits even if it never comes to anything scientifically.) Particularly with Intelligent Design, it encourages kids to actually learn the relevant biology to come to a conclusion. Even if the biology they get through in high school isn't sophisticated enough to make an accurate judgement, it isn't like being wrong is fatal. At that level, accurate conclusions are the least important thing; the key is asking questions and developing an interest in science. In grad school they can worry about being right.

    12. Re:Not Surprising by Mournblade · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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?"

      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.

    13. Re:Not Surprising by greg_barton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

      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.

    14. Re:Not Surprising by FatRatBastard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Considering that this decline has been taking place for a while its been happening during both Republican and Democratic administrations, as well as during Republican and Democrat controlled congresses I think you can safely say this goes beyond the "recent attacks by those big, bad God worshipers". Lets not forget that the Feds don't even have all that much control over individual school districts.

      I used to teach math at university and it was shocking how many incoming freshmen did even know the basics of algebra. And this was in a strong Democratic state during a Democratic administration and a Democrat controlled congress. Does that mean that I can lay the blame at the feet of the Democrats?

      You want to point fingers? Point them at schools, specifically many public schools where a solid math/science curriculum, let alone a decent learning environment in general, is hard to find. And if "religion" was to blame then how do you explain away the fact that on a whole students of private Catholic schools usually get a better all round education (math and science included) than public school students?

      I live in the District, where per student funding is among the highest in the nation and is certainly no hotbed of fundamentalism, but once my kids hit school age you can bet I'll be paying to send my kids to a private Catholic school (and I'm an atheist). Why? Because the schools are shit (there is no other way to put it). And it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with bad (and corrupt) management, a stifling (not to mention corrupt) teachers' union and a useless (and did I mention corrupt) City gov't. Until recently you could graduate from a DCPS high school without ever taking a math course. And you wonder why things are getting worse?

      The "big bad religious folks causing people to get dumber" is about as logical as ID theory (i.e. not) and misses the point: US primary and secondary schools just aren't that good, and some are downright awful. Until *that* changes nothing else will.

    15. Re:Not Surprising by xPsi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      I basically agree with the spirit and main thrust of your post. I don't mean to rail on your post too much, because I did enjoy it overall. However, there are a couple issues.

      First, let's be careful. Your aileron example is exactly the fact-oriented, non-critical thinking measure of intellect and science skill you just railed on in your previous sentences! It goes to show that even a well-intended individual as yourself may, in a real classroom setting, make exactly the same mistakes as the very system you are being critical of.

      The critical thinking version would not ask questions like "do you know the NAME of obscure airplane part X". It would ask students to THINK: "how do airplanes fly? Once in the air, does anyone know how an airplane is able to bank or roll?" Then you have yourself a nice critical thinking environment. You discuss physical principles and build an understanding of the physics. Who really cares exactly what some engineering dodad is called? Once you have the understanding, then give it a name.

      Also, I suggest if you are going to make a claim about some some study you read, you probably should back it up with a reference. Anecdotal propagation of information is, in my opinion, part of the problem with the system.

      --
      i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
  2. yeah we may be slipping in real science by Mantorp · · Score: 5, Funny

    but we more than make up for it with intelligent desing

  3. Erosion of intelligence in general by nokilli · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It isn't just science. It literally hurts to be intelligent today. The kid comes into the world, sees what a great big pile of shit it all is, and then is given two choices: work hard to excel at making it an even bigger pile of shit, or smoke pot and listen to music or play games on the computer all day.

    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.

    1. Re:Erosion of intelligence in general by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It literally hurts to be intelligent today.

      And not just today. They've been calling smart people nerds/geeks for years. The irony is these labels are negative insults towards a positive trait.

    2. Re:Erosion of intelligence in general by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful
      work hard to excel at making it an even bigger pile of shit, or smoke pot and listen to music or play games on the computer all day


      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.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:Erosion of intelligence in general by JudgeFurious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make a few good points here but you lost me with the whole "Take the Nazi out of Amerika" bit. That just tells me you're bright but you don't have the first clue about real Nazis. If you really understood them then you wouldn't even think about drawing that comparison.

        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 good that you're ignorance is showing on a subject like this.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    4. Re:Erosion of intelligence in general by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Luddites just love ignorance. They fear that people can be empowered by
      technology because they know in their hearts they are stupid and would lose
      control. People don't like smart people, and tolerate them only so much as they
      can exploit them. Look at how the first ones rounded up in any fascist state are
      the intellectuals. Yes there is a huge mass of intelligent individuals who
      choose to 'drop out' of the so called modern reality. I had the choice to work
      on defence (attack) technologies or do something useful for mankind. For a while
      I worked in healthcare. Then in the media business. With each new job I got more
      and more disaffected and cynical at how technology is misused and abused for
      corporate agendas and how ordinary people are exploited and controlled by it. I
      reached the point where as a well educated computer scientist I take a salary a
      street sweeper and enjoy the calm unpressured almost Buddhist existence of just
      doing my own thing and writing code for what I like. The only science and
      technology that still interests me is fundamental stuff, particle physics, but
      I'm not even in in the league of smartness to contribute there. Right now I'm
      looking at joining Medicine Sans Frontiers or the ICRC to find some
      humanitarian, worthwhile outlet for my skills. If you want to find people who
      are passionate about science and technology benefitting mankind I think you have
      to look outside of orthodox society to the fringes. The corporate world is a
      spiritual death to an enquiring and passionate mind. And by sitting in smoking
      weed all day, you just let them win. The world is desperate for capable scientists
      to tackcle new challenges from the environment, you can't make much money this way
      but it's better than staying inside forever squandering your potential as a 'rebellion'.
      That's what the ignorati want most.

  4. Step one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    remove Bush administration...

  5. Teh pain! by Kelson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Copied verbatim from TFA:

    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 loose its privileged position."

    If nothing else convinces you of the magnitude of this problem, consider the fact that The New York Times confused "lose" and "loose."

  6. Dear Process Of Erosion; by mekkab · · Score: 2, Funny

    Given the United States penchant for spin, as evidenced by its political problems, we feel it necessary to warn you that U.S. Science may infact try to state that you don't exist.

    Keep a sharp watch!

    signed,
    Advisory Panel

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
  7. I find this hard to believe... by jferris · · Score: 2, Funny

    Every infomercial I watch talks about how every product is a leading scientific breakthrough for the 21st century. I have a channel on DirecTV that only has infomercials, so I should know. Just wait until Ronco hears about this!

