MSNBC: US Becoming Hostile to Science?

[KrazyHorse]

I have no idea what you're blathering about. But thanks for reminding me to put you on ignore.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I hope you did not present that as proof of the OT.

Just like economics, just becasue other coutries and regions are finally taking their piece of the pie/waking up/taking responsibilty or whatever action you want to appy to whatever category does not mean America is slipping.

It is a good thing the EU is spending more, does not mean we have to be a certain percentage over them.

It is not just relative, IIRC, the annual number of US citizens graduating with Phds is declining.

[Patroklos]

I have no idea what you're blathering about. But thanks for reminding me to put you on ignore.

That doesn't suprise me, and the truth hurts

At least I won't have to read any more of your almost but not quite witty one liners

[MrFun]

I still love you PATTYCAKES!!!!!!!

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
I didn't mean middle ages literally... I thought I could use it as synonym for "backwardism"

No, you can't.

[Atahualpa]

No you can't
I can
No you can't
Sure
Can you not
Of course I can
Show me
God's from the middle ages

[Patroklos]

For some reason I love it when you call me that.

I need some Heterocil.

[Zylka]

[Atahualpa]

Generally speaking and back on topic, I don't necessarily think we are generally becoming hostile to science, but more concerns are expressed about the speed we progress with. I think this is not specific to the US, so I use "we". In Europe (specifically in Austria) for example there is a movement against genetically modified food and a strong support thatof in the population. Natural food is valued a lot here, though ofc in the end the wallet decides.

The renaissance of christian religious fundamentalism is such an answer, but IMO the wrong one. In fact, the church does little to help people with the fast changing world they're living in. All it provides is a comforting view of the past projected on our today world with social regression as the ultimate salvation. I fail to see how that would satisfy our concerns.
Politics also fail to comfort their citizens to the ever growing challenges and it's especially severe in the US, where the social net is not that tight as in Europe. And if the state doesn't provide safety, maybe a strong faith will do....

[Mr. Harley]

Patroklas and Dr. Strangelove (what an odd pair to be addressing with the same post), Krazyhorse is born up by the facts, when you look at patents issued, papers published, and equivalent spending on research.

The Wall Street Journal wrote recently on I believe it was papers published by US sources. We have been static since, I am trying to remember the exact year, something like 2000 or 2001, while both Europe and Asia have achieved approximate parity. However, I won't blame this solely on the fundamentalist/anti-evolution-stem cell-embryonic research crowd, at least not solely.

While they do contribute, substantially in the fields of biology, the steady detoriation of science teaching in the USA, science as a less attractive career, and less research spending as a whole are all substantial contributors. I don't have the data to sort out who should get th most blame on this, but the dynamics are pretty straight foward.

Teachers have seen a steady decline in earnings in real dollars, as class sizes have shrunk (WSJ again). This means that you are less likely to get first class minds in teaching, which then leads to a general deterioration in the quality of science teaching. Part of this is due to the popular media - how often do you see scientists portrayed as role-models today? The CSI-type shows have actually help reverse this, on a small scale. Media does make a difference on where your society goes.

Add into this the corporate desire for cheap intellectual labor, and the 401B visa program (I believe I have the number right) and that also selects against getting the best and brightest into research. If you look at making money and doing well, while adding in the changes in acedemia - you will find that you have a much better chance of doing well in businesss or medicine, versus in non-medical research. Guess what - the US is a leader in medical research. Get the picture? Ask Ozzy and Kuci - they are not stupid, and it would be nice to get their spin on this.

Corporations are also spending less on research, I have seen that cited multiple times in recent years. Globalization and reduced profit margins, plus the extremely short-term view of the US security markets, all contribute to this. Thus centrally directed economies are spending more, while the US remains static. Unless the government makes research spending more attractive via the tax code, I don't see this changing. Free markets have their strengths, but taking the long view is seldom one of them.

So cheap taxpayers - who don't want to spend the extra money on schools and teacher salaries, nor do they want to forego their tax breaks to fund more research - and short-sighted politicians thus become a factor. There is no simple straight-foward answer, which means there is no simple straight-foward solution. Bluntly, I don't see any leadership out there that is gonig to cut the Gordian knot.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Mr. Harley
Patroklas and Dr. Strangelove (what an odd pair to be addressing with the same post), Krazyhorse is born up by the facts, when you look at patents issued, papers published, and equivalent spending on research.

The Wall Street Journal wrote recently on I believe it was papers published by US sources. We have been static since, I am trying to remember the exact year, something like 2000 or 2001, while both Europe and Asia have achieved approximate parity. However, I won't blame this solely on the fundamentalist/anti-evolution-stem cell-embryonic research crowd, at least not solely.

While they do contribute, substantially in the fields of biology, the steady detoriation of science teaching in the USA, science as a less attractive career, and less research spending as a whole are all substantial contributors. I don't have the data to sort out who should get th most blame on this, but the dynamics are pretty straight foward.

Teachers have seen a steady decline in earnings in real dollars, as class sizes have shrunk (WSJ again). This means that you are less likely to get first class minds in teaching, which then leads to a general deterioration in the quality of science teaching. Part of this is due to the popular media - how often do you see scientists portrayed as role-models today? The CSI-type shows have actually help reverse this, on a small scale. Media does make a difference on where your society goes.

Add into this the corporate desire for cheap intellectual labor, and the 401B visa program (I believe I have the number right) and that also selects against getting the best and brightest into research. If you look at making money and doing well, while adding in the changes in acedemia - you will find that you have a much better chance of doing well in businesss or medicine, versus in non-medical research. Guess what - the US is a leader in medical research. Get the picture? Ask Ozzy and Kuci - they are not stupid, and it would be nice to get their spin on this.

Corporations are also spending less on research, I have seen that cited multiple times in recent years. Globalization and reduced profit margins, plus the extremely short-term view of the US security markets, all contribute to this. Thus centrally directed economies are spending more, while the US remains static. Unless the government makes research spending more attractive via the tax code, I don't see this changing. Free markets have their strengths, but taking the long view is seldom one of them.

So cheap taxpayers - who don't want to spend the extra money on schools and teacher salaries, nor do they want to forego their tax breaks to fund more research - and short-sighted politicians thus become a factor. There is no simple straight-foward answer, which means there is no simple straight-foward solution. Bluntly, I don't see any leadership out there that is gonig to cut the Gordian knot.

Watch out for Ted, you implied that perhaps some teachers today aren't of the first rank in quality and now he's going to accuse you of blaming the victim when the real culprit is the Bush administration, or some other hogwash.

One thing that hasn't yet been addressed is that science as a career often leaves a lot to be desired, which in turn contributes to the problem. A friend of mine got a PhD in physical chemistry and then got a good job in a lab doing advanced defense research. He was paid decently and was doing research that excited him, but he was expected to work 80 hours a week for people with few human interaction skills. After 2 years he quit and went to Law School and now he's a patent lawyer. His attitude was that if he had to put up with such an unpleasant lifestyle why shouldn't he simply go for the big bucks?

The children of these scientists can be turned off by their parent's lifestyle and turn their backs on scientific careers as well. Too bad as these kids are often pretty talented and often are educated well enough at home that they are outstanding scientific prospects regardless of how well their school teaches.