“Does science matter? Do people care about it anymore?” William J. Broad and James Glanz asked, in their 2003 New York Times article titled Does Science Matter?. This question made me pause as I read through this article. Why DO so many people believe that science has lost its purpose? Why has scientific research been privatized across the board since the Cold War? 

Even if people believe science has lost reason, there is no doubt that science has served its purpose, whether its in medicine, public health, civil engineering, technology and all the conveniences that came with it. The reason Congress has lost interest in scientific research is because they serve to represent their statesmen’s opinions, which are far from positive. To be honest, I can understand the negativity. Currently, there is no perceived threat to humanity. There is no disease or world war that threatens us right now. Sure, we talk about nuclear arms and global warming all the time, but if you are an average American, born and raised in a small town in Arizona, such things may seem unperceivable, or even scary, especially when it comes to genetic modification and sorts.

I, for one, assumes that Darwin’s Theory is true (Trust me, the article talks about an alternative theory that a group of scientists wants taught in public schools). And as he states, along with proof of time and history, evolution is driven by threat of extinction: natural selection, survival of the fittest. A simple example is the evolution of crop bugs. If humans never invented pesticides, bugs would never have become immune to a certain pesticide. It is because pesticides threaten a species to extinction that it has to evolve to survive. After applying pesticides, only the bugs that have become immune to it will survive, they will then reproduce offspring that will also be immune. In a few seasons, the farmland will once again be swarmed with bugs, now immune to the pesticide once used to kill them. So we create different kinds of pesticides to deal with these evolving “superbugs.” And this evolutionary cycle repeats itself. This is natural selection, survival of the fittest: The strong survive, the weak perish. Threat of extinction drives evolution.

Similarly, humans have evolved in such a way. when we were attacked by SARS and H2N1, we found ways to contain, if not cure, such diseases. We quarantined patients to prevent a major outbreak, protecting humanity. Whenever there is a major disease, government funding will spontaneously appear. The problem with researching global warming is that it has not harmed us directly. Yet. Global warming is mother nature’s wake-up call for humanity. If we don’t put in the money and research soon, and humanity gets hit one day by global warming as it did in The Day After Tomorrow (2004) or 2012 (2009), it will already be too late for the public to learn their lesson. Hopefully, humanity will go through natural selection then. But as history has demonstrated many a time, natural selection is never smooth and peaceful, but regretful and deadly.

Granted, this article is from 2003, but it still baffles me.  Human civilization is the way it is because of science.  Light bulbs were created using chemistry.  Buildings can stand tall because of engineering.  Humans have a 30-year-longer life-expectancy because of medical advancements using scientifically created drugs, yet some people have the audacity to question the ongoing relevancy science?

I know it’s no secret that science has been following out of favor in terms of the allocation of government funding, but that’s necessarily a bad thing.  To use NASA as an example, their funding has been cut down to $50 million a year, a mere fraction of the budget the administration received in its heyday during the 1960s and 70s.  In speaking with senior NASA engineer Tim Van Sant this past spring, he admitted to me that NASA’s progress with new and existing projects is only slowing.  He also told me that private corporations like Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic have made significant headway towards goals that NASA has been working towards in half the time.  Even many scientific advancements of old were made without government funding.  Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone or the Wright brothers’ airplane are the building blocks for commodities that we take for granted today.  Scientific breakthroughs have been continuously enhancing the quality of our lives for centuries, yet Creationism and Intelligent Design are on the rise once again.  I’d like to see the supporters of these go one week without their car or precious smartphones.  So why don’t the public want the government working to enhance their lives even more?

The problem is that the general, uneducated (I use that word very loosely) public are frankly afraid of science.  As in most situations, the public views the bad outweighing the good.  As far as they are concerned, cell phones and television may as well be a gift from the heavens since at the moment global warming and animal testing among others are the byproducts of scientific research.  I won’t deny that these problems exist, and these problems will be fixed, but with science.  In many people, myself included, religion and similar beliefs (*cough* astrology *cough*) is being forced out and replaced with science.  It frightens the public.  They are stuck in this middle-ground between choosing to believe what they were raised to, or believing what science is telling them to.  As a response, they go with their gut.  They want the science, but they want it done behind the scenes with private corporations.  After all, what’s out of sight is out of mind.