    --
    You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
  8. Expected by sg3000 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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 loose its privileged position.'

    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.
  9. Current administration is working on this... by mobiux · · Score: 3, Funny

    By labeling "intelligent design" as science.

    When the label finally sticks, we'll be in the lead again. YAY!!!
    Kansas will be the new MIT.

    1. Re:Current administration is working on this... by theendlessnow · · Score: 2, Funny
      When the label finally sticks, we'll be in the lead again. YAY!!!

      Boy that is backward. Think of all that paint we already removed to get out the lead.

      ...

      I love English!

  10. I wrote this yesterday by saskboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:I wrote this yesterday by spanklin · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

      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.

  11. International Students by rovingeyes · · Score: 5, Interesting
    "International students in the United States who receive doctorates in science, technology, engineering or math should get automatic one-year visa extensions that allow them to seek employment here. If these students get job offers and pass a security screening test, they should automatically get work permits and expedited residence status. If they cannot get a job, their visas should expire."

    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.

  12. Clasic solution to the perceived shortage by nighthawk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Use the same 20 step solution to the Lawyer and Doctor shortage
    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!

    1. Re:Clasic solution to the perceived shortage by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that regular people don't go out and hire an academic research scientist, like they do a lawyer, so there is no free market at work there. Academic research is a public good just like roads, mass transit, and parks. Some things don't happen without government sponsorship, and fundamental science, by and large, is one of them.

    2. Re:Clasic solution to the perceived shortage by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2, 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.

  13. I really don't think thats it by Gnpatton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really don't feel that religion has anything to do with this. Most people, even the so called religions right are NOT anti-science. Actually, I could easily see any person living in the United States become deeply conserned in loosing its posisition as a top technological and scientific country, even those conservatives you speak of.

    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.

    1. Re:I really don't think thats it by grub · · 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.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:I really don't think thats it by atrizzah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know if your post was meant to be funny or not. The reason is called short-sightedness, and it's prevalent in pretty much everything our government does, i.e. energy policy, foreign policy, economic policy. Need any more examples?

    3. Re:I really don't think thats it by acroyear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The far left has "tree-huggers" who want to get rid of industry, dams, power generators, cars, etc. I don't see anyone on the right making accusations like this as to why we are falling behind.

      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're not profitable. this includes their whole attitude on more oil drilling in alaska, which is constatly stopped by the "green" people of the left. they are using the current oil-price crisis to get through legislation on the justification that if you didn't have to enforce the environmental policies in effect, we could drill and provide cheap oil to americans.

      no, they don't claim we're falling behind scientifically. they claim we're falling behind economically.

      and they COMPLETELY ignore the fact that america is less profitable in the global marketplace not because our "stuff" is more expensive due to regulation, its because our *PEOPLE* are more expensive due to our attitudes about class, cost-of-living, minimum-wage, health care, etc.

      i have no problem with companies outsourcing because american people are expensive. i have a problem with american companies saying our environmental protections are really hurting them and using "think-tank" science to try to justify that false claim.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    4. Re:I really don't think thats it by arkanes · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I totally agree.

      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.

    5. Re:I really don't think thats it by EggyToast · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You touched on it, but I think the dollar argument could use more explanation.

      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.

    6. Re:I really don't think thats it by indifferent+children · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Having a religious mindset and having a scientific mindset are polar opposites.

      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!)

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    7. Re:I really don't think thats it by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      This particular 30 year old is capable of doing math and comprehending compound interest. At this point most of us are in the hole for tens of thousands from college. Then we buy a house that puts us in the hole for hundreds of thousands. The interest rates on both would eat alive any interest earned in a conservative bond type investment portfolio. So you are basically proposing that instead of paying stuff off, we should dump money into what is essentially a baby boomer lottery. We pay into the stock market, they cash out, we are left holding worthless pieces of paper.

      Where do I sign?

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    8. Re:I really don't think thats it by TheCaptain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is it profitable to lose your leading standing in scientific fields?

      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.

    9. Re:I really don't think thats it by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    10. Re:I really don't think thats it by dubl-u · · Score: 3, Insightful

      information censorship in libraries and textbooks is nearly always driven by the religious zealots

      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.

    11. Re:I really don't think thats it by infinite9 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.
    12. Re:I really don't think thats it by arkanes · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ID is a precise example of what I said. Faced with something unknown like the precise mechanics of biogensis (which I know isn't related to evolution, but is brough up a lot in ID), religion teaches that it's the act of an unknown and unknowable creator. Science teaches you to investigate it to determine the cause. Thats one of the reasons *why* ID isn't science. The core facet of ID, the one thats most sympathetic to people, is that when you don't know or you can't see some action, it's God doing it. Faced with incredulity ("irreducible complexity" is a form of argument from incredulity), you accept it as the action of a deity and not something you can further understand.

      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*.

    13. Re:I really don't think thats it by dptalia · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The far left (and what you're talking about is the far, far, far left) has practically no political power in the US.

      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 medical investigations comes immediately to mind. How about defense research Oh, but since it's defense related it's okay to prevent it.

      Researchers who are investigating theories that go against the whole global warming mantra are shutdown or dismissed as quacks. Doctors who fail to find links between cancer and power lines/cell phones/current evil invention are routinely ignored. The left has it's babies you dare not call ugly too.

      How about faking evidence to support a theory? The left did that to show that "endangered" wildlife wasn't as prolific as it was. Indeed, a signifigant number of scientists admit to changing study results. Somehow I don't think it's because of all the crazy far-right folks out there. Or the far left people either.

      Now the far right (and it's far far right too) has it's kooks and wackos, but they're not unique in their positions. And most people, left OR right try to distance themselves from the extremes. But there are reasons why science is in decline. Such as falsifying data. Or the fact that most scientific papers are wrong. Why go into science to lie or screw up when you can get paid much much more to do the same a a marketing weenie?

      --
      Genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, which is why engineers sometimes smell really bad.
    14. Re:I really don't think thats it by arkanes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You consider Michael Moore and Kerry to be in the same political strata? Well, whatever. Regardless, if you define the far left as these people then the OP is wrong because they are not interfering with the development of science. The kind of far leftists who would have no power. You can't have it both ways.

    15. Re:I really don't think thats it by the+arbiter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
    16. Re:I really don't think thats it by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Spend 300 billion a year, and tie up a significant percentage of your youth in the military, and that drains from other sources including sciences. I know a few engineers who are over in Iraq right now.

