"Sexing up" Science

A paper I just wrote for my physics class.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Analysis:

In the article, "Are we losing our edge?" by Michael D. Lemonick, the author makes the argument that the superiority in science and technology that the US has long enjoyed is rapidly eroding. He claims that other, ‘less developed’ countries are rapidly building infrastructure and drawing a skilled work force from the pool that used to belong almost solely to the US. Meanwhile, the US education system, social environment, government and corporations are all failing to inspire a new generation of scientists, and tacitly encouraging those who are interested in the sciences to take jobs in other industries.

The reasons for this, he says, are several. The federal government has, for many years, been cutting back investment in foundational research and development thanks to deficits and a focus on short-term products and results. Corporations, which in earlier decades were responsible for some of the most significant scientific discoveries, have done likewise. The short-term focus on the bottom line has taken precedence over long-term research, which tends to yield more fundamental discoveries but requires more patience. Exacerbating the problem is the dearth of American students interested in pursuing degrees in math and science fields, and the increasing number of foreign students who return to their own countries after receiving degrees in the US. Those who do choose to pursue a career in science (and particularly in research) in the US are increasingly beset by red-tape and ever more grant applications and productivity-draining paperwork as government funding dries up and regulations become more strident.

In one part of the article he mentions the lack of suitable science-minded people available for jobs in national security, hinting at the frightening implications that has for the citizens of the US. Those who can develop and understand the complex systems necessary for national defense are in short supply, even as our security needs increase, and there appears to be no hope of an influx any time soon. He doesn’t say specifically, but the general thrust of the article implies that not only are the citizens of the US affected by our diminished status, but thanks to our unique position so are the citizens of the entire world.

This article was fairly light on science information. The author gives examples and anecdotal evidence, in the context of making a more general point, but there wasn’t much in the way of statistics and data. There is a presumption that the reader is reasonably acquainted with the state of science and science policy in the US. The author proceeds directly into an analysis of the situation, illustrated by examples, presumably because he trusts in the intelligence and cultural awareness of the reader and does not feel the need to clutter his article with data easily obtainable elsewhere. There wasn’t much hard data, but this doesn’t appear to be a case of data being conspicuously absent in order that the author might confuse or mislead a gullible audience.

The information the author provides is reasonable, believable, and is consistent with his point and with what I’ve read about this subject in general. If one were in doubt as to his assertions or the validity of the provided information, or if something else in his point seemed suspect, it would be easy enough to look up supporting (or contradicting) data. But this article seemed primarily to be expressing, and giving some reasons for, what is now a widely known and generally accepted point. It’s still useful to question and evaluate such things, but the data (or lack) is not really a matter for much concern in this article.


Discussion:

I looked at this article from the point of view of someone in advertising or public relations. Talking and thinking and examining the data are necessary first steps, but I’d be interested to see what some creative people might do if given the opportunity to address the issue. I was most interested in the points the author made about the current focus on saleable products rather than profound discovery, and about the influx of scientists during WWII and how the threats of the war, then of communism, made scientists into celebrities and encouraged many young people to pursue science careers. I’ve chosen for my ‘persona’ to focus on a solution by way of increasing public awareness of the issue, creating a more positive attitude about science and science careers, and drawing attention to the benefits of government investment and long-term research in a way that complements and competes (at least a little) with the allure of “simple/ marketable science”.

The idea that the American public needs some frightening specter looming overhead to rouse us from our comfortable decadence and inspire action, expounded elsewhere as in this article, is an unfortunate one. I tend to believe that we, as a culture, can be equally inspired by self-improvement and doing the right thing, provided the solution is presented in an appealing way. Or at least in a compelling way. The “truth” campaign that seeks to prevent kids from smoking is a good example. It speaks directly to a specific audience, does it in a way that gets their attention, and by most accounts has been a great success. The ads don’t make their point by inspiring fear, they do it by making kids feel they have a choice, giving them facts, and making smoking seem ridiculous. A similar kind of effect could be had with science by showing some of the lesser-known career paths, highlighting the thrill of discovery and the love that some scientists have for their work, and bringing a few science-minded or technology-minded people into the spotlight.

Clearly such a campaign would be expensive, but the initial step in solving the problem has to be increasing interest in science and enhancing the public perception of science. It does no good to provide more grants, if there are no new researchers to use them. And as other countries catch up and develop their science infrastructures it will become increasingly difficult, and ultimately seem like desperation, if we try and keep foreign students in the US. We have to build our own supply of scientists, and that starts with building (renewing) a cultural interest in science.