The private industry is the future of scientific research, which in my opinion is by far the best way to go.  The important research will be conducted by companies who are more financially stable than the government, have better researchers than the government, and who don’t have the enormous liability of the government.  Whether or not the public will come to accept this truth remains to be seen, but regardless, they will have to deal with it.

This article, while not terribly original in concept, does eloquently address a very real and dramatic shift in the American public.  I find the change in attitude towards science very disheartening.  Why people would think of science as a highly esteemed field of work one decade, and then switch so rapidly to the opposite is confusing to me.  While research in specific fields such as medicine is very valuable, I think research in fundamental and abstract science can help to answer some of the fundamental questions that Americans are answering by turning their back on science.  The poll on teaching evolution especially worries me.  Evolution is very basic.  Though I don’t think people should be told what or what not to believe, removing science from the classroom is the equivalent of enforcing state religion.  I don’t really know how we could unite science and religion, but I do think that both should be acceptable in school. 

I also think that the government should increase their funding toward research.  As Adam Smith said, it is the job of the government to invest in things that the private sector cannot.  The private sector will not invest in basic research because there is no obvious way to make a profit, however, this research should still be done.  The government could move funding from health research, after all the private sector already spends billions on it.  Though the research that the government funds may not be profitable, it will, indirectly or directly better the lives of everyone.  It is because we don’t know what we will find that we should research it; deeper understanding of life and the universe will lead to better lives for all people.

If we do discover more about our place in the universe, and where we come from, that may be able to fill some of the cold void people see in science.  Though if what we have discovered thus far is an indicator, we will simply have to get used to uncertainty and unanswered questions. 

Photo credit Jim Wintering

In recent years, government funding for scientific research has been slashed in most fields. We have seen federal backing cut by more than 8% in the last year (after alreadybeing cut year after year) and the end of pioneering endeavors such as NASA’s space shuttle program. Budgets have grown, however, for far less desirable focuses such as the national defense (or military) research budget, which in 2012 topped the list among all countries of the world, doubling second-place China’s spending with an annual expenditure of over $1.7 trillion (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Yearbook 2012).

With the decline of government capital available to scientists, the private sector has stepped in to fill the void. Some companies are American, though many are based across the globe, particularly in Asia. In a survey taken by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology this year, 80% of scientists said they were spending considerably more time writing grant applications than in 2010. 67% also said they were receiving considerably less funding as well. The survey continues to reveal that 1/5 of American scientists are seriously contemplating moving abroad to access better conditions for their research (Unlimited Potential, Vanishing Opportunity).

This poses a serious question: What do we do now? Do we let the great thinkers of our generation leave us behind for greener pastures, or do we rally for more administrative support and fight with and for our scientists?

Even if our researchers remain in the states, industrial control over patents and research have serious negative side effects. For example, pharmaceutical companies maintain a monopoly over most drugs offered to the public today. Only in the past few months have patents on genes like BRCA1 and BRCA2 been struckdown in the Supreme Court. Until then, a lack of competition would cost an individual thousands of dollars to see her susceptibility to breast cancer.

The only feasible solution is to increase public support for federal funding. In the article, Does Science Matter? (Broad and Glanz), the authors argue that the public has become increasingly apathetic towards science in the last 50 years. I disagree. I believe that although the general public may not understand much of the necessity or use for specific research, most still value science immensely. It should, considering science has given us everything from the Internet, which you use now, to the medical treatment one receives from a doctor.

This is also a fault of our government. Today, Asian and European countries frequently overshadow our science programs, and while, “90 percent of adult Americans say they are very or moderately interested in science discoveries,” the level of science education we receive is modest compared to others.

I suggest that collectively, as a people and country, we assemble to increase the scientific education and support for scientific endeavors in our country. Once the winner of the space race, it would be nothing short of a travesty to let our science programs decay into a hunt for money or drift off across the oceans.

In this post, I’ll be responding to a New York Times article from 2003 called Does Science Matter? by William J. Broad and James Glanz. To read the article, go to:

 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/does-science-matter.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

My response to the question of whether or not science matters can only be answered through, ironically, a scientific idea: realitivity. Science has done great things for human kind, such as cure polio, put a man on the moon, and invent the automobile. To the individual however, science can also be quite discomforting. I for one do not like to think that when I die my body will decay in the ground and no part of who I was will ever exist again. It is certainly more comfortable to believe that I will go to heaven and live my after life in bliss.