      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 100 when they put in a minisule amount of money compared to what they put into the system (used to be 1% of payroll), you have to steal it from those with no political voice (under 18).

      Need any more examples?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    17. Re:I really don't think thats it by Radres · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The stock market can't go poof in one day? If you think we're invulnerable now, just think what would happen if we ran out of oil, not to mention any of several other catastrophe scenarios. And at 22 years old, you know everything there is about life and finances. I'm 24, but I could see how a 30 year old might have problems saving money. Just imagine your current financial situation + supporting 2 kids; even worse: a divorce. I'm not saying that it's dumb to save for retirement, but the idea of not saving for retirement also has its supporters.

    18. Re:I really don't think thats it by bombadillo · · Score: 2

      For what it is worth every Republican christian in the SouthEast that I have met believes that evolution is a lie or are seriously consider ID. On the other hand the Democratic Christians actually hold scientific research in high regard. The religous right is ruining it for all the other Christians.

    19. Re:I really don't think thats it by bombadillo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Spot on! It seems like people are taking to much stock in the, "You don't have to know how to do something to manage" philosophy. The fact is to be a good manager you do have to know the business of your group pretty damn well. How else can you know to put your people in the right spots and recognize the barriers. The only time a manager who doesn't "know" can do well is when his team consists of superstars.

      Also good engineers generally enjoy what they are doing and don't want to change to managment. You will only get promoted if you show interest and ask. Thus there is a real lack of qualified technical managers.

    20. Re:I really don't think thats it by peaworth · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, let me just speak up and say there is more than one out there. I am a Christian and an engineer, and one in no way impinges upon the other.

      Christianity is about faith in what happened and why, not about how it happened.
      Scientific investigation examines how it happened. Further investigation and discovery only seeks to clarify the mechanisms and processes in the world around us. It should have no effect on your faith, whether in Christianity or another religion. (I am not talking ID here, that is just a disguised attempt to treat religion as science.)

      Portions of the Bible are clearly intended to be taken as generalizations, not an exact decision tree / flow chart. Anyone who does not see this is fooling themselves.

      Oh, and you are right about this view being silent, IMHO. Probably because people that have belief system have better things to do than running around trying to impose their will on others.

    21. Re:I really don't think thats it by infinite9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      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 teaching intelegent design in science class. Instead, I would rather see something of a compromise. Often times, evolution is taught as though it is absolute fact, leaving out the "theory" in the theory of evolution, as if science has all the answers. Later, some other discovery is made changing some of the facts. To most christians, and to me as well, the science that theory of evolution is based upon feels very shaky. A bone here, a tooth there, and all of a sudden, there's a complete artist's rendition of a mystery animal, and it's fact that it existed. Now clearly, it's hard to argue with other facts such as complete dinosaur skeletons. So there's obviously more to the story than we can devine (ha!) from the bible or science.

      One of the things that I hear christians complaining about is how christianity is now the target of discrimination in public schools. I've experienced this for myself. I think what's really going on is that in some parts of the country the ultra-left is winning and in others, the ultra-right is winning. And of course, we all hear our side's horror stories about what happened in some school district somewhere. I'd like to see a highschool comparative religion class that talks about all of the major religions including christianity. This is where intellegent design belongs.

      The type of christians I meet is probably a function of the people I associate with. That would be mostly science/computer people, and people who have participated in international adoption. I think upbringing, education, and intellegence has just as much of an effect on christians as it does everyone else.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    22. Re:I really don't think thats it by Damvan · · Score: 2, Informative

      "The left has prevented any new highway construction in California of 30 years."

      What? Guess two of the freeways I will drive home today don't exist. 105 Freeway (completed in 1998) and 210 extension (completed in 2002). Both of those were built within the last 10 years.

      Didn't you say something about falsifying data?

    23. Re:I really don't think thats it by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm NROTC, so the US Navy is footing the bill

      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 in day when colleges and universities actually had standards that were fairly difficult to meet.

      There's probably a lot of people who could great great educations here (or MIT, or where ever) and CAN'T AFFORD IT.

      There are two avenues for these folks:

      - scholarships, if they're bright enough. If they aren't bright enough, then what the fuck are they doing going to college in the first place? College isn't a right, it's a privilege, and only the privileged (in terms of actual brainpower) should enjoy it. Anything else is a waste of resources.

      - loans. Take some personal responsbility. If you desperately want that education and don't have the grey matter required to win a scholarship, then resign yourself to the fact that you're actually going to have to PAY for the service. You aren't entitled to that service; you sure as hell don't "deserve" that service. If you want it, then buck up, act like a man, and pay for it, or promise to pay for it with future income - YOUR future income, not mine.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    24. Re:I really don't think thats it by wkitchen · · Score: 2, Interesting
      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.
      I mostly agree with the point you're making, but not necessarily with your example. A "scientific mindset" regarding the existence of a deity does not conclude that deities (or more specifically, creators) can not exist *, but only that we have not adequate evidence to conclude that one does. "I don't know" can be a very scientific answer. Much more so than claiming certainty about knowlege that one does not actually posess.

      As to the existence of a deity being a "supernatural" matter, I'd have to say that if a "deity" could be scientifically shown to exist, then it could no longer be considered supernatural at all. "Supernatural" is a word that we apply to that which is either outside of our knowlege, or that which does not exist. If it is objectively and demonstrably real, then what else would it be but a part of nature? The word "nature" is a lot like the word "universe". It expands to encompass whatever we have knowlege of. I suspect that this "deity" would also cease to be thought of as a deity, along with it's demotion from the misterious world of the supernatural (or promotion, depending on your point of view).

      But I do agree that it is possible for a person to posess a religious mindset about religious matters, yet still be capable of approaching scientific matters scientifically. If that were not possible, a great many accomplished scientists could not have existed.


      * One can reasonably conclude that a specific deity (as opposed to deities in general) does not exist, if the definition of that deity includes characteristics that are readily testable.
    25. Re:I really don't think thats it by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I hate to break it to you, but most really good universities offer very little in the way of merit based scholarships. I know quite a few people here who are on aid scholarships, but that's because the University decided that there parents couldn't afford it, not because they've EARNED it more. Maybe "back in your day, when they actually had standards" they gave merit money, today its mostly for poor people.

