TNR BLOGS

May 13, 2008 | 11:59 AM
May 13, 2008 | 10:52 AM
May 13, 2008 | 10:46 AM

May 13, 2008 | 11:05 AM
May 12, 2008 | 5:48 PM
May 12, 2008 | 5:15 PM

May 12, 2008 | 10:42 PM
May 12, 2008 | 10:11 PM
May 12, 2008 | 9:26 PM

May 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
May 02, 2008 | 5:26 PM
May 02, 2008 | 2:40 PM

May 13, 2008 | 12:26 PM
May 13, 2008 | 11:33 AM
May 13, 2008 | 11:32 AM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
08.04.2008
Why the Silence on Science?

Having declined to discuss matters of science and technology at a forum hosted by the truly non-partisan forum ScienceDebate2008, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have agreed to participate in "The Compassion Forum" where I assume they will compete in high-minded but anodyne phraseology to prove that they believe in God -- but not blindingly. Religiously, Hillary hails from social gospel Methodism and Obama, well, we'll hear from where he hails...The forum aims, said the organizers, at "wide-ranging and probing discussions of policies related to moral issues."  "The presidential-candidate forum on faith, values and other current issues" will be telecast on CNN and held at Messiah College, an institution founded by and part of the Brethren in Christ Church, situated in the unincorporated village of Grantham, Pennsylvania. The date is April 13, nine days before the Pennsylvania mega-primary.

This is all well and good, although the militantly secular supporters of both candidates may do better to go to a concert (or go bowling, even "bowling alone," as the distinguished political scientist Robert Putnam put it) that night rather than risk getting thrown off balance by the piety of the contenders.

But here's something that does rile me. For several months now, I have been not so marginally involved in the effort of ScienceDebate2008 to air their views about issues of science and engineering as they affect American society. This, by the way, goes way beyond the morally laden matter of climate change to which no candidate has devoted much intellectual effort or time and consideration. This should be a scandal. At last look, it is far from it. You wonder why Al Gore hasn't endorsed anybody. I haven't spoken to him about this. But I do not wonder why.

As it happens, scientific issues also not discussed in this campaign are stem cell research, genomics, genetically manipulated crops, the reinforcing dynamics of drug development and the profit system, biodiversity, population, clean energy (INCLUDING NUCLEAR POWER), the destruction of species, etc.  Health insurance, on which Hillary purports to be senior professor, has never been discussed in this campaign in the context of medical research, probably the most significant factor affecting care of patients. 

Encompassing all of these matters and more is the fact that the modern American economy has been built on scientific research, technological development and engineering skills. Almost to the exclusion of other factors. But the teaching of science is on the decline in our high schools, which bodes ill for how it will fare in even our best colleges and universities. One reliable source suggests that by 2010 -- maybe this is a bit overstated -- "90% of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia."

Nobody in this campaign, neither Obama, nor Hillay, nor John McCain, has so much as mentioned this. Yet the American future depends on American advances in science and engineering.

This is not a crank position. The group (mentioned above twice) trying to get a discussion going among the presidential candidates has the support of more than fifty Nobel Laureates in the sciences, dozens of eminent and accomplished university and college presidents, more dozens of truly learned women and men in the sciences and humane professions and others (including yours truly.) We have not made a mark in this campaign. Of what are the candidates so frightened? Let's see their brains have to stretch, and for God's sake, too.

Posted: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 2:56 PM with 28 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

boneill said:

Cheers, Marty.  Great post.  

April 8, 2008 3:35 PM

williamyard said:

I'm profoundly fortunate to work in biotech, and when the conversation turns to data--that is, when bright scientists attempt to reach a decision based on the first-hand evidence that they have gathered, that conversation seems to share a lowest common denominator with fine art--great drama, dance or music, perhaps. To me, the observer, a sense of wonder rises and blooms.

I witness the inherent, incontrovertable goodness of my fellow humans. Seeing others join together to fight disease...humility washes away all barriers.

God is a verb said, I think, Bucky Fuller. Science is full of this verb.

April 8, 2008 3:58 PM

ironyroad said:

It seems to me they are frightened of being considered positively biased toward science, and therefore some kind of atheistic elitist.  Given the aggressive domination of anti-intellectualism in mainstream public life in America, where else would we find ourselves?

