Slashdot Mirror
Saving U.S. Science
beebo famulus writes "Twenty years from now, experts doubt that America will remain a dominant force in science as it was during the last century. The hand wringing has generated a couple of new ideas to deal with the dilemma. Specifically, one expert says that the federal government should create contests and prize awards for successful science ideas, while another advises that the National Science Foundation fund more graduate students and increase the amount of the fellowships."
That america will retain the lead, and even improve it.
... algebra ... computational theory ... everything is disappearing from exact science curricula. This cannot be a good thing.
I realize America's science is not progressing at the rate academics would like. However, this is happening everywhere, and it's a LOT worse over here. Trust me, a LOT.
Lots of material is being dropped from the curriculum. Phd positions are not getting filled. And everything is made easier in name of "everybody being equal", everybody "needs" equal access to university (and somehow access does not mean "a chance to try" but actual graduation), and the only way to do that is dropping the level of education by a lot.
Math is being dropped like a stone in every subject. Numerical analysis
Two factors contributed to the US's good position in scientific research during the last century:
1 -- The economic decline of Britain, especially the vast amount of intellectual property that Britain had to give to the US in exchange for resources to resist Hitler.
2 -- The rapid maturing and solidifying of the US commercial world, which created intense competition as the number of companies collapsed -- the result was a period during which very large entities had a very strong need to gain a competitive advantage.
Neither of these factors is with us any more. Britain (as a center of technological research that could then be passed on to the US cheaply) is long gone. The US commercial landscape has settled down and now has a much better supply of cheap labor (cheap labor competes with technological innovation to fulfil the same need). So, yes, I'd say we can expect a flattening-off of the rate of technological progress in the US. It doesn't mean there's a big educational disaster or anything.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
As usual, these sort of articles keep on suggesting increasing the number of graduate students.
How about another suggestion? How about increasing the number of permanent positions instead of low-paying temporary positions? How about job security? How about flexibility e.g. allowing women to have a couple of years off to have a kid and then reenter academia? How about improving work conditions so that working yourself to exhaustion is not considered the norm? Work conditions for scientists are basically crap. Job security is crap. Pay is crap. The only good thing about being a scientist is well the ability to do science, which is nice. But people have got to eat, kids have to be fed and clothed you know, and sometimes we might want to actually spend time with said kids and not constantly worry about begging for money or finding a new position. Basically, with the job conditions for science, you have to really really really really love science otherwise it's just an exercise in masochism. With this why would many kids choose science for a career? In the past, how many kids chose being a monk and devoting themselves to a life of sacrifice, piety, poverty, starvation and interrupted sleep as you get up in the middle of night for prayers for the sake of God? In science today there is almost a monastic attitude in which this sort of thing is *expected* as part of the norm.
Basically with the work conditions and lack of job security for young scientists today, science is not a career, it is a *calling*. Something which you have to love so much you're willing to put up with very bad work conditions and a good chance of never finding a good permanent position.
Adding more graduate students will just make things worse. More competition for jobs -> even worse work conditions and job security.
I am a computer scientist and faculty member at a Research 1 university.
As a few have said, IT IS THE CULTURE! I blame it on Anti-intellectual sentiment, pitiful teaching of math and science, and the fact that we don't have a big exploration goal.
I am not going to delve into anti-intellectual issue right now, but I would ask: What is the ratio of good scientists to evil scientists in movies?
In general, I have to say that we do a poor job in teaching math and science at all levels. There are many scapegoats here, but it's hard to imagine getting many good science teachers into schools without more pay and better environment. In the Universities, we have been importing scientists in many areas. As a culture, this is short sighted as it is unlikely to motivate US students into science. How are we to expect students in the University to be lured into science and math when they cannot relate to their professors and vice versa. Difficulties in communication and subtle racial/ethnic biases make it difficult for US students to see themselves as future professors. Students need role models.
The moon landings paid for themselves many times over in young scientists and engineers. We need some national goals that gives students a sense of purpose and appreciation. Why should I bust my hump for science when better paying, easier jobs exist? I could probably double my income in the private sector and work less, but I would lose my opportunity to work with fresh young students and help them see the beauties of learning new things.
More NSF grants will not solve the problem. Maybe if they are tied to developing domestic students into faculty--that could have a long term effect. The new Mars and moon efforts are good ideas, but the current administration doesn't have the credibility/vision of Kennedy to inspire America.
As you can tell, this is near and dear to my heart. I hope that we can do something with real effects. I do little things everyday, but I want to do more!
Science doesn't "surrport" manufacturing. High-level science and engineering invent things that are high-tech for a while, and are manufactured in the US as long as those things require a high-tech work force. Later they become commoditized and are moved offshore. By then we've moved on to something else.
That sounds well and good, but I don't think history supports it. Yes, VCRs started here and ended in Japan. Yes, computers started here and ended in Taiwan. But these days both manufacturing and research are rapidly moving. Taiwanese manufacturers are doing their own research and creating products with USA labels that have generated essentially no new USA expertise in the problem domain. Japanese cars are far ahead of USA cars in innovation and quality. In my major (chemical engineering), new plants are simply not being built anymore in the USA, so research in plant efficiency (which is an umbrella idea encompassing most of the traditional major) is beginning to stagnate; a number of experienced engineers have said that the future of the major lies in China now.
My major is transitioning to new fields, particularly bioengineering and nanotechnology design and fabrication, which may be supporting your point, but OTOH the new stuff is very bleeding edge and will not be ready for productizing for a decade or four. I don't see a good skills transition in the interim, because all the other nations are starting at about the same place we are and unlike USA they have the manufacturing facilities to experiment with.
I agree that we don't want Flint, MI, to be the entire USA. But we also shouldn't want USA to become uber-specialized Chiba City surrounded by a vast wasteland of poor serfs.
I think it's trendy to believe that religion is what is holding the U.S. back today.
But I think it's more complicated than that. Throughout the 20th century, the U.S. was at least as religious as it is now. But it also led the world in scientific discovery and application.
For the most part, Americans are both religious and lovers of scientific progress. Certainly technical progress with tangible results.
India I would say is very religious, but also much in love with scientific learning. China is only irreligious because of intense religious persecution, and I don't think we want to go there. Japan is very secular, and very good at science, but maybe not so good at the creative and innovative aspects of discovery as Americans, culturally speaking (although they may be making progress in those areas). South Korea has a lot of born again Christians, and still is full heartedly embracing technology and science.
Europe is extremely secular, but I don't think they have the cultural values to innovate and compete over time with the countries I just listed.
The Muslim world, of course, is ultra religious and vehemently anti-modernity, which carries over into a disdain for science.
So I think if you want to be objective and scientific in your view, the correlation between religious fervor and scientific progress is far from fixed. In my opinion, it is the U.S. system of separating church and state that has enabled both religion and science to thrive here. Yes, there have been attempts to throw that balance out of whack recently, but let's dispose of our bathwater and keep our baby, shall we.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X