      For example: My g/f goes to Georgetown University, SFS (School of Foreign Service) which is the place to go if you're into language / politics like she is. She's fluent in French, working on Arabic, and planning on graduating with a Masters in 4 - 4.5 years. (she, like me, took ~ 10 A.P. courses in HS, so she is pretty much skipped her sophomore year) She works 20 hours a week, does Army ROTC, and just recently decided to drop the sailing team in favor of the Equestrian Team. She has a 3.7 at the best school anywhere for her concentration. The university offered her basically ZERO in terms of merit scholarships. It might have been something like 2 grand/year, which is roughly 5% off the total cost. She got more in terms of finianical aid, but she decided it wasn't enough and went with the AROTC idea.

      Basically, the only place right now where you can get a full ride, non-sports (ie, involving actual acedemic merit) scholarship is the military. Both my g/f and I decided to "Take some personal responsbility," and went for it. I could have gone in state for free (VA tech was basically offering to pay me...) but I wanted to get a real top notch education, so I'm waking up at 0500 when everyone else is still sleeping off the night before's party.

      I'm glad that when /where ever you went to school, they gave you cash, but today at top notch Colleges, they don't look at your merit when they're giving out scholarships. The article suggested that maybe we should remedy that by offering college money to good students in return for teaching, but you decided that to just blame religion, because attacking people is much easier than attacking actual problems.

  14. It's not political. by Puls4r · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:It's not political. by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hmm.

      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 state to federal), so it's hard to find a stable foundation from which to teach anything. Teachers can't teach what they want. They teach what they're paid to teach.

      #3 fails because nobody is obliged to be the kind of parent *you* want. Too bad. Find a social structure that everyone agrees on (good luck) or form an educational institution that acknowledges different parents raise different kids.

    2. Re:It's not political. by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Let's get something straight. The pending doom of American science has very little to do with our political climate.

      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.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    3. Re:It's not political. by OldAndSlow · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The pending doom of American science has very little to do with our political climate.

      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 five chemists in China and 11 engineers in India.
      Chemical companies last year shut 70 facilities in the United States and marked 40 for closure. Of 120 large chemical plants under construction globally, one is in the United States and 50 are in China.

      This relates to the political climate because it has been the policy of the US to flatten all trade barriers everywhere. It has been most successful where it has been easiest: removing barriers to imports into the US. They are almost all gone (except for agriculture), so scientific and engineering jobs are leaving the US. Smart kids know the jobs are leaving and so, except for personal satisfaction, there are no rewards for studying science and math.

      This is the direct result of the WTO and its predecessor, GATT. And both WTO and GATT were creations of US policy.

      We are held in thrall to economic theories that will, ultimately, cause the US economy to implode. For an example of what that looks like, see the recent collapse of the Argentine economy. (by the way, the US trade deficit for August was $59 billion. It hasn't been less than $50 billion, even one month, since Spring of 04)

      Blaming teachers or students or parents is just another wookie. When science is rewarded like poetry is rewarded, we will have as many good scientists as we have good poets.

    4. Re:It's not political. by Have+Blue · · Score: 3, Insightful

      #1: Absolutely not. If you think teachers just regurgitating what they're told to teach is a problem today, removing tenure would make it a hundred times worse. Tenure is what allows teachers to exert control over what happens in the classroom and to avoid being bound to someone else's agenda. This is why ID is being legislated into classrooms, because you can't just order them to put it in the curriculum.

      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?

    5. Re:It's not political. by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Remove all the buzzword-techno-political crap that's found it's way into teaching and just TEACH.

      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 DESTROY the best and brightest. Or at least you'll have managed to severely inhibit their potential.

      No. This is a good reason for kids to get more individual attention (smaller class size). It's a good reason to divide the kids up into groups based on achievement, like honors classes and "gifted and talented" programs. However, kicking kids out of school outright because they aren't doing well and aren't motivated is just a good way to breed a low-class bunch of thugs who feel like they've never really had a chance.

      Kids are kids. Most of them aren't going to see the value of their education at 13, but that's not sufficient reason to toss them out. I know it's not politically correct to separate out the "smart" kids from the "dumb" kids, because "it'll hurt their self esteem," but that's basically what needs to happen. As much as possible, students should be getting help targeted directly to their needs, and they should be allowed to learn at their own pace, even (especially) when that means they're excelling and outpacing the rest of their class. That's when you find rewards for that child, as well as more advanced/challenging work (but don't simply give them MORE work, as it's a disincentive to excel).

    6. Re:It's not political. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > #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
      > just TEACH.

      Ahh, another armchair quarterback with quick-fix for all the world's ills. Let me guess - neither you nor anyone in your family works in acedemia.

      Your first sentence shows that you're really clueless in this subject area. Think, for a minute, about what tenure is FOR (and by the way, tenure is less common now than it used to be, so you can't blame any DECLINE in education quality on tenure). One thing tenure is for is to keep politcal crap *from* affecting teaching and basic research.

      And if lack of tenure meant that "bad" employees would be gotten rid of, then that widely-known Scott Adams comic strip some Slashdotters love would be awfully damned dull. The pointy-haired boss doesn't have tenure.

      You'll also have to be specific about what you mean by "performance". Do you mean acheivement tests? Do you mean job outcomes? Student surveys? Peer surveys? Some other measure you don't mention? In teaching, it's just a BIT harder to measure performance than it is, say, for a ditchdigger.

  15. investment by vlad_petric · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

  16. Fundamentalists *help* science by LeonGeeste · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They force biologists to more rigorously prove the case for evolution. If not for this pressure, they probably never would have even bothered to address irreducible complexity issues. Imagine if creationists hadn't mainstreamed discussion of evolution? Then only a (relatively) tiny cartel of biologists would be analyzing the issue. Thanks to creationists, lots of people are poring over the evidence for evolution.

    Imagine if the Bible said something about quantum physics (yeah, yeah, I know you can claim it does, but bear with me here). Wouldn't that speed up the demise of bad theories in that field?

    --
    Rank my idea: http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/node/531
  17. A scientific study was done, results inconclusive by digitaldc · · Score: 3, Funny

    In response to the need to find out why scientific competetiveness was lacking, a study was initiated to solve this conundrum. However, the study was deemed inconclusive due to the lack of resources, mismatched numerical systems, and little or no understanding of the core problem.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  18. Item #21 by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Block all U.S. based access to Slashdot. We've seen the effect it has had on our youth. We could cripple our enemies while at the same time bring up the IQ level here.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  19. What? And join the "intellectual elite"? by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, what other country disparages its "intellectual elite"?

