Science by popular vote

[packsaddle]

So this just came across my eDesk. It is related to the comments by me and Vol_scouter and Gwd-scouter in the parent thread. I haven't gone very deeply into this website but the gist of it is that anyone who thinks an NSF project is a waste of money can note their opinion for further action. What do you think?

http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/Review.htm

 

Check out the suggested list of keywords...interesting.

 

Edit: Come to think of it, Beavah should get the credit since he was the one who initiated the topic in the parent thread. Thanks, Beavah.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[acco40]

Check out the one on blue crab declines. It contains this gem:

 

In addition, educational, outreach activities, in collaboration with high school teachers, will engage students that are excelling (boy scouts) and at-risk (low grades/attendance) in hands-on field science and potential career opportunities through: 1) field classes, 2) research and 3) a marine symposium (e.g., as previously at UF 2008).

 

 

[CalicoPenn]

I think that for every one dollar cut from the NSF, we should cut ten thousand dollars from the Defense Department's budget.

 

I also think that someone else did something similar in a much more elegant way. Remember William Proxmire?

 

Doesn't anyone have any original ideas anymore?(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

[vol_scouter]

As we all know, what may sound to be a frivolous project will usually have an important serious goal. Also, most projects survive very critical peer reviews so that only the best are ever funded. I heard Proxmire making fun of a project that was about the mating habits of an insect. The insect was threatening a large crop (fruit I believe but that was many years ago). Since that time, I have seen several strategies that decrease the impact of certain insects by disrupting their mating. Such a website could negatively impact the careers of top notch scientists. This kind of effort is misguided and likely political grandstanding.

 

CalicoPenn,

 

If you cut the Department of Defense, the first thing that it will do is cut research funding. Also, I would point out that the federal government has no constitutional requirement to fund research (though I think that it is an important role for the survival of the country) but it does have a constitutional responsibility to defend the country. Such cuts to defense are ill advised.

[Beavah]

Thanks, packsaddle! What fun. I just completed my first submission to the site.

 

I requested rather than NSF, an equivalent list of direct and indirect congressional expenditures. Now there's where I reckon we can all find some things to cut!

 

B

 

[packsaddle]

Good thoughts. My interest in this is to expand on the underlying question that was raised in the parent thread, as it applies in this very real case. As Calico and Vol_scouter just noted with regard to Proxmire's 'Golden Fleece Award', a lack of scientific literacy, combined with political agenda, is a potent way to do damage to work that might provide public benefit.

 

To me this is merely an example that affects what I do. It has elements that are reminiscent of the rise of T.D. Lysenko in the Soviet Union, a troubling comparison. Why NSF was targeted first is also a question in my mind...but the anti-intellectual spirit of it has not escaped my notice.

 

I thought about this in a peripheral way while proctoring one of my final exams yesterday. I watched my students, some excellent, some struggling, a few trying to 'game' the system, but most honestly and sincerely entrusting their minds and money to a person in an academy, who entered as a stranger into their lives and in whom they made an implicit assumption that I was also sincere, competent, and honestly communicating the field in the best way I could. I am humbled by this responsibility and I salute these young people, about to take the reins of all our futures.

In this way there is an assumption of complete and ingenuous honesty in the relationship between student and mentor. I consider it to be THE most important duty I have - to live up to it. ANY betrayal of that does damage to the student, to me, to the academy, to society...in profound and lasting ways (Biblically, I think of this in terms of 'visiting iniquities'). The remnants of such a betrayal are still ravaging the remnants of the Soviet Union.

 

But if my students were wrong about that assumption...If the system was, for example, strictly for profit. What then? If I had the underlying, perhaps primary, interest in, for example, making sure I bring in revenue to support the institution...if the institution was run by trustees or leaders of the academy whose business backgrounds led them to institute a strategy to 'optimize' tuition revenues, then the result could be tragic.

 

For example, if I was told to achieve certain targets for grade distribution, say, if I was told to manipulate the exams to produce a certain percentage of 'D's and 'F's, in order to keep the students purchasing the product (repeating courses, for example) [this might be analogous to 'planned obsolescence' in the automobile industry] or to make sure that most of them get 'A's in order to attract a growing enrollment [inherently cheap, worthless goods], such strategies would 'put the lie' to the academy. But the students, indoctrinated through these experiences, might also learn that this is an effective way (and ethic) for advancement. This could manifest itself throughout society.