April 8, 2008 4:12 PM

rlgordonma said:

I am a Ph.D. in Opitcs, and after 10 years as an engineer working in U.S. semiconductor manufacturing, I called it quits and went into patent law.  Why?  While the 90% that Marty quotes may seem like an extreme estimate, I do think that R & D in electronics manufacturing (i.e., process & materials engineering) has been trending to Asia, and will soon be much like actual manufacturing.  

BTW Did anyone notice that Intel's latest 300 mm manufacturing fab with the latest & greatest is being built, not in OR, NM, CO, or MA, but in China.  Get used to it, unless graduating Ph.D. engineers are willing to work for < $20,000/year.  Sorry, but that is the truth.

April 8, 2008 4:19 PM

ratnerstar said:

Great post, Marty!

April 8, 2008 4:26 PM

singlespeed said:

This situation is woefully depressing and highly frustrating. Instead of addressing the pressing needs that Marty has outlined we have Presidential candidates are addressing this non-issue of moral suasion based upon how religious we are.

Here's a heads up....that post on the Anasazi suddenly finding themselves under the crush of environmental collapse, coupled with immigration  and population control turning to a new religiousness to find their answers is what we're doing here. Thinking that God is going to save our asses is both ignorant of God and woefully arrogant to think He/She/It has nothing better to do in the infinite universe to save people who collectively would rather wear their ass-hats than try to figure out how to solve our own problems with science and know-how and adapt ourselves to a changing world and the novel idea that Earth isn't static.

I'm beginning to think that America is slowly becoming the land of the dumb and free (of critical thought).

April 8, 2008 4:36 PM

r-ennis said:

I heard Hillary this weekend declare that she would "end Bush's war on science" and specifically included stem cell research as something she would sign into law as soon as she could. Not the first time I heard this from her. This is, unfortunately, more than I have heard from the other two candidates.

I do not believe that anti-intellectualism extends to science in general, and ceratinly not engineering. The mainstream religious right object to stem cell research because of their opposition to abortion, which is understandable. Only a fringe on the religious right object to evolution being taught or  believe that "intelligent design" constitutes real science.

The candidates do not talk much about science because it cannot be easily reduced to sound bites without resorting to demagoguery.

April 8, 2008 4:44 PM

mollysimon said:

rigordonma:  What a depressing, and I'm sure realistic, post.  My first thought is, "Oh my God, my son loves building and three-dimensional projects.  Do I keep him away from this?"  In other words, is this future as doomed here as electronic engineering?  Sorry, I'm an anxious mom.

Secondly, do you believe that Asians will be able to develop things as sophisticated as the i-pod?  I believe this was developed in Israel, though I could be completely wrong.  Interested in where you think where Americans who want jobs in science should be looking.  If I may be so presumptuous as to ask.

r-ennis:  in fact, I believe that 60 percent of Americans do not believe in evolution.  This is a scary number--not exactly a fringe. This sixty percent probably explains why Hillary and Obama are staying away from Marty's debate.  I think we can all guess which side they're on on most of these issues, but I'd love to hear more detailed responses to things like bio-fuels, and the harm that they can do.  And how, too, the farm lobby may be influencing science.

April 8, 2008 5:22 PM

jacksondyer said:

"Why the Silence on Science?"

Simple, how many scientists vote and what kind of difference does their vote make?

Creationists, now there is a voting block no one wants to piss off.

Sad state of affairs indeed.

April 8, 2008 5:35 PM

jacksondyer said:

Perhaps the candidates can borrow a page from the visionary  Israeli President's book:

Leaving aside the local politics (we have our own) we could surely use an American confab on our own future with the help of scientists, inventors, technologists, and yes politicos:

Peres To Convene Confab

By Nathan Guttman  Thu. Apr 03, 2008

“Jerusalem — More than a thousand leading politicians, scholars and scientists from around the world are set to convene in Jerusalem next month with the lofty goal of outlining a blueprint for the future of Israel and the Jewish people.

The global leaders will gather in the Jewish state May 13 for “Facing Tomorrow,” a three-day conference convened by Israeli President Shimon Peres to coincide with the country’s 60th anniversary celebrations. The list of scheduled participants boasts an impressive variety of figures, from politicians like President Bush, Tony Blair and Mikhail Gorbachev, to business moguls such as Google’s Sergey Brinn and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, to entertainment stars such as Barbra Streisand.

Against the backdrop of what are viewed by many in Israel as dull and ordinary events celebrating Israel’s 60th, the conference stands out for its ambitious goals and its A-list invitees. The gathering is the brainchild of Peres, the last remaining leader from the generation that founded the state.

