Search News


Browse Archives

News

Soothing Speech on Science

April 28, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

President Obama on Monday set a goal of devoting more than 3 percent of the country's gross domestic product to research and development -- a new goal in a speech that otherwise served primarily to sum up various strands of his new administration's science and research agenda. The speech, delivered at the National Academy of Sciences’ annual meeting, in Washington, would make for easy bedtime reading for many scientists, and for sweet dreams, too.

"At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science, that support for research is somehow a luxury at moments defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree," Obama said Monday. "Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been before."

“In this case, I think the whole was bigger than the sum of the individual parts,” said Al Teich, director of science and policy programs for the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “I really think that what was important about this talk, what was really significant, is the fact that he recognizes how critical science, innovation, technology, and education are to, not just to our economic recovery but to the long-term future of the country. ... He’s making it clear that science and education are central to his vision.”

In addition to introducing the 3 percent figure -- which would be met with both public and private investment and would, Obama said, “exceed the level achieved at the height of the space race” [in 1964] -- Obama reiterated a number of goals in his speech, including doubling, over 10 years, the budget of the National Science Foundation. (“It’s nice to hear it again; he can say it as often as he wants!” Teich said.) Obama cited a number of priorities under his proposed budget, including making the research and experimentation tax credit permanent, tripling the number of NSF graduate research fellowships, and adding $6 billion to the National Institutes of Health's pot for cancer research.

Obama also spoke of ensuring scientific integrity (and warned against politicization of research); of improving math and science education; and of scientists’ own responsibilities in this latter endeavor. “So I want to persuade you to spend time in the classroom, talking and showing young people what it is that your work can mean, and what it means to you. I want to encourage you to participate in programs to allow students to get a degree in science fields and a teaching certificate at the same time. I want us all to think about new and creative ways to engage young people in science and engineering, whether it's science festivals, robotics competitions, fairs that encourage young people to create and build and invent -- to be makers of things, not just consumers of things,” Obama said.

“He kind of put it all together, in a way,” said Barry Toiv, spokesman for the Association of American Universities. “He has clearly spoken about these issues quite a bit as a candidate, and as president, but this speech really put it all together in a qualitatively new way, I’d say.”

The White House also on Monday announced the full membership of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Soothing Speech on Science

  • MLA = 56 ... National Academy of Science = 1
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on April 28, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • Write an article about something the Modern Language Association did ... or all of those funny pontifications by the Assessment and Accountability gurus ... or the Critical Thinking gurus ... or something about student loans ... or the SAT ... or, U.S. News and World Report’s collegiate rankings ... or maybe Notre Dame’s commencement speaker ... or, God forbid, Ward Churchill or some other professor who was once well-regarded (i.e., moved up through the academic ranks with nary a second glance) but came into conflict with an intellectually- and managerially-challenged administrator ... and interested InsideHigherEd readers will come out of the woodwork in order to participate. But mention science and the clicks of keyboards sending readers on to the next article or essay are deafening.

    So I’ll try to add a little interest to this short article by politicizing it.

    Every time something related to science crosses my mind – and that’s fairly often – I thank God – more specifically, I thank Hermes – that Barack Obama is our president, not one of those Republican idiots (Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo) who raised his hand when asked “I’m curious, is there anyone on the stage who does not believe in evolution?” I’m even pleased the ever-resilient, John McCain -- a believer (in evolution) who apparently felt compelled to condition his belief in science by adding, “I also believe when I hike the Grand Canyon and see a sunset, that the hand of God is there also” – isn’t working in the Oval Office this morning. Whew!

    I must admit that I cringe every time I recall Huckabee’s response in the third Republican debate, “It is interesting that that question [about evolution] would even be asked of someone running for president. I’m not trying to write the curriculum for an eighth grade science book.” I often imagine being the principal of a middle school and asking science teacher Obama to write a detailed syllabus for our eighth grade science course for next fall. I’m virtually certain it would be on my desk the following Monday morning, and I’m confident that, after a glance, I would be good-to-go with it.

    I’m thrilled that President Obama is as concerned as he is with science research ... and I can hardly wait to see how his administration influences K-12 and collegiate mathematics and science education. In that respect, I have only one accountability and assessment objective. As it is today (from PEW Research and Gallop Polling) ...

    61% of American adults (approximately 150 million of us and including Mike Huckabee) either do not believe in evolution or are not sure about it.

    44% of American adults (approximately 108 million of us and including Sarah Palin) believe the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.

    52% of American adults (approximately 128 million of us and including Sarah Palin) believe early man and dinosaurs coexisted on the Earth.

    31 % of American adults (approximately 76 million of us) believe there is a scientific basis for astrology.

    65% of American adults (approximately 160 million of us and including Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin) believe creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the public schools.

    I hope it will be a measurable objective of the Obama administration to halve those percentages within the next eight years. I know, I know, I really should be bent out of shape about Notre Dame inviting the President to speak – and awarding him an honorary degree on top of that – but you must understand it was very difficult for me to read that “other article” and the comments and keep a straight face. I mean the Catholic Church ... cut me some slack.

    Truth be known, the only reason I ever pay attention to the pronouncements of Cardinal Newman Society is that they invariably add a little humor to my day and provide fuel for an occasional e-mail message to a few of my friends. It’s those numbers above that have me bent out of shape.