We tend to be a culture willing to take risks and lead the way in invention and innovation, and I don’t think that has always been a result of fear (as many politicians and journalists seem to believe). Often I think Americans just need to be convinced of the efficacy of a plan, and inspired by its goals, to lend our support. And it doesn’t hurt to have a spokesperson. People do respond to positive messages, and often most effectively to repetitive messages, as has been shown by social science and advertising industry research . There’s no reason why the same effect shouldn’t be put to good use in inspiring more students to study science and increasing the awareness and respect for science as an end unto itself rather than a means to a better iPod.

Perhaps if the federal government hired an advertising firm to address the problem and bring it into the public consciousness, as has been done with drug and tobacco use, child abuse, environmental issues, etc., we would see an increase in interest. Coke and Macintosh and Nike have all figured out how to make their products more desirable through placement in popular tv shows. People send millions of dollars to support starving 3rd world children thanks to tv commercials. The plastic industry has done it, the Marines have done it, even the dairy farmers of America have banded together to promote milk and cheese. We use advertising by way of modern technology to sell everything else, why aren’t we using it to promote the science that makes it all possible? And to encourage the same awe and inspiration that drove people to build the foundations of all the science and technology that we’re beginning to take for granted.

The benefits of this approach are many. We are a tv society with an increasingly short attention span. If we are to be engaged, we need usually to be entertained, inspired and/or compelled. Didactic explanations of the importance of science are boring. They do little to encourage most people, even most educated people, to contribute or think about the problem. Likewise the idea of sitting in a lab for months or years or decades developing cures, or searching for dark matter, or imaging theoretical circuitry. Regular people are not inspired by such things. But an effective PR campaign- one that considers its audience, speaks to their desires and experience, and explains the problem and possible solutions in a compelling way- has the power to alter that perception. In the parlance of the advertising industry, the government needs to “sex-up” science. The talent and intelligence exists in our country, what’s missing is the desire, and advertising has proven an effective medium for creating (or at least drawing out) desire.

Some will argue that science is serious business and ought to be afforded more respect. And others will argue that a person who has to be convinced to study science must not have been cut out to be a scientist. Research is often rewarding for those who have the patience, but it is also frequently tedious work, and those who are lured into the sciences by compelling commercials might be disappointed by the reality. “Sexing-up” science, they might say, amounts to false advertising. And still others might say that the advertising would be expensive, and it’s better to spend that money on more teachers or directly on research.

To them I would say: my suggestion does not preclude the necessity of more teachers, nor does it mean to make the life of a scientist look like that of a rock star. I agree that science deserves respect, but it needs people as well, and especially young people, whose idea of respect will naturally differ from that of an older generation. Science in our country is in need of a spiritual makeover. We have become enamored of its surface- military gadgets and MySpace- and neglected its soul- the basic and profound discoveries from which everything else grows. But thanks to the particular constitution of the populace (and maybe the nature of people in general), appreciation of the soul requires some initial attraction. An advertising campaign is clearly not all that needs to be done, but an effective one would be a good first step for encouraging interest in the sciences.

Watching Tom & Jerry in Baghdad

So I heard this report/ interview on NPR earlier today that struck me funny. The lead in, and the earlier teasers, kind of implied it would be a more dramatic, insightful story about these kids and the experiences they were missing thanks to the war. The host was talking with a mother in Baghdad about the necessity of keeping her kids inside for safety reasons. She said that she was scared to take them to the park, and then she said something very near to: "they do their homework... then they have their Playstation and like to watch satellite tv... they like to watch Tom & Jerry." Wow, um, that sounds rough. Isn't that essentially the same thing American kids choose to do after school?

Maybe we are exporting American style democracy to Iraq... from the bottom up. Changing the attitudes of adults is hard, but if we're willing to wait a generation maybe we can build a bridge by way of video games, junk food and television. We just have to keep the war going long enough to force these kids to stay inside until they're fully indoctrinated.

Anyway, I'm not trying to discount the point this story is trying (and failing) to make, or to diminish a very real and highly anxious situation for this (and many other) mothers in Baghdad. Clearly kids in Baghdad are kept inside for safety reasons and, unlike here in the U.S., they often don't have the choice of going outside to play if they want to. And the same story did make mention of the fact that these particular kids had seen someone murdered in the street, and that their father had been killed. But the net effect of this story, for me, was a feeling of irony... and I don't think that's what the writer/ producer/ host had in mind.