Peres has been ridiculed in the past for his grand visions of a new Middle East, but he is now setting out to take on nothing less than the future of the Jewish people. And in typical Peres fashion, he wants to redefine the basic structure of relations among Israel, the Jewish people and the world.

“It is time to change the nature of the partnership between the various parts of the Jewish people,” Peres told the Forward. “It needs to be less materialistic and more intellectual.” Israel, he argued, should aspire to become a “leading world laboratory” for thought, technology and science.

The idea for the conference, dubbed a “Jewish Davos,” after the famed annual meeting of world leaders at the eponymous Swiss ski resort, came from Peres himself shortly after he took office last year. The gathering’s agenda will be set by the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute, a Jerusalem-based think tank that for the past several years has brought together Jewish scholars and leaders to discuss the future of the Jewish people.”

www.forward.com/.../13105

April 8, 2008 5:41 PM

blackton said:

I have a number of friends who have moved from China to the states. I taught Toefl in Jiaotong University. As long as our Universities remain the best in the world (and believe you me, while Jiaotong is one of the best universities in China, it can't hold a candle to any top school in the states. The scientific method in China is just drill, drill, drill, copy, copy, copy. Once they get here, then they are given the freedom to make genuine advances.

I know it is bizarre, but we will just import our brainpower.

April 8, 2008 5:49 PM

teplukhin2you said:

"Nobody in this campaign, neither Obama, nor Hillay, nor John McCain, has so much as mentioned this"

Of course not. That would require Tweedledum and Tweedledee to tell the good folk that the fault lies not in furreigners or W-Cheney-Halliburton-Blackwater or OtherParty but in themselves. In the families that prefer their kids be spoonfed the most infantile curriculum and least rigorous academic standards in the advanced world. In the greedy geezers who won't vote for school bonds that would pay for school supplies and enable teachers to earn a decent, middle-class salary. In the wealthy families that refuse to support their local public school systems but give millions to universities whose endowments generate more income each year than many Fortune 1000 firms. In the identity politics lobby that has done f-all to help poor children of color. Pox on both/all your houses

April 8, 2008 5:51 PM

rlgordonma said:

mollysimon,

I would give your son the same advice I give my teenage nephew, who loves computers, or my own 9-year-old son, who loves building things.  Do what you love in school.  Invest in your education.  But be prepared to do something else for your career.  I recommend supplementing any engineering or science degree with a degree in Economics or Law and/ or an MBA.  Certainly one must hedge one's bets these days.

I went into a Ph.D. program in a science and into industry thinking that a Ph.D. engineer won't have career worries.  I then watched a Ph.D. engineer with a stellar 30-year track record at a large company have 15 minutes to pack his desk up during a layoff.  Bottom line: nobody is safe.

In patent law, I don't have any illusions, either.  But the inherent requirements involved in practicing law are very different than in engineering.  We don't get H1-B's taking available spots.  Our jobs won't be completely offshored.  Love or hate lawyers, but that is the truth.

BTW I say all this as someone who favors liberal free trade policies.  If I ran a manufacturing business, I would think long and hard about how much I'm willing to pay for labor as well.  

April 8, 2008 6:08 PM

ndmackenzie said:

Molly Simon -

The problem with science and technology in the United States is that not enough American students want to study them - leaving foreign students to make up the numbers.  I think that too many mathematically gifted American students choose the option of a career in high finance rather than high tech because the former is more remunerative (and easier) than the latter. A rational, and increasingly common option, is to to a high-tech first degree followed by an MBA. This leaves open the possibility of working at the sharp edge of high tech which doing something like an economics first degree does not.

With regard to your question as to whether "Asians will be able to develop things as sophisticated as the i-pod?" The answer is they already do. My cellphone is designed and manufactured by a Taiwanese company, HTC, and functionally is more sophisticated than an iPhone.

April 8, 2008 6:29 PM

blackton said:

rlgordonma, nobody is safe. Actually, get tenure in a University or a cushy civil service job, and then you can be pretty safe. Oh, and I have a feeling that the kids of Bill Gates are pretty safe too.

April 8, 2008 6:33 PM

singlespeed said:

mollysimon....

You should by all means encourage your son to go into and pursue the sciences and/or engineering fields if that's what he's interested in. He'll get the best education here stateside and if he does his graduate program here as well top notch research opportunities as well at the University level if he choses that route.