    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 tries to tell them differently. Which is why you see the fight to include things like "Intelligent Design" on the same level as tested and verified scientific findings.

    1. Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? by TGK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The People's Republic of China (early on)
      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.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    2. Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? by Delphiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jesus, this should be modded WAY down. When the "intellectual elite" talk this way about the "average" people, why shouldn't they hate you? Assuming you are in some way qualified to be considered in the intellectual elite. My experience is that most people who think they are so qualified, aren't particularly impressive. If intellectual elitists are going to talk about average people like they're chimps, a the way people on slashdot usually do, how can you blame anyone for not wanting to listen to what you have to say?

      --

      Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".

    3. Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? by the_real_bto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It seems to me that maybe the "hatred towards smart people" might actually be "hatred of smart people who try to tell me what to think and get pissed when I don't automatically believe them."

      When I see, read, or hear about smart people who actually do cool things, I never hear about people hating them. People love Albert Einstein. People love guys like Henry Ford. I bet most people think highly of the engineers and scientists at Motorola, Intel, IBM and Google. People like and respect smart people who do smart people things. At least that has been my experience.

      And I'm not talking about school either. School is often insidious torture for smart people. But that isn't society's fault, that is the school's fault.

    4. Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If intellectual elitists are going to talk about average people like they're chimps, a the way people on slashdot usually do, how can you blame anyone for not wanting to listen to what you have to say?

      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?

    5. Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? by blueg3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Average people are chimps. At least the sure act like chimps.

      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 damned thing and don't try, but are more than happy to push their poorly-thought-out opinion in your face.

    6. Re:What? And join the "intellectual elite"? by MoonChildCY · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There is a wonderful article I've read lately that tries to identify why intellectuals in general seem to dislike capitalism, which seems to get to the point of your argument.

      The basic idea behind it is school. School is a microcosm meant to prepare people to enter society. Only their reward systems are different. Whoever get rewarded in school (the straight-A student usually) has a hard time being rewarded in society, which tends to make the better students stay in school, while the others get out to make the money. This naturaly introduces jealousy, which in term brings eliticism on behalf of those who feel they are not rewarded as they should be.

      The article is at http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1. html and is written by Robert Nozick.

  20. Science takes a back seat to profit by keraneuology · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A major part of the problem is that profit is more important than innovation. Pure, unadulterated research for the sake of discovering new and better ways of doing things or even just learning something new is pretty much dead.

    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

    --
    If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
    1. Re:Science takes a back seat to profit by phritz · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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?

      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 University recently, or that you weren't paying much attention if you were.

      And of the precious little research that actually is happening, how much is classified and never sees the light of day

      Every single tenured faculty member I know (and, being a graduate student, I know way too many) is completely obsessed with their research. Those who aren't simply can't get hired. On what basis to can you possibly say that there is 'precious little' research happening? IMHO, there's TOO MUCH research happening and not enough time spent teaching.

      Also, how much research is classified? I'm sure it's different at National Labs and Military Research Facilities, but of the 200 or so research projects in my department, the number is exactly 0.

      There are many, many problems with our higher education system, but you're shooting blanks here, friend.

  21. Real science answers to real science questions by biznes2biznes · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why did it take a "Top Advisory Panel" to tell us this? Real science answers to real science questions

  22. decreasing engineer wages !?!? by mikers · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  23. People get scammed now by saskboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Media in a lot of respects is responsible for the slide into a dumbing down of our society. The venerable Jon Stewart for example may have common sense when it comes to domestic politics and comedy, but he sucks at science. His eyes glaze over whenever a scientific topic comes up, and the jokes are always lame when he's discussing space or discovery.

    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 reason that the quality will go down. The problem is that too many people believe the drivel they read, and don't think about it in a critical way.

    Stewart had Outkast on his show, and the guy was playing with his PDA the entire time. Stewart obviously made a joke about it. But what saddened me is Outkast was bragging about his new home water filtration system, and was telling Steward how dirty the home water was before he had the filter installed. What obviously happened is that Outkast was tricked by a scam I learned of in University, where tap water is put into a clean glass, and then two electrodes are put into the water where a current is then passed through it. After a while the water becomes cloudy and yucky. The scam artist tells the victim that their water has that junk hidden in it, then he takes "filtered" water and does the same thing. The result in the filtered water is no clouds, because it's distilled water and doesn't conduct the electricity like the tap water does. The clouds are coming from the metal in the electrodes when it interacts with the minerals in the water.

    This scam was given to the public at a science/chemistry lecture at the University of Regina in about 2001 on a topic concerning an erosion of scientific understanding at home about "chemicals".

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  24. ok fine but... by P0pinjay · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the NY times article notes that they graduate a crapton more engineers but don't they have a crapton more people than us as well?? Don't get me wrong, it still appears as though they graduate more per capita, but it might be interesting to note how intelligent they are compared to american grads. Also, when's the last time you saw an american go over seas to get higher education? (aside from Cambridge and exchange programs) That being said, there's an ounce of truth to every exaggeration and I think we should push our education system to be the finest whether other countries are catching up or not.

  25. I am surprised by tfcdesign · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I didnt think American science was limited to abortions and cloning.

    1. Re:I am surprised by telecsan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      modern biology is impossible to explain without evolution.

      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 the earth.

      Until that point, evolution remains nothing more than Natural Selection, which is repeatable and documentable, but not an origin of species.

    2. Re:I am surprised by indifferent+children · · Score: 2, Informative
      when someone can document a series of reactions starting with non-organic, naturally-occurring compounds that results in an organism capable of...

      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.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    3. Re:I am surprised by qeveren · · Score: 2, Informative

      So what you're saying is... you have no idea what the theory of evolution is actually about, right?

      Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. That's the theory of abiogenesis.

      --
      Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
  26. Give up by d_strand · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Give it up USA, You've already lost. It's inevitable, in one generation or so the american supremacy will have gone the way of the dodo bird.

    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)

  27. Big Shocker by B11 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Anti-itellectualism in the US has finally reached a point where it is really hurting us.

    I mean why work hard and study when you see dimwitted athletes on MTV "Cribs" with large houses and expensive cars?

    The root of the problem is that we don't value hard work and thirst for knowledge, we value "things." Why is a company going to research a cancer cure unless it can get a patent on it and make a boatlod of money in today's world?