Science also brings with it as many new terrors as it does advances. With each new development we create, we bring about some new unholy terror that wreaks havoc on either the environment or our own sense of safety. The invention of plastic has led to the near extinction of many species of animals and the pollution of many, once beautiful environments. The creation and use of nuclear weapons has caused wide spread panic across the globe for decades.

There is no doubting that science has had its upside. We phones that slide into our pockets, AC units that keep us cool in the dog days of summer, and planes that take us across the country in hours. These brilliant inventions, and many more, have given us incredibly comfortable lives, but have they truly made us happy? If ignorance is truly bliss, then wouldn’t we be equally, if not more, happy living off the land, with no phones or emails or microwaves? If we had never invented or even imagined these creations our lives would certainly be different, but would they really be worse? I don’t believe they really would. In the end we must all die someday. When that day comes, I certainly hope I can bring myself to believe that maybe science does not have all the answers. Maybe there is something after death.

I suppose the point that I’m getting at is that the importance of science comes down to relativity. Sure science has been great in the perspective of the entire human existence, but to the individual it can often be more comforting to believe in something beyond science; something mystical. Whether it be God, reincarnation, angels, or just the occasional miracle or two, it can be a very good feeling to believe that science is not actually all that important. At the end of the day, all you can really worry about is your own personal happiness, and in that, I believe, science will often fall short.

Today in class, we were assigned this New York Times article to read that basically brings to question what roll science plays in our modern society. There were two main themes that stood out for me: How is religion affecting science as a whole, and how do scientists view the world compared to the average person? It was disturbing to read the statistic on people’s willingness to believe in ghosts, miracles, and astrology, but this shock is probably due to the fact that I consider myself to be a logically mined atheist, or at least an agnostic.  The fact is, though, that if this many people truly believe in these concepts, with no scientific proof, it is going to be difficult to make people understand why science is so important. Take a look at this Gallup poll, for example, which suggests that even in the modern year of 2012, 46% of Americans still believe in the idea of Creationism opposed to evolution.

It is totally fine for people to believe whatever they want about how humans came to be or how the universe was created, but this just goes to show that religion is definitely not beneficial in regard to science.

On the other hand, this article reminds me of the stereotypical, uncaring scientist, such as the ones portrayed by Rebecca Skloot in her book about HeLa cells. Maybe scientists are being too logical and thus they cannot relate to the average person whose ideas are more emotionally driven. Because of this gap between the average populace and those conducting scientific research, science will never be thought of as importantly as scientists want it to be, at least in the mind of the average person.

This is unfortunate because science is such a crucial part of our everyday lives and many people are oblivious of that fact. In the ideal world, I think the way to solve this issue would be through better education. Maybe, just maybe, we can devise a way to have scientists better comprehend how the average person reasons, and vice versa, so that we can use each other’s views to strengthen science, not disregard it.

One would be hard pressed to find a single resident of this big, blue, and terrifying sphere we call a home, who has not raised their eyes to the night sky, taken in the darkness, a darkness sprinkled with specks of the brightest light one could ever see, and become entirely wrapped up in an overwhelming sense of romance, mysticism, some great cosmic belonging, etc. Much of this feeling has to do with the wonder that humans are inclined to feel when confronted with the unknown. There is something beautiful about the image of earth as a single blue dot lost in a sea of darkness, transforming Earth into somewhat of a cosmic oasis or paradise. But, does this mean that scientific discovery might ultimately lead to the death of this shared human sentiment? Might the accumulation of knowledge on a cosmic level remove this earthly sentimentality? It is not likely.

I believe, that part of what makes this feeling such a common thread strung through humanity through the ages, is the shared feeling of significance that the “tiny blue marble” idea gives to all thing Earth and life on Earth. Discovering and gaining comprehension of the true scale of the universe, and the probable “alien” life that exists out there, might make some feel less important, and feel that meaning has been stripped from living a good life. This however, should not be the emotions that arrive with future scientific discovery, especially when speaking of discovery in the cosmic realm. Yes, the discovery of life on other worlds could hypothetically make one feel like one of many rather than one of a very, unique, few; But, when one considers that all of this other, extraterrestrial, life we may find will be made up of all the same, incomprehensibly small, subatomic particles that every existing piece of matter in the universe is made up of, there will be plenty of true beauty and romance found in that too. And, as far as life seeming less meaningful goes, a shared universal existence with other life should make humanity feel exponentially more meaningful, in no way less. Instead of life on Earth seeming inconsequential because of the infinite existence that it will now only be able to consider itself a very small piece of, everyday interaction should be viewed as sublimely important, cosmically important in fact. Life in general can only be seen as more valuable, and the Earthly connection will still be alive and well, but will have company in the form of a much larger, limitless, universal connection. 