Science isn't a local industry and never has been really. It's had probably one of the longest professional histories in being global. If scientists didn't travel and work abroad we wouldn't have had the Theory of Evolution, compasses, water wheels, etc.

What's depressing is the number of American students whose parents don't  encourage scientific pursuits but instead encourage "lifestyle" pursuits as a means of making a living. I.e. - mass communications or say...professional sports or hedge fund managers. it's more about the quick buck.

I've got friends (engineers, nurses, architects) who work abroad in China, Australia, Argentina, South Africa, Europe, Dubai and the U.S. Needless to say, getting out and exploring the world is valuable experience and then bringing that back home to make positive impacts here is the real reward.

April 8, 2008 6:39 PM

ndmackenzie said:

I don't think a Clinton-Obama debate on science and technology would be either enlightening or interesting.

They could, for example, say they would abolish Bush's stem-cell research ban but that still leaves the issue of what the restrictions on this type of research should be - and restrictions there will be. A nomination debate is not the best place to discuss the minutiae of a topic the American peole does not - and probably never will - understand.

And the same goes for most of the other topics brought up by Martin Peretz - although I suspect that the 2012 election cycle may see active discussion of whether or not the US should ramp up nuclear power production. But there, as with the stem-cell issue, we have the easily packaged issue of a thing that we either want or don't want. There is no need to understand nuances as there would be with say biodiversity or species destruction.

April 8, 2008 6:45 PM

jacksondyer said:

When push comes to shove Clinton's, Obama's and McCain's policy on science isn't all that different:

McCain:

blogs.physicstoday.org/.../john_mccain

Obama:

blogs.physicstoday.org/.../where_do_you_stand_on_science_6.html

Clinton:

blogs.physicstoday.org/.../hillary_clinton

April 8, 2008 7:44 PM

jacksondyer said:

Also unlike the other candidates, as far as I was able to find, McCain seems also to have  'a tragic sense' of the possibilites of science. In a speech on foreign policy he said this:

"The developments of science and technology have brought us untold prosperity, eradicated disease, and reduced the suffering of millions. We have a chance in our lifetime to raise the world to a new standard of human existence. Yet these same technologies have produced grave new risks, arming a few zealots with the ability to murder millions of innocents, and producing a global industrialization that can in time threaten our planet."

www.nytimes.com/.../26text-mccain.html

I would love to see a debate on science between McCain and Clinton, or McCain and Obama.

April 8, 2008 7:49 PM

CRS9TNR said:

I really don't want Politicians talking about science.

This blog has too many engineers and scientists talking about politics and we see how well that's turned out.  

It's nice to think Technology will save us, but really there is more to be gained from getting Urban America on track.

I with rigordonma.  werything is moving to China wanyway, so what's the point in getting more people who won't find jobs.  With Techincal advances, a typical engineer gets a lot more done with less these days.

If you want to know what the politicans think about science, ask them about their defense budgets.  Anyone supporting more F-22's and F-35's gets my vote.

April 8, 2008 11:26 PM

ironyroad said:

I'm not an engineer or an economist, and stand to be corrected, but I get the impression is that one problem is that F-22s and F-35s have ultimately only a few customers (the U.S. Air Force and a few more rich nations who want a gold-plated military).  Not everyone can work in defense manufacturing and if every consumer good is designed and manufactured overseas, the fact that we command the jet fighter market isn't much of a comfort.  Indeed, I understand that one of the problems with highly advanced military aviation technology in general is the disappointing numbers on operational time vs. downtime due to equipment failure, over-complex maintenance procedures, and the like.

Even in strategic terms, the question of who/what the Raptor is meant to confront in combat doesn't have an obvious answer.  It's not like the Cold War, when the Soviet air forces continually required new technology to keep ahead.  Just to clarify, I'm not against spending on air power, but the kind of rubber-stamping of service wish-lists that passes for Congressional supervision nowadays is depressing.

Now a really new and ambitious space program, allied with a massive investment in alternative energy sources and transport systems, could achieve something that would have major political as well as economic dimensions.

April 9, 2008 12:27 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Molly - we're in the same boat. Our 6 year-old's crazy about science, builds stuff, does experiments, devours his Discovery Channel and NOVA vids etc. To our minds the right course of action for a parent of a child with a strong native interest in any serious field of inquiry is to encourage him to follow his interests hammer and tongs and give him whatever support and supplements you can locate and afford.