Anyone but Bush '08

This is a useful site for keeping up with all of the current presidential contenders. (Thanks Herby :)

Coming of Age in Suburbia

Is personal purchasing power- the ability and opportunity to buy things without parental consent (or sometimes even awareness)- becoming a rite of passage for suburban adolescents? Or has that been the case for some time, and I'm only now catching on? I've seen lots of parenting articles decrying (or just trying to explain) the materialistic culture, and what that does to kids (and adults), and also some about the huge (and ever increasing) purchasing power of teens and preteens, but what of the ability to buy things itself?

I'm seeing more and more groups of 10/11/12 year old girls in the mall, shopping on their own, than I did just a few years ago. I saw four girls who couldn't have been more than 12 all buying stuff at Victoria's Secret two weeks ago. And one of them had a credit card. I'm not casting judgement, just curious if this is a new trend, or something I failed to notice before.

I obviously have a personal interest in the question. My daughter turns 12 next week and she has a cooler cell phone than me, an iPod nano, an iPac, a portable DVD player... At Christmas I got her a mall debit card and she and I did our shopping separately. She is one of those tween girls with "purchasing power" that are now seen shopping with friends at the mall. She frequently meets up with friends at a mall a few blocks from our house to wander and window shop and (sometimes) spend their allowance. And, in discussing potential places to move, I was surprised to find that her preference to live near places where she could "meet friends and buy stuff" was even higher than being near her school or a park. And I see the same trends among her friends. Being able to buy things, on their own, gives them a sense of autonomy that I don't see paralleled in any other activity.

I can appreciate the increased sense of autonomy, and they are really just mimicking the behavior of adults, but there's something about feeling "grown up" thanks to an ability to buy stuff that worries me. I don't remember that being an important activity for me as an adolescent, nor for any of my friends. And it seems like an unfortunate outgrowth of a culture obsessed with having more and more and more stuff. But hanging out playing video games wasn't de rigeur for my parents, as it was for my friends, and I'm sure they found that worrying too...

This is Classic!

He is not his cock.
Amen brother.

McCain and Giuliani and That Ill Feeling

David Frum at National Review in this article managed to sum up for me why my liking for John McCain has gone sour, and why (despite his- to me- more reasonable views and seemingly moderate stance) Rudy Giuliani has always rubbed me the wrong way. The bit with McCain on The Daily Show leaves me feeling especially queasy.

Al Gore Film

I saw An Inconvenient Truth on Monday, and I liked it. The science was well presented, in an accessible, populist kind of way. Plausible, convincing and, quite frankly, scary. The film is about the real threat of global warming, and about Gore's personal crusade to get the message to as many people as he can. There's a good amount of pre-campaigning in the film as well, but that's to be expected.

Much of the criticism I'm seeing online (besides the talk about Al Gore's house/ energy consumption, which I'm largely ignoring for now) has been about the lack of solutions presented. That's a fair criticism, and I had a similar reaction, but, should he choose to run for president again, it behooves Gore to save those kind of details for the campaign trail (and, ideally, his presidency). It makes more sense to get people talking and thinking about the global warming issue and save the nuts and bolts of fixing the problem for a time when it will have the most political impact and potential to create real change.

When (and if) Gore does begin suggesting solutions for Americans to reduce their individual CO2 impact he ought to play up the WWII parallels. Victory gardens, metal rationing, reduced consumption in general. It's the kind of self-sacrifice message that politicians now tend to avoid at all costs, but it's really the only honest message, and the only one that has a possibility for fomenting real change. It makes far more sense to put the onus for change on regular people rather than blaming the industries that, after all, exist only to feed the ever increasing consumption of individuals. Assuming he could convey this message effectively, Gore could win some votes among young people and perhaps elevate the level of discourse just by giving people the benefit of the doubt. The current assumption seems to be that regular people are too lazy, cynical, uncaring or unwilling to take responsibility for their own environmental impact and change their behavior accordingly.

In the film Gore quotes Churchill, and uses America's founding, the emancipation of slaves, women's suffrage, desegregation of schools and various other examples from our history to illustrate the ability of the American people to rise to a moral challenge and change our behavior/ attitudes for the better. I think he would do well to continue in that vein, and take it even further. He needs to not only inspire people with examples from the past, but to connect them effectively with our behaviors and potential in the present.