 

I could argue that some of our current plight is already a result of this kind of thing.

 

But if I was given such a set of goals, this would have a direct and an indirect effect. First, and directly, I would have to betray their trust. (I first confronted this kind of thing when I was working in industry. I resigned rather than to compromise my professional integrity)

Second, and indirectly, if I complied with the strategy I would now devote significant time to structuring the course and exams to meet the goals and this added bureaucratic (and dishonest) burden would take time away from the academic process.

I see the risk for the first kind of consequence if funding for science is influenced even more strongly by political agendas (I'm not kidding myself that it isn't already influenced by politics)

That risk is added to a certainty that even more pointless paperwork will be required throughout the system in order to address criticisms that may have no actual basis in reality - but may be the result of a scientifically illiterate public.

 

So back to the question in the parent thread, that Beavah used to wake me from my nap...How much time must a scientist take away from science, to attempt to communicate to an illiterate public?

I'll add to that question...if there is an added political agenda, would the scientist also be wasting his or her time in the attempt? (as was Vavilov, who eventually lost his life in the attempt)

 

As for me, the bureaucracy already imposes itself on the process enough without adding things like this. If I was currently one of the rotating program officers for NSF and the director flopped another set of forms to be filed by me or the applicants, it would provide one more incentive for me to return to my 'day job' instead of providing this service to the public. Short of that it would slow the process, perhaps pointlessly. In the worst case, it might further betray the trust that the American people should have in the process, just as I would betray the trust of those students.

 

This most certainly is a statement of lack of trust by Cantor or Smith. probably many others. Their political success might be a statement of similar lack of trust by the American people. And to me, it might also reflect the inevitable outcome of scientific illiteracy.

I have no idea how this predictable outcome of the mid-term election will proceed.

 

To the implied question about how to educate an illiterate public, my answer is that it is NOT the responsibility of the teacher to educate the student, only to provide the structure, resources, opportunity, and support for the students to educate themselves (that's what really happens with good students anyway)...and it is NOT the responsibility of the scientist to educate the public, but only to provide opportunities for the public that are similar to those for the students.

It is the responsibility of individuals to LEARN for themselves. In as much as they do this honestly, or not, that will determine the ultimate outcome.

 

To me the risk is incalculable damage to all of society. Like I said, the similarities to the Lysenko affair are sobering.

Augering in.

[Eagle92]

I second Beavah's "cut the congressional budget" comment. Freind of mine use to work in Congress. After seeign some of the travel receipts on the net, WOW! Over $80,000 for booze, that must have been heck of a fun plane ride!

 

EDITED: the $80K booze bill was for one trip!(This message has been edited by Eagle92)

[CalicoPenn]

Vol,

 

The defense department budget is one of the largest expenditures this country has. If we're going to be serious about reducing expenses, then the defense department budget must not be a sacred cow that can't be touched.

 

As for the constitutionality of funding science research grants, there is a clause that states that Congress can expend funds to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Now this clause also includes a comma'ed "by" which reads "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" which most of us would think means only granting patents and copyrights.

 

But as has been proven time and again in government, both in Congress, the Executive and the Supreme Court, what seems obvious isn't neccessarily so. I've not delved into it further to see if there have ever been any constitutional challenges to NHS grants, but I can see a SCOTUS ruling that the "by" addition is meant not as a limiting factor on promoting Science and the useful Arts, but is meant as just one possible example.

 

Edited to include intended word "only"(This message has been edited by calicopenn)

[vol_scouter]

CalicoPenn,

 

I think that the government supporting research is not only a beneficial to the economy but it is also a critical national security issue. The world is a very dangerous place and the defense of the country is clearly a duty of the US government. The clause that you cite clearly was written to have a patent system and possibly a copyright system as well. Whatever a court might rule (and I hope that time and money are never waste on such a suit), I think that the intent was most likely for a patent system and not paying for research. Reeling in the budget is another full discussion. In that discussion, I agree that nothing should be off the table but I believe that cutting the military is something that is done with attendant peril.

 

 

Packsaddle,

 

Very astute comments. I try to be optimistic about our country but the scientific illiteracy is something else that seems to potentially doom the country. I am imagine that you are an outstanding teacher.

[packsaddle]

Vol_scouter, I agree that everything should be 'on the table'. The question I'm asking is if Congress or the public should try to 'micro-manage' NSF or other agencies?

