I admit an imperfect knowledge, and one perhaps somewhat biased by USA
provincialism, but it seems that part of this phenomenon must be laid to the
researchers themselves, and to a great extent to the academic community at
large. I do not suggest that any given professor can single-handedly create
more than a ripple where a tsunami is required, but then we can't cast them
all, innocent and guilty, into the sea simultaenously, eh?
But seriously, folks, how hard a look has been given at the complex of
phenomena which have given rise to, shall we say, "anti-intellectualism?"
Let's face it, academia is a GUILD. It is, by definition, an ELITE group.
And the more it hardens the line between itself and the outsiders, the more
the outsiders harden their side of the line. "Joe," in this case, is a
thinly-veiled insult to those outsiders. Academics should, then, expect
support?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Silvert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 8:22 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Acceptance of basic research, even with fruit flies
It isn't just the public Joes that pose a problem. Governments too tend to
dump basic research when funding gets tight, failing to realise that this
is the resource on which all our scientific advances are based. The past
few decades have seen drastic cuts in research funding around the globe,
with only the most obvious applied projects being funded.
Science education tends to be very much targetted on details. I do not
recall any texts that connected basic science to applied results. I used
to teach courses in which I tried to develop a general understanding of
science rather than put forth a collection of facts, and I always began
which an exercise where first I asked my students to name the great
scientists in history, and then identify the ways in which science
affected their lives. I then asked them to connect the two, and they could
come up with very few links. Aside from Einstein and nuclear energy,
virtually none.
I like to think that by the end of the course they had a better
understanding of how science had changed their lives, but many of these
changes are not of obvious benefit. For example, the work of Copernicus,
Gallileo, Lyell, Darwin and others have profoundly affected our lives by
changing the role of religion and traditional beliefs about the centrality
of humans in the universe, but that is hardly what we think about when we
discuss applied science!
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason L Kindall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2008 2:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Palin laughs at fruit fly research
The political implications alone are troubling. The larger issue in my
mind is that this is a real reflection of the general lack of
understanding by the general public about what scientific research is and
isn't. Viewed alone, it might be pretty hard to justify research on
fruit flies to the average Joe (plumber or six-pack). Connect it with
autism or human health and then it becomes more palatable to the public.
However, it doesn't get there in the popular media, does it?
We're up against a real wall here, folks. As our economy gets more
turbulent there will be more uninformed remarks about research dollars
being spent on projects that the public has a hard time connecting with.
So where do we fight the good fight of science education? In schools? In
colleges? At home? I interact with *great* teachers that don't
understand scientific inquiry. The education system for our nations
teachers doesn't include much in the way of what science is for anyone
but actual science teachers in training (and that is sparse at best). We
should do what we can to diversify science courses in core curriculum
across all majors.