    Neo-cons like Bush and their reactionary politics and backwards religious thought is not the reason we are seeing this slow down. DaVinci studied anatomy in spite of the Catholic church's prohibition on using cadavers. I think the fact that neo-cons can dicate scientific policy is a symptom of current enviroment, where anything that is studied has have some sort of financial reward. We even tell our children to go to college, not for personal growth, but so they can get a good job and make lots of money.

    --
    insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
  28. In a world... by Solr_Flare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...where so many gadgets and inventions appear daily that continue to make science fiction into science fact, it is hard to motivate the younger generations to pursue the sciences. Why make a career out of a subject where you may never see the results of your work with your own eyes, when other fields have tangeble results from their work?

    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.

    --
    You are who you are, let no one tell you different. But, never close your mind to a new point of view.
  29. Stop stealing my punch lines! by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now go and look at the history of those countries from the time when they decided that being one of the "intellectual elite" was a bad thing.

    To me, it seems that they all declined pretty quickly and either vanished or are still on the bottom of the heap ... unless they changed their opinion.

    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.

  30. 1) Educate children by gatkinso · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know what the schools in this country are doing these days, confidence building activities I suppose, but they sure as hell aren't teaching the kids how to add, read, and write.

    Or in my case... type.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  31. Yeah, right by sg3000 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I can't figure out if you're trolling or if you're horribly mistaken.

    > 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 members of the Flat Earth society weren't constantly screaming at Rand McNally. Participating in legitimate scientific discussion is good. Cluttering the public with rhetorical tricks is a waste of everyone's time.

    > cartel of biologists would be analyzing the issue

    Besides the loaded language (and misuse) of "cartel," this is ridiculous. There is an amazing amount of dissent in good scientific discussion. But, you are correct; no competent scientist is considering the impact of fairies, trolls, or biblical floods on their experiments.

    > Imagine if the Bible said something about quantum physics (yeah, yeah, I know you can
    > claim it does, but bear with me here). Wouldn't that speed up the demise of bad theories in
    > that field?

    I'd rather imagine how much more good science could be done if religious fundamentalists weren't wasting everyone's time trying to legislate their nonsense.

    If you didn't intend to troll, learn about science and the scientific method! You will be enlightened and possibly intrigued about how the process works.

    --
    Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.
    1. Re:Yeah, right by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can use a word in lots of contexts, it doesn't mean that usage is correct, or rigorous. I can say "the US may loose it's position as a leader in science" but it doesn't make by usage of the word correct.

      Prove has a specific definition. Sure it's fine to bend that definition a wee bit in common usage, but when you're debating something, especially when it's a contentious issue, it's best to be as rigorous as possible.

      It IS fundamental to science that you can never prove anything. All scientists should have that deeply ingrained before they make it out of undergrad (better yet, high school). Otherwise you get exactly the problem you mentioned in your last paragraph -- "scientists" who suddenly have blind faith in whatever they happen to believe. If you want to prove things, take up mathematics. Even then, you can only prove things given a set of base assumptions.

      As you pointed out yourself, showing someone a chicken in the shed is very strong evidence, but not proof. Your statement could still be false, even if it is unlikely. Go to a magic show sometime and notice how your senses can be misled. Proper scientists should be humble -- no, we don't know for sure, but based on the evidence we have it is likely that....

      Science is a method for accumulating knowledge and a method for selecting amongst possible explanations. Religion is belief in a set of ideas. Really they're two different things, and quite compatible except when a particular religion or the practitioners of a religion insist that their beliefs are absolute truth and critical examination or evidence to the contrary is heretical (Galileo anyone?). There are lots of Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu (and others!) scientists. They tend not to be fundamentalists, but may personally be very religious.

      So sorry for wasting your time trying to sound smart. Oh, and I should correct myself... there are religions that also admit they don't know anything for sure. And lots of people from all (almost all?) religions who have quite good critical thinking skills.

  32. Who cares by gr8_phk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The MBAs comming out of business school tell me that in the future, the US will just be managers "managing" all the stuff being done overseas - I should be an MBA too, or I'll be obsolete. If that's the stuff they're teaching our business leaders of the future we're just screwed...

    1. Re:Who cares by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Just wait 'till the MBAs discover that there are MBA grads over in China willing to do THEIR job for one tenth the salary too!

      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.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Who cares by rand.srand() · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you've ever tried to do business with anyone from outside of the US, and maybe Europe, I think you'll find that it is a major disparity between how well businesses run between the two regions. Business Science may be the last science that the US has an advantage on, because it sure isn't the rest of them.

      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 industrialized and you have an OSHA, and an EPA, and your labor unions are knocking at the door, suddenly you can't throw out a day's worth of bad production because that amounts to your profit. Other countries have gone from economic powerhouses that were going to own the US, to total stagnation in the span of months.

      I'm not advocating anyone becoming a specialist in the science of business as an answer to this... the true answer is that your profession has to be competitive. And being a Scientist in the US is not competitive.

  33. A Raft of Intelligent Design in Education Bills by StefanJ · · Score: 2, Funny

    (I submitted this to McSweeney's Internet Tendency. It got rejected, so you'all get to suffer:)

    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

  34. Or ... it is 'globalization'? by joelsanda · · Score: 2, 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 of science in the U.S.

    However, I'd argue that globalization has much more to do with this than any degree of disinterest in science. While the Soviets are the sole provider of missions to the I.S.S. the U.S. is also leaps beyond anyone else when it comes to commercial exploration of space.

    Back to globalization: The U.S. was dominant in science because the aftermath of WW II, among other things. It was U.S. science and military spending that sustained technological growth that started in WW II and continued through the end of the Cold War.

    But with companies becoming less nationalistic it stands to reason other countries will be reaching the mantle of scientific contributions. And that's a great thing - science depends upon money to fuel research and the more diversified that money the more stable its input will be.

    So don't get too emotional slamming the U.S. - globalization has a lot to do with other countries gaining economies capable of sustaining the budgets science requires. Just because Europe and Asia are making contributions faster today than yesterday does not mean the U.S. is slowing down - it just means others are contributing more today than yesterday. If U.S. scientific contributions sustain or slow just a bit the 'gap' appears to be very large.

