Crisis in Science: Education or Credibility?
In the critique of Thomas Friedman's moonflight essay of December 5, I confined myself to pointing out his omission of the oil companies, with associated interests, in his enumeration of the powers that benefit from high oil prices. While that seemed the most important, I indicated that there were other problems.
He thinks the U.S. got to the moon ahead of the Soviet Union because "scientists, engineers and mathematicians were spurred to get advanced degrees by the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik and the challenge by President John Kennedy" in September 1962 to "go to the moon in this decade". It is far more likely that the achievement of that goal was due preponderantly to people who had gone for their degrees earlier, including some who got their degrees when I got mine; in response to such research achievements as nylon, nuclear fission technology (explosive and "peaceful") or the transistor; as well as still out of old-fashioned curiosity. Money for education is fine, and not just in science and technology, but our energy debacle cannot seriously be attributed to lack of science education opportunities.
Similarly questionable is that any "erosion" in science "brainpower", impressed on Friedman by (Shirley Ann Jackson) the current president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), results substantially from inadequate funding for science education. It is at least as likely to be attributable to the recent image of science, and specifically the loss of credibility of the scientific establishment. The suspicion with which alleged conclusions of "science" regarding expensive pharmaceuticals or genetically modified foodstuffs are viewed also are no longer confined to the young.
The credibility may have received its earliest major blow in relation to the alleged absolute safety of, and need for, nuclear fission power, challenged in California by Ballot Proposition 15 in the mid-70s. Its failure was cited to defeat other challenges, including overseas, without citing the methods used in California. Hundreds of scientists and engineers, most with no pertinent expertise, had been made, by intimidation, related means of persuasion, illegalities, et al, into lending their names for newspaper testimonials. Glenn Seaborg, the mother of plutonium, had himself paraded around with a set speech to meetings of scientists, claiming he would be ready to pay a premium for solar energy, if it were feasible in practice; while being shielded carefully from embarrassing questions on that, e.g. in our laboratory . I quit the AAAS when he became president. Many were turned off from science when 3-Mile Island, then Chernobyl, did their thing. For a while then, nuclear power was out (really just kept out of sight). All indications are that a big comeback is planned. Memories may be that short. But scientific credibility has been jeopardized by other cases of corruption of scientific institutions.
It is not quite clear whether the "alternative energy" which Thomas Friedman advocates for the Bush legacy "crash science initiative" could refer to nuclear power (as has been done), or whether he means the clean, plentiful, sustainable, solar sources of energy; which really are the only ones that can ensure a permanent solution, thus not requiring future crash programs. I have to hope that he means the latter. My New York cousin thinks he is the greatest. Even when she goes abroad, the first thing in the morning is to find a copy of the New York Times, in case there is something by him. In my age category there are not that many relatives of my generation left, so I'd rather err on the side of being nice to the man.
Besides, one of the responses to the editor, by Charles Komanoff http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E0D61431F934A35751C1A9629C8B63 , clearly believes the solar sources are meant; and he claims that no new technologies (thus no newly educated technologists) are needed for that. At least for embarking on it, I also am convinced of that, and have been for decades. He also makes the point that "what's missing is the political will". That may include standing up to those who would prefer to get all possible profit from high oil prices; a point made here earlier. And I know they'resnot the only political obstacle.
Have a bright new year, everybody!
He thinks the U.S. got to the moon ahead of the Soviet Union because "scientists, engineers and mathematicians were spurred to get advanced degrees by the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik and the challenge by President John Kennedy" in September 1962 to "go to the moon in this decade". It is far more likely that the achievement of that goal was due preponderantly to people who had gone for their degrees earlier, including some who got their degrees when I got mine; in response to such research achievements as nylon, nuclear fission technology (explosive and "peaceful") or the transistor; as well as still out of old-fashioned curiosity. Money for education is fine, and not just in science and technology, but our energy debacle cannot seriously be attributed to lack of science education opportunities.
Similarly questionable is that any "erosion" in science "brainpower", impressed on Friedman by (Shirley Ann Jackson) the current president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), results substantially from inadequate funding for science education. It is at least as likely to be attributable to the recent image of science, and specifically the loss of credibility of the scientific establishment. The suspicion with which alleged conclusions of "science" regarding expensive pharmaceuticals or genetically modified foodstuffs are viewed also are no longer confined to the young.
The credibility may have received its earliest major blow in relation to the alleged absolute safety of, and need for, nuclear fission power, challenged in California by Ballot Proposition 15 in the mid-70s. Its failure was cited to defeat other challenges, including overseas, without citing the methods used in California. Hundreds of scientists and engineers, most with no pertinent expertise, had been made, by intimidation, related means of persuasion, illegalities, et al, into lending their names for newspaper testimonials. Glenn Seaborg, the mother of plutonium, had himself paraded around with a set speech to meetings of scientists, claiming he would be ready to pay a premium for solar energy, if it were feasible in practice; while being shielded carefully from embarrassing questions on that, e.g. in our laboratory . I quit the AAAS when he became president. Many were turned off from science when 3-Mile Island, then Chernobyl, did their thing. For a while then, nuclear power was out (really just kept out of sight). All indications are that a big comeback is planned. Memories may be that short. But scientific credibility has been jeopardized by other cases of corruption of scientific institutions.
It is not quite clear whether the "alternative energy" which Thomas Friedman advocates for the Bush legacy "crash science initiative" could refer to nuclear power (as has been done), or whether he means the clean, plentiful, sustainable, solar sources of energy; which really are the only ones that can ensure a permanent solution, thus not requiring future crash programs. I have to hope that he means the latter. My New York cousin thinks he is the greatest. Even when she goes abroad, the first thing in the morning is to find a copy of the New York Times, in case there is something by him. In my age category there are not that many relatives of my generation left, so I'd rather err on the side of being nice to the man.
Besides, one of the responses to the editor, by Charles Komanoff http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E0D61431F934A35751C1A9629C8B63 , clearly believes the solar sources are meant; and he claims that no new technologies (thus no newly educated technologists) are needed for that. At least for embarking on it, I also am convinced of that, and have been for decades. He also makes the point that "what's missing is the political will". That may include standing up to those who would prefer to get all possible profit from high oil prices; a point made here earlier. And I know they'resnot the only political obstacle.
Have a bright new year, everybody!
posted by solar_sol | 11:25 PM
|
0 comments