As for teaching, as the cowardly lion said, "Shucks, folks, I'm speechless".

[Trevorum]

In the course of the 1:44 minute video, Smith TWICE mentions "hard science" as worthy of funding. In contrast, presumably to so-called "soft science", which includes such fields as psychology, anthropology, economics, geography, etc.

 

I am offended, nay outraged ...

 

 

The larger point, which pack skirts, is that scientists tend to do a pretty crappy job of public outreach and public education. We need to recognize our afirmative responsibility, not only to advance the boundaries of knowledge (our traditional role), but also to advance the degree to which our society absorbs that knowledge. We need to understand that the traditional educational structures in our society (schools, universities) are no longer sufficent in this regard. Pack touches on this, but exacerbating the situation in our modern world is the degree at which knowledge changes/evolves/increases. The basic scientific understanding obtained by Joe Sixpack when he graduated from school in 1970 did not equip him to understand new fields of public debate (eg., stem cell research) but on which he is nonetheless is expected to vote (either directly or indirectly).

 

Scientists need to learn how to market. Purists will sniff, of course, but it is the proven way to communicate effectively with the public. Scientific societies need to increase funding to their public education efforts. University departments need to hire public outreach specialists.

 

If we loose at the ballot box, it's our own fault for not even trying to play the game.

[vol_scouter]

Packsaddle,

 

It is not only unwise butit is downright stupid to ask the public to somehow vote on the science to be done. Clearly as taxpaers, the public should have a voice in the level of funding for science as compared to other budgetary concerns but the general public does not have the means to judge the quality or appropriateness of scientific research. That is not because the public is dumb but rather a lack of education. Also, it is due to the degree of specialization in the various fields. As a scientist with a varied background,I can understand most research that I read about. However, I am not able to judge the importance or quality of work in fields that are very far from my own endeavors.

 

Trevorum,

 

The issue, as I see it, is how do we communicate with a public that has little understanding of science and less patience to learn. Making matters worse, when there is a scientific issue discussed in the news media, the topic is either given too little time to explain the science or the 'experts' are celebrities with 8th grade educations (and not stellar to that point I would wager). I agree with you that our professional societies should work on this more. Perhaps, the professional societies should work together on some issues.

 

Science should also be very wary of science that is used politically as in global warming. After a very cold winter experienced by the entire northern hemisphere that was not predicted by any climate models, the public is understandably dubious. As scientists, we know that says that the model has problems but the concerns and conclusions have not been totally invalidated. The public does not understand that kind of naunced position and tends to lose faith in science. Science would be much better off to report findings to political committees and not to claim any particular result until the models and data is far better than today.

 

I fear for the futre of our country when science is starting to be denigrated along with the ridicule of learning and intelligence in the popular culture. Those attitudes make me concerned in a big picture way for the country.

[CalicoPenn]

William Proxmire could make fun of that insect study because no one doing the study was able to communicate at his level. And by that I mean that, as good as the researchers are, it can be hard for a lot of researchers to "dumb it down". Researchers often have trouble trying to explain what practical benefits might come of it (though that varies depending on field) - especially if they're of the "research for knowledge sake" mindset. Tell 100 farmers in Iowa that scientists are wasting taxpayer money on the mating habit of some insect they've never heard of, and they'll probably agree that the money is being wasted. The researchers have to be able to stand up and tell the Iowa farmers, in Iowa Farmer terms, that the study could help us prevent corn borers from being able to lay eggs that will hatch more corn borers. They researchers weren't able to do so, so Proxmire scored the points.

 

 

[vol_scouter]

CalicoPenn,

 

I agree with what you say. At the same time, there was no opportunity for the scientists to refute the irresponsible, grandstanding Proxmire. He garnered the air time but I doubt that even if organized science attempted to get air time (my guess is that they did not), that the time would most likely not be granted or the setting would be less than desirable. As someone just said in another thread, the press is letting the country down in its' role.

[packsaddle]

I feel the need to defend Iowa Farmers. Given what I know about them, they're quite sophisticated in business, big business, and at least a while back, Iowa had a great reputation for education. Seems like I remember them considering putting 'State of Mind' on their license plates or something like that.

If you want to pick a group to use in a stereotypical manner, I could suggest some better alternatives a little farther south.

 

Proxmire was an example of rather transparent use of demagoguery. I wonder if there's a similarity along those lines in this recent development?