    --
    The Luddites were ahead of their time.
  35. Folly of Rewarding A While Hoping for B by rlp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Years and years ago I read a great article by this title. Consider, that their are a small but finite number of smart students who have the potential to become scientists and engineers. Consider that they are smart enough to look at what is happening in the US. American society rewards people who can a) entertain the masses, b) move money around from one place to another while extracting a portion for themselves, or c) extract money from others via the legal system. Scientists and engineers must spend years in expensive and difficult training to qualify for their fields. Spend many hours a year keeping up with their fields. Work very long hours. Risk unemployment from changing corporate or government priorities. And worry about their career disappearing when industry decides to outsource overseas. So scientist / engineer vs. athlete / entertainer / financier / lawyer. For many smart students it's a no-brainer.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  36. Re:Simple reasons. by homer_ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'll have to agree too. I think a big part of US dominance in science was because we could attract the best foreign talent. We had a high standard of living, many of the world's best universities and research labs, and it was a pretty pleasant place to live, for both citizens and foreigners. I think the quality of local talent has slipped too, but fixing US science education by itself won't make up for the loss of foreign scientists.

  37. Thanks for being my example. by khasim · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Tested and verified scientific finding, my ass.
    It's always nice when an good example will volunteer himself.

    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.
    Until someone devises a way to travel into the past, I don't think we'll be verifying anything.
    Why would you have to?

    That's only necessary with Intelligent Design because that cannot be falsified in any other manner.
    What pisses off people who believe in intelligent design is not people who don't believe in intelligent design, but people who are trying to completely erase their beliefs from the curriculum.
    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 ... but I don't see why I should care if they get pissed about it.
    I'll be the first to admit, intelligent design is more of a philisophical belief than a scientific theory, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be allowed to be spoken of in a science class.
    It's not "philosophical". It's religious. Learn the difference between "science" and "philosophy" and "religion".

    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.
    Most of our sciences involve a certain amount of philosphy. For example, if you know anything about psychology, then it's obvious that philosophy is a huge part of that field.
    What is the "philosphy" behind "gravity"?

    How does that compare/contrast with Nietzsche's philosphical approach?

    Because A is somewhat like B ... and C is somewhat like A ... does not mean that A is anything like C.
    What it comes down to is a that a lot of people don't even want to consider the possibility that their own beliefs are incorrect, whether that be their belief in a creator, or their belief in the non-existance of such a creator, and people trying to erase intelligent design from the curriculum are just as close-minded and just as guilty of forcing their beliefs on others as those who try to erase evolutionary theory from the curiculum
    No. That is how the "Intelligent Design" fans are trying to frame it.

    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.
  38. bad in the long run by idlake · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Economically, this makes a lot of sense for the US. It's also a nice deal for the many budding scientists and engineers around the world.

    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.

  39. not true in other countries by peter303 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:not true in other countries by lcde · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shamefully only one president of the US had a PhD.

      --
      :%s/teh/the/g
  40. It's a non-problem by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why train our own scientists when it is cheaper and quicker to simply hire away the best scientists from other countries? Saying we should spend more on training our own scientists is like saying the Yankees should invest in developing New York youth into world-class baseball players instead of simply paying top dollar for the best Cuban players! There are 6 billion people in the world and only 300 million in the US -- this means that 95% of the smartest people in the world aren't born in the US. Why should we pay to educate people when other countries are willing to educate them for us?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  41. Bullshit by snowwrestler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really don't feel that religion has anything to do with this.

    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.

    --
    Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  42. Ending tenure to help science? You are an idiot! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Remove tenure? Let me guess. You're not a scientist!

    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?

  43. You're a good second example. by khasim · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Jesus, this should be modded WAY down.
    So ... what you're saying is that opinion doesn't match the opinion of people who have mod points right now. That's understandable.
    When the "intellectual elite" talk this way about the "average" people, why shouldn't they hate you?
    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 should I care?

    Should I find a way to phrase it so I can protect their fragile egos? Maybe tell them that they aren't really "wrong"? Isn't that the approach that got us into this situation in the first place?
    My experience is that most people who think they are so qualified, aren't particularly impressive.
    And, in your "experience", does the Sun revolve around the Earth?
    If intellectual elitists are going to talk about average people like they're chimps, a the way people on slashdot usually do, how can you blame anyone for not wanting to listen to what you have to say?
    Again, you're confusing an emotional reaction with a fact.

    I don't care if you don't want to hear that the Earth revolves around the Sun.

    I don't care if you get upset when I tell you that you are wrong for believing anything other than that.

    I don't care if you don't like me for telling you that I don't care.

    The criteria should NOT be your feelings, but what the FACTS are.
  44. More to it than ID by Ctrl+Alt+De1337 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Let's step back for a second. There's a lot more to science than biology, and especially the small part of biology concerned with the origin of life. Evolution vs. creationism vs. intelligent design has nothing to do with engineering, computer science, chemistry, physics, and all the rest. I mean, when was the last time origin-of-life science significantly grew the nation's GDP? Has attempting to prove evolution ever increased US manufacturing to reduce the trade deficit? Has attempting to prove intelligent design ever resulted in a new breakthrough drug? Seriously, there's more to this than the evolution flame war.

  45. Surprising you've never heard of "Texas" by FungiFromYuggoth · · Score: 2, Informative

    The "religion right" has no influence in our schools (thanks to the Supreme Court).

    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, 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 religion, business is also getting into the act.

    Definitely agree that many parents are falling down in their responsibility to prepare their kids for schools and to raise their kids in an environment that values education.

    (I boggle at the other post who feels that "teacher's unions" are interchangable with "parents".)

  46. Well, DOH by J.R.+Random · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From the NYT article:

    "Thanks to globalization," the report said, "workers in virtually every sector must now face competitors who live just a mouse-click away in Ireland, Finland, China, India or dozens of other nations whose economies are growing."

    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.

    Chemical companies last year shut 70 facilities in the United States and marked 40 for closure. Of 120 large chemical plants under construction globally, one is in the United States and 50 are in China.

    In short, major in engineering, be three times as productive as your Indian and Chinese competition, and see your job get outsourced anyway because it's still cheaper to hire the Asians. Who in their right mind would major in engineering with these facts in mind?
  47. wingnuttery IS political by mkcmkc · · Score: 2, Interesting
    #1 Tenure needs to be removed.

    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 languages.

    Yeah, these slackers put in 50 hours a week, and they don't even have the decency to learn a foreign language on the side. What we need to do is get rid of their mamby-pamby social safety net. That'll learn 'em.

    Wingnuts. Is there any problem they can't solve?

    --
    "Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
  48. Law of Supply and Demand at work by Wansu · · Score: 2, 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.
     

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
  49. the panel of "experts" has lost its mind by constantnormal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the one hand, they make a VERY strong case that US engineers are 5 to 10 times more expensive to employ than those where the jobs are going (India and China) ...

