At the end of last week Dr. Isis received the following email in response to her post about The Rightful Place Project:
While I enjoy reading your blog, I didn't think you really got to the heart of the matter on your post regarding The Rightful Place Project, at least as far as how the non-science community would see it.My first reaction to this reader was, "What? Don't think I got to the heart of the matter? How dare you question the blog-stylings of the domestic and laboratory goddess! Perhaps you thought for a moment that you were reading someone else's blog and that this type of insolence would be tolerated?"
My response was too large to put in the comments section, so it ended up being a post on my blog at sanityinthenorthwest.wordpress.com. Keep up the entertaining writing.
You see, my take on President Obama's comment that we must restore science to its rightful place was best summed up by DrugMonkey in my comments section when he wrote this about The Rightful Place Project:
Yeah, I think they are making a leeeetle too much of something that was such an obvious slap at the prior anti-science administration.
I think it is perfectly acceptable for the public to demand a higher level of science literacy. I am thrilled that President Obama's comments, and Seed's The Rightful Place Project, have served as a call to action for educators and journalists. I agree that these is a huge amount of work to be done in the areas of science literacy and outreach. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that this has anything to do with "restoring" science to pre-Bush levels. Restoring science to pre-Bush levels has everything to do with this:
Figure 2: R01-Equivalent grants applications, awards, and success rates, courtesy of her homies at the National Institutes of Health. Those teal-colored circles represent the success rate for funding grant applications. No, no, no, not the big blue bars that seem to be trending upward. Those little teal circles alllllllllllllllllllll the way at the bottom of the graph that are trending down, down, down.
But, as I thought more and more about the readers letter, the more one phrase struck me:
You see, I think the non-science community sees the problems with science literacy and outreach, but they don't realize just how dire the current financial state of American science it. And it has nothing to due with the current recession. It's bad, non-science community. It's really bad. If you've been reading the blogs kept by "practicing scientists" around these parts, then you've read of the struggles some of them are having to keep their lab doors open. Science is expensive, both in terms of resources and manpower and it is underfunded. I recently spoke with an incredibly bright new grad student about her career plans and she told me that her goal was to teach at a Small Liberal Arts College (SLAC). I asked her why she was discounting research so early in her career and she told me that she has no desire to fight for funding. You can encourage a young person to pursue a life in science, but some of our brightest minds are discouraged by the funding climate.
So, I will say this to you again, non-science community -- Your goals are admirable and I support them. As an academic scientist, I will continue to offer research opportunities to undergraduates, speak to high school students about my career path, and serve as a mentor for local Women in Science-type activities, but if you don't start raising your voice with mine there will be no new hot science for you to reach out with.
But, as I thought more and more about the readers letter, the more one phrase struck me:
...at least as far as how the non-science community would see it.and I had a total palm to forehead moment. Perhaps the non-science community doesn't really know how bad it is.
You see, I think the non-science community sees the problems with science literacy and outreach, but they don't realize just how dire the current financial state of American science it. And it has nothing to due with the current recession. It's bad, non-science community. It's really bad. If you've been reading the blogs kept by "practicing scientists" around these parts, then you've read of the struggles some of them are having to keep their lab doors open. Science is expensive, both in terms of resources and manpower and it is underfunded. I recently spoke with an incredibly bright new grad student about her career plans and she told me that her goal was to teach at a Small Liberal Arts College (SLAC). I asked her why she was discounting research so early in her career and she told me that she has no desire to fight for funding. You can encourage a young person to pursue a life in science, but some of our brightest minds are discouraged by the funding climate.
So, I will say this to you again, non-science community -- Your goals are admirable and I support them. As an academic scientist, I will continue to offer research opportunities to undergraduates, speak to high school students about my career path, and serve as a mentor for local Women in Science-type activities, but if you don't start raising your voice with mine there will be no new hot science for you to reach out with.
Education & Careers
Comments
I don't think its just about the non-science community not recognizing the lack of funds. Its about the non-science community not understanding the importance / relevance that science plays in their everyday life. That was signified by Sarah Palins comment about fruit fly research. She was playing to a large portion of the public that just does not get it. I think the public gets the idea of having to fund mice work or drug therapy work, they don't get that we can not get to test things on mice with out first making basic science discoveries.
Posted by: ScientistMother | January 31, 2009 5:06 PM
I agree that both are needed: educating the general public about the lack of funding and educating the public about the reason for funding. Maybe some "we're getting behind other countries" is needed. There is a sense I've noticed in general America that America is the king of the world, top dog in savvy and policeman of democracy. There is going to be a lot of shock as America slips into a backwater. At least Canada is used to being a backwater.
Posted by: Lilian Nattel | January 31, 2009 5:18 PM
Nice post. The day after the inauguration, I set aside the lecture topic (buffers, yay) and instead started a discussion with my freshmen about the "rightful place of science." It was really interesting to hear their viewpoints on how the public viewed science (and how the media portrays it). I highly recommend using this as a jumping-off point for class discussion or a writing assignment for any science-related class whether it is for under- or upperclassmen.
Posted by: unbalanced reaction | January 31, 2009 7:22 PM
Perhaps part of it is that the general public does not understand just how expensive science is. I mean, the germ-free mice we use cost at least $100 each, more for the slower-breeding strains. A 250ml single-use filter flask costs $12.50. BioRad Q-RT-PCR machines cost as much as a new Lexus and confocal microscopes run as much as most suburban houses. Maybe if the public understood just how much cash it takes to generate a chunk of useful data, then maybe we'd be better roommates.
Posted by: Toaster | January 31, 2009 11:34 PM
I used to be a scientist, but joined the Non Science Community (it's a long story). Those members of the NSC, otherwise know as the general public who show any interest in science (it's a short list) generally confuse it with technology. This is why they get tangled up in how science funding should be directed to "useful" research. ScienceBlogs provides an insight into the world of real science and real scientists and is the ideal forum for engaging the Non Science Community
Posted by: Michael fitzGerald | February 1, 2009 12:29 AM