  • We're not all idiots
  • Posted by Ann Davis , Professor/Mathematics at Pasadena City College on April 28, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • I received my BS in zoology and graduated with high honors. I received my MS in math and graduated with a 4.0 and was chosen as graduate student of the year. I am currently working on my doctorate in education at UCLA. I am also a Republican, faith-based, and view the theory of evolution as just that, a theory. It's an excellent explanation of the data that exist to date. Does that make me an idiot?

  • President Obama's Soothing Words.
  • Posted by Douglas M. Cotnr , Assistant Professor at Irvine University on April 28, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • Men of Science, before you swallow whole, the words of President Obama, I would suggest that you remember what happened to the young lady from Niger. If you do not recall I will refresh your memory.

    "There was a young lady from Niger,

    Who smiled as she rode on a tiger.

    They came back from the ride

    With the lady inside,

    And the smile on the face of the tiger".

    Sincerely,

    Professor Dr. Douglas M. Cotner

  • In Response To Ann Davis
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on April 29, 2009 at 4:15am EDT
  • Four things ...

    First, in my earlier post I called precisely three individuals idiots ... you weren’t one of them.

    Second – and this observation should be interpreted in general – there is, even amongst academics, great confusion about intelligence (and I mean that in the broadest possible sense) and education. Frankly, almost anyone with average intelligence and persistence can get an education ... and at a very high level.. While the general population invariably confuses education and intelligence, I know more than a few intellectually challenged Ph.Ds ... and I know a very large number of Ph.Ds who are not particularly well informed (about history, geography, science, mathematics/logic, world affairs, foreign languages and foreign cultures, philosophy, literature, music, etc.)

    So if you were to tell me someone was “well educated” and had an “exemplary” record of achievement while getting degrees, that would tell me very little about that person’s intellect. Conversely, more than a few of my friends and associates whose intellects I respect a great deal, have very little formal education. Education and intellect are simply different animals.

    Third, I congratulate you for your academic accomplishments and your initiative.

    Fourth, in the preface to two companion essays I recently wrote about the root cause of our world-wide economic meltdown (I blamed it on American higher education) I wrote ...

    “In addition, by ‘intelligent’ I mean possessing a fairly high level of what some of us think is measured by IQ tests; by ‘stupid’ I mean knowing a ‘right’ action to take, but, for whatever reason, choosing not to take it; and by ‘ignorant’ I mean not having sufficient information, short of a great deal of studying and learning, to make an optimal decision and take an effective action, given an opportunity to do so.”

    Now, obviously, I cannot tell from your short post whether you are an idiot or not (I very rarely use that word to describe anyone anyway), but I’m guessing you are not. Certainly, your being Republican doesn’t qualify you for idiocy, and I’m not sure what you mean by “faith-based” ... although I’m hoping against hope you’re not one of those individuals for whom faith trumps reason when the two come into conflict.

    I’m guessing, however – and based on your statement ...

    “[I] view the theory of evolution as just that, a theory”

    that you are ignorant. Let’s find out.

    If it is your belief that Darwin’s theory is generally true, but there are yet-to-be-known details to be worked out as we learn more, then I have no argument with you. But I get the impression from your reference to “just that, a theory” that you think the theory is basically flawed. I admit I’m also hoping against hope that you are not an advocate of so-called “intelligent” design.

    In particular, I cannot possibly imagine that someone with your background would disagree with the 99,85% of American earth and life scientists who believe all empirical evidence supports the validity of Darwin’s theory.

    http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof.htm

    In addition, I must warn you that you are clearly using “theory” incorrectly. Biologists, for example, use “theory” in a manner that is unlike the manner in which mathematicians use it. Mathematicians almost invariably use theory as a synonym for conjecture ... the implication being “I’ll put I high probability on its truth, but it has not yet been proved.” Biologists, on the other hand, use it in contexts like “genetic theory” where there may be a few details yet to be worked out, but what we will know when we know “everything” is not too different from what we know at the moment. That is what “theory” means when we say Darwin’s “theory.”

    You clearly need to spend some time learning what “theory” means in this context, but I’ll let Stephen Jay Gould explain it to you ...

    http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

    Now Ann – and I really wish I had the time and space to do this properly – you strike me as a bright young person who enjoys learning and is eager to know. I am a mathematician myself, but I love reading this stuff. I suggest you start by picking up the January 2009 issue of Scientific American and read it cover to cover. That will get you in the right frame of mind. Then read Neil Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body.”

    Then to understand evolution as Charles Darwin proposed it -- i.e., at the genetic level -- just stick with the objectionable Richard Dawkins: I would encourage you to read, in sequence, “The Selfish Gene” (get the 30th Anniversary Edition), then “Climbing Mount Improbable,” then “River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life,” followed by “The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design,” and wrap it up with my favorite, “The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution.” Granted you will encounter much that is redundant, but at least after doing your homework you won’t be inclined to make statements like “only a theory.”

    P.S. Not that I’m advocating this adventure for anyone, least of all you, but when I was your age I was a rather conservative Christian (and a pre-ministerial student to boot) ... then I spent the next forty years or so as a “terminal” agnostic (“I don’t know, and for me it’s unknowable”) ... and for the past fifteen years I have been an atheist. On the other hand, I think it is fairly easy to develop an intellectual perspective that integrates belief in an Unmoved Mover (whichever of the 1,000 or more deities strikes your fancy) and scientific discovery (including Darwin’s theory).

    Think about it ... there’s hardly anything more exciting than learning and knowing. And making one of your avocations learning what you can about creation and existence is just a Hell of a lot of fun.