And enjoy it while you can. When he's old enough to worry about a career, you'll lament that he's no longer an amazing and delightful little child. The college and career issues will sort themselves out, provided you always give him a realistic view of life in a capitalist economy: what you earn does NOT correlate with what you learn or can learn; ti correlates with your market power, period.

In any case he can always minor in economics, which, for a physics or other hard sciences major, is kind of a joke. As Jeff Bezos cheerfully admitted (would that our current political darling was so humble and honest!), "I studied economics at Princeton because I wasn't smart enough to succeed in physics", or words to that effect. Paul Krugman said more or less the same thing, btw.  Even if he doesn't touch economics, if his math's solid and he has some business sense he can always shift into moneyfiddling, assuming  he can stomach the kind of shall we say "personaities" drawn to that field.

A practical suggestion: If you live on one of the coasts, find a Russian-run preschool-K and post-K supplemental school in your area and take your child there for supplemental math training. The Russian math and science curriculum, like most in eastern Europe and Asia, is about 2 years more advanced than the US equivalent (maybe 3 years in the case of infantile, spoonfed California's public school curriculum).

For example, there's the Russian School of Math in Boston and San Jose: http://www.russianschool.com/. Also the Starbirght School in Silicon Valley, where our boy goes once a week for half an hour. He's now doing math that he would have had to wait until 2nd grade (he's now in kindergarten in a public school) to do, and there are puzzles that he would likely never be exposed to at any point in his grade school. Worth every penny, and it doesn't cost much anyway.

best of luck,

t

April 9, 2008 2:13 AM

sleepyavl said:

Congratulations Marty! This was great. Without science, America will become a second Venezuela. It is high time that they discussed that.

April 9, 2008 5:31 AM

ironyroad said:

molly, I'd also add my 10 cents worth to say that children change in sometimes unexpected ways -- the kid interested in buildings and architecture wants to join law enforcement, the romantic and creative kid who loved Harry Potter wants to go into finance, and the not-too-bright kid who was mainly interested in running and softball decides to study archaeology.

One of the greatest advantages we have as a society is our ability -- the structure, if you like -- to allow people to poke around a little and see what they are really made of, and for.  If we over-emphasize the "career path for life" model we give away too much.  The recent NY Times piece on the resurgence of philosophy as a popular undergrad major, for example, suggests that (a) rigorous but authentic thinking is attractive to young people and (b) that it doesn't just belong to the sciences alone.

In fact, even more than science and engineering students, what we need in the U.S. at the moment is clear thinking.

April 9, 2008 11:40 AM

r-ennis said:

Molly, I live in an area dominated by the religious right and can tell you that your estimate that 60% of the population not believing in evolution is very far off the mark. You would also be surprised at the number of Obama posters I see on redneck pickup trucks, which really surprised me. I bet there will be a larger percentage of rednecks voting for him than there will be of blacks not voting for him. Maybe these folks are less racist or anti-science than you give them credit for.

April 9, 2008 12:09 PM

mollysimon said:

Thanks, guys, for your collective wisdom.  You're all, of course, right.  Irony, that was especially eloquent.  

Tep:  Funny you should mention the Russian school.  There's nothing like that in L.A., as far as I know.  However, my son was struggling a bit with math at the beginning of this year.  So I found him a math tutor who happened to have moved here from Georgia when he was in the fifth grade.  He's just about to get his  PhD in physics and is moving to New York to work for Goldman.   In any case, he taught my son in incredibly creative ways--crazy stuff like counting points on diamonds to do high-number multiplication problems.  

ND:  The above tutor proves your point, the only trouble being that he'd earn less than $20,000 (10,000 pounds) a year had he taken a fellowship at a university.  Wishes he could stay with research, but there's not much of a choice there.  

April 9, 2008 7:39 PM

teplukhin2you said:

It's Obama's african-american supporters, along with their white evangelical soulmates,  who don't believe in evolution. Maybe 30% of the population, 40% max.

April 10, 2008 1:33 PM

sleepyavl said:

ironyroad, I studied philosophy for one year, while taking a break from studies in genetics and neuroscience. I was appalled by how much the philosophers wrote and how little they said. I much prefer the 10-pages science articles that say as much 400 pages of philosophy. I hate verbiage. Having said that, whoever feels comfortable with that, very good and good luck to them.

April 11, 2008 2:04 AM

Double click this space to insert your ad.