    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.

  50. Testify, brother! by Medievalist · · Score: 4, 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.

  51. Hello! by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You say: "There is a long-standing and fundamental disconnect between religion and science...this is just patently false" and then
    The problem with ID stems from the fact that it's being taught as science, which it is not.
    Er...the whole point of this discussion is that science is being eroded and replaced by non-science in the US. In particular, ID is Creationism in a different guise taught as a substitute for science. How can you claim the parent post to yours is stating things that are false and then proceed to argue in its favor?
  52. for money by toiletmonster · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No one will refuse tenure, but when asked to choose most people will take a high salary over tenure. Since when is not being able to fire someone who is not doing a good job a reasonable way to run an organization? Its crazy.

    If you want to remove politics from science then we should eliminate government funding for science. science should be about producing useful research not about whatever the current administration feels like funding this week.

    The same goes for schools. Schools should be about what parents want for their kids. Not whatever the current administration wants. That means vouchers and more private schools.

    1. Re:for money by kcbrown · · Score: 2, Insightful
      If you want to remove politics from science then we should eliminate government funding for science. science should be about producing useful research not about whatever the current administration feels like funding this week.

      The very nature of science is such that you can't predict with any real accuracy which threads of research will prove useful and which ones won't. That's why it's called research and not development. Additionally, what isn't useful now may prove useful much later.

      No, science itself should be about figuring out the universe. Period.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  53. not "Erosion" by butterwise · · Score: 2, Funny

    I believe the correct term is "Intelligent Dirt Pushing."

    --
    If a baby duck is a "duckling," why would anyone want to eat "dumplings?"
  54. George Bush doesn't care about scientists by ENOENT · · Score: 2, Funny

    Kayne West was so close.

    --
    That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
  55. literal imterpretation of the Bible by falconwolf · · Score: 3, 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.

    Falcon
    --
    Should there be a Law?
    1. Re:literal imterpretation of the Bible by thule · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's called context. Genesis defines a day by saying the morning and evening form a day.

      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?

  56. Neal Stephenson on science in the U.S. by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Last year Reason had an interview with Neal Stephenson (author of Snow Crash, Cryptonomicon, Quicksilver, and other fine novels), where he was asked about the state of science in America. What he said resonated with me quite a bit:

    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.

  57. are they really left? by falconwolf · · Score: 2, 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 them then nuclear power plants wouldn't be built or wouldn't run, ie if the free market were used nuclear power wouldn't be around. All the laws and subsidies are socialistic.

    Falcon
    --
    Should there be a Law?
  58. As a far left socialist my take on it is: by Rodong · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's not the race for profits causing this (or the so called bible thumpers) It's the race for short term profits, instant rewards.

    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.

  59. Legal outsourcing -- especially to India by ankhank · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's nothing in the laws of physics requiring that lawbooks or the people who use them be located within the jurisdiction they apply to. Plenty of legal work is outsourced now -- how do you think all those bizarre patents get written up and filed? And more to come. Think about who administers your Workers' Compensation claims.

    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 and bottles and labels them before dropping them into the delivery slot.

    Most health plan authorization decisions are being made now by some low-paid worker with some English language competence, with a rulebook and no medical training, just comparing the diagnosis number on the examination report with the health plan's list of lowest-cost average-person treatments.

    I know a doctor who, working in an emergency room, gets chewed out all the time by the ER staffing company manager (there are only a few, it's all outsourced) -- because he insists on seeing that the lab or X-ray reports he ordered come back and are properly interpreted before he sends people home.

    His manager looks better with a much faster turnaround time and more bodies moved through. And if the treatment was wrong, maybe they'll come back, and that's a whole 'nother round of billings.

    See:
      American Academy of Emergency Medicine
            http://www.aaem.org/
    The Rape of Emergency Medicine. PDF, online and Palm (PDB) versions.

    The outsourced ER management company routinely does triage on the people in the ER waiting room -- according to how many pricey examinations their plan will pay for -- and sees them first. While on the other end of the phone line is that health plan worker trying to approve the fewest tests. It's a race to maximize mediocrity.

  60. As I said often last year on a trip to the UK by bADlOGIN · · Score: 2, Funny

    "I'm from the United States. Sorry about our government."
    It worked well as an introduction.

    --
    *** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
  61. Re:Ending tenure to help science? You are an idiot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    But the original poster isn't referring to scientists. The idea is to remove tenure for K-12 teachers so the crappy ones can be weeded out easier.

  62. Re:Ending tenure to help science? You are an idiot by HiThere · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ah... You're going to double their pay (or halve the class size) also?

    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.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  63. Thank you for that piece of Republican dogma... by Goonie · · Score: 2, Insightful
    No one will refuse tenure, but when asked to choose most people will take a high salary over tenure. Since when is not being able to fire someone who is not doing a good job a reasonable way to run an organization? Its crazy.

    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 increase professor's salaries. Yes, tenure sometimes means unproductive dead wood is kept around, but it also means that academics can't get sacked purely because their research discovers conclusions that the university finds unpalatable.

    If you want to remove politics from science then we should eliminate government funding for science. science should be about producing useful research not about whatever the current administration feels like funding this week.

    And you think business is capable of funding that kind of thing? For most businesses, if it's not going to produce a marketable product within five years, maybe even three, they're not interested. Business doesn't fund basic research. The few farsighted ones that do are essentially doing so for two reasons - as a bribe to get good researchers to work for them and also do some applied research that will make them money, and philanthropy. Few businesses have ever gotten to directly exploit their basic research (Xerox and AT&T being classic examples of research labs that have made other companies a lot of money). Then there is private philanthropy, but that makes up a miniscule part of research funding and is disproportionately skewed to medical research.

    The same goes for schools. Schools should be about what parents want for their kids. Not whatever the current administration wants. That means vouchers and more private schools.

    To a certain extent. What if those parents want to teach their kids that their religion demands holy war against infidels?

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  64. Computers by All-seer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't want to post this on a site where most people are seriously dependent on their computers, as so am I, but I have never seen it come up on these issue. I think the reason why science is eroding in the U.S. is the average Americans dependancy on computers. Without the computer, people find that they cannot do their work, live, etc. Modern day American society depends on the computer. Because the computer usually makes lives easier, people start to lose perseverence and creativity. People stop wanting to do hard work. I'm sure someone has told you this in your lifetime, but here it comes again.