blog

I admit, I have to catch up on some blogging.

A few weeks ago, the BBC had an article called “Science ‘not for normal people’“.

Around 70% of the 11-15 year olds questioned said they did not picture scientists as “normal young and attractive men and women”. Among those who said they would not like to be scientists, reasons included: “Because you would constantly be depressed and tired and not have time for family”, and “because they all wear big glasses and white coats and I am female”.

This was followed up by Time’s recent issue entitled “Is America Flunking Science,” including an article on the state of US education and attitude on science “Are We Losing Our Edge?“

Competitive pressure and the need to prop up stock prices forced many companies to abandon research and focus mostly on short-term product development. Freewheeling corporate research labs that didn’t contribute visibly to the bottom line…

When students see how much time a professor spends on bureaucratic busywork, says Jennings, they say, “I don’t want to do that.” It’s not just red tape either, says Paul Nurse, president of Rockefeller University and a 2001 Nobel laureate in physiology or medicine. “If we compare what our best undergraduates get paid as a graduate student vs. what they get paid in investment banking, there’s no doubt that there’s tremendous economic pressure to suck you away from what is perhaps your first academic love.” As for teaching science at the precollege level, salaries and working conditions are even more dismal.

Even given all this negative pressure, the state of science in the US and UK is remarkably good. Clearly some of the best research is performed in the US and Europe, and many other countries will send young researchers to the US for graduate study or postdoctoral research — which would not happen if the level of basic scientific research was failing.

In chemistry, I know many top departments, both research universities and small undergraduate institutions, receive countless applications for faculty openings (e.g., 200-400+). While perhaps some of these applications are misguided because of the relative ease to print up another curriculum vitae and set of proposals in this age of laser printers, these departments must still be receiving excellent applicants. (Feel free to contradict me in the comments if you have evidence to the contrary.)

On the other hand, I can recall many anecdotes on the pressures for academic vs. industrial research. It’s not hard to imagine that some of our potentially best academic researchers may be turned towards industrial research or away from the sciences because of negative stereotypes or financial pressure.

Personally, I see two issues:

• Public perception of science and scientists (i.e., disconnect with society, too much work, “too hard,” not interesting)
• Financial incentive for science and teaching science

Considering the number of undergraduates who take at least introductory science classes, I suspect that college/university curriculum and talented teachers could address the first. That’s certainly one of my motivations in teaching and outreach.

The second issue is harder to address on a grassroots level. It’s a societal issue — it’s easier to dream of being a professional athlete making $X million a year, than a college or high school science teacher making $XX thousand a year. I’m not sure there are easy answers.