If being a part, any part, of an infinitely expanding world in which life is fruitful, a universe in which feeling, hope, shared experience, can all be broadcast on a universal scale, is not beautiful, then I can’t tell you what is. 

The question of why science is so essential in our times is sometimes a tricky one. While science does bring around endless new discoveries and innovation for the greater good, it does have certain downfalls, like the pollution that now surrounds the earth as a result of technological innovations. Although science does sometimes pose problems, it is also the only means through which we can find a solution for these problems. At the end of the day, science does far more good than it does bad, and without science, civilization as we know it would not exist.

It is for that reason that it always shocks me to hear of people doubting ingenious, thorough, and nearly irrefutable theories like Darwin’s theory of Evolution, for what are almost always unfounded reasons. Generally, these reasons have something to do with religion, which makes sense. If someone is raised up to believe that just above the clouds lies the beautiful, eternal land of Heaven, then when men step foot on the moon and return claiming that they saw no trace of anything resembling Heaven, that person may be quick to deny the findings. It is uncomfortable for people to find out that what they have believed all their life is false, so when science makes a claim that may conflict with one of their beliefs, it is no surprise that some enemies are made. If people simply realized that science really and truly is only doing its best to describe phenomenon of the natural world and to better that world, then maybe they wouldn’t have so many problems with some of the claims that scientific studies make.

While evolution is a theory, the people protesting against it generally do not fully understand what is meant by “theory.” Source: http://pazymino1evolutionliteracy.blogs.umassd.edu/2011/01/10/evolution-cartoons/

All of this becomes a real issue to consider when states like Texas try to make teachers add intelligent design to the curriculum of their science classes in place of the theory of evolution. Perhaps it is fair to say that parents should be able to decide what information their children are exposed to, but does that imply that it is okay for masses of children to be miseducated, and taught subjects that we know to be false? Problems like these arise when people fundamentally disagree on something. It is not an issue of there being a lack of information supporting the claim. Instead, people are choosing to deny facts, because accepting them, and the fact that they may have been wrong about a few things, is simply too hard for some.

If this general disregard of science continues, issues like globing warming and limited water are going to be become real, palpable problems in society. Unfortunately, it may take a true tragedy to show people that these concerns absolutely cannot be ignored any longer. I’m confident that at some point soon, people all around the world will fully understand and embrace the importance of science, because society would be empty without it.

*This post is a response to the article, “Does Science Matter?” written by William J. Broad and James Glanz, published by the New York Times.

So, you’re not a science person? That is understandable. Though you do enjoy your smart phone and your yearly vaccines. Well, I suppose frequenting the doctor is not something to exactly look forward to, but if it was not an option, surely you would notice? The point is, one does not have to find the pursuit of science enjoyable to enjoy its benefits. For example, the search for extraterrestrial life may seem useless and irrelevant, yet what is learned along the way will benefit society, as a whole. Don’t believe me? What if we told Alexander Fleming that his search for a wonder drug was absurd and improbable? He may have never discovered lysozyme, let alone penicillin, both of which were discovered by chance! (1)

It is hard, sometimes, to zoom out of ourselves and to see the bigger picture. That is why it is understandable that the general attitude of the public is something along the lines of ‘why should my hard earned tax dollars fund some wacko’s interest in quasar-ma-jigs??’ However, we must realize that the bigger efforts taken to understand bigger ideas yield more discoveries!

Bigger is better, right?

The point is, the crazier the idea, the more we are forced to develop new technologies to be able to test the idea (technology that can apply far and wide). The less concrete that it is we are looking for, the more we are open to anything that we discover along the way. So next time you wonder what there is to gain from shooting for the stars, just know that even though we may not get there, we’ll get somewhere along the way.

Reference:

(1) http://history1900s.about.com/od/medicaladvancesissues/a/penicillin.htm