"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.

"Green" Oscars and Carbon Offsets

In what I (and apparently a few others) can only assume is an attempt to salve the left-leaning consciousness of many of the presenters at this years Oscars (as well as an attempt to save them from having to pay hefty taxes on gift "bags" full of swanky stuff that are often worth upwards of $100G) the Academy this year decided to give out carbon offset certificates. The certificates are worth 100,000 pounds of CO2 emissions, which is supposed to be a reasonable average for one year of a celebrity's life... with all the flying and heating the swimming pool in the enormous Beverly Hills mansion. As a comparison, the average American is said to have a carbon footprint of anywhere from 7 to 19 tons (or 14,000 to 38,000 pounds). You can calculate your own carbon footprint at multiple sites online like this one and this one. And you can read an excellent explanation of the concept here (gotta love Wikipedia.)

I don't disagree, in principle, with the idea of purchasing carbon offsets, but I'm not familiar enough with the economics and logistics of energy markets to speak with any authority. I do wonder about the logical conundrum of essentially paying someone else to use less energy so that one can use more. It doesn't really fit with the goal of reducing consumption overall. Anyway, I'd hate to see this become just another way that wealthy individuals can get away with behaving irresponsibly or hypocritically while the burden of change falls on regular people and the bulk of the fallout falls on the poorest. The comment here about Catholics purchasing dispensations strikes me as especially funny. I guess what irks me the most is the idea of being able to buy oneself a clear conscience, and the assumption (which may be unfair) that having the money to do so frees one from the obligation to behave more responsibly.

Then again, stars do have to fly more than regular people and there's not much they can personally do about the environmental impact of flying, and at least this offers some way for them to offset that. I guess I'm just worried about the trend-setting possibilities. I'd rather see celebrities reducing their carbon footprint through responsible choices, because that sets a good example for the public at large, but that's probably an unfair burden to place on a bunch of actors.

Another thought, though... the idea of carbon offsets creates a whole new commodity. One that the poor have more of, thanks to the necessity of living more simply. If the government sets a standard for individual carbon footprints, with a corresponding obligation (and not just suggestion) to stay within those limits, that could mean more money flowing downhill from the heaviest consumers to the lightest- in the form of purchased carbon offsets. That could make for an interesting redistribution of wealth, and possibly a different kind of cultural divide, should the environmental problems escalate beyond a certain degree. I'm suddenly imagining celebrities and corporations underwriting entire eco-villages to offset their carbon impact. Probably more fantasy than reality... but an interesting possibility nonetheless.

Fiscal Insanity

I've been reading Fiasco, the Thomas Ricks book about the Iraq war, off and on for about a month now (at the gym, a little at a time), and I found this interesting:

To enforce the no-fly-zones over Northern (Kurdish) and Southern (Shiite) Iraq for the decade between the end of the first Gulf War and 9/11 (to keep Saddam contained, among other things) it cost about $1.5 billion per year. And we didn't lose a single manned aircraft. The current occupation in Iraq costs almost that much per week, and the casualties are still piling up.

Almost $1.5 billion per week!?! Is that a current number? I feel a bit like Dr. Evil... having a hard time even fathoming that much money.

Midwest Blinders?

With regard to the questions in my last post... it seems I haven't been looking hard enough. Or maybe it's just here in the Midwest that we're not seeing much about the additional costs/ numbers of this surge? Like I said, a blurb on CNN and something on NPR, but not much since then (besides on blogs, naturally). But it has been in the Boston Globe and SF Chronicle.

And this on a military website.

British Troop Withdrawal

The national security advisor Stephen Hadley said earlier this week that the British pulling their troops out of Iraq is, "an indication that progress is being made". The sentiment has been bouncing around all week, most notably repeated by Dick Cheney ("it is actually an affirmation that there are parts of Iraq where things are going pretty well").

Who, exactly, do they think they're kidding?

It's a good thing the British are leaving 'cause that means we're winning... and, oh yeah, we want to send 21,500 more of our troops. Huh?

Nancy Pelosi summed it up rather succinctly, "If it's going so well, we'd like to withdraw our troops as well."

I wonder if the administration- as chummy as they are with Tony Blair- knew well before announcing this troop surge that the British were going to pull out, and the 21,500 are meant (in part) to be a stopgap measure? But because it was suggested before the public knew about the Brit pullout it looks less like a desperate ploy and more like... I don't know? Crossed wires? In any case, it doesn't look good.

There are 7,200 British troops in Iraq now, soon to be reduced to 4,500. Taking up their duties won't take a huge bite out of the 21,500 additional American troops (assuming they get sent at all), but any bite is too big considering the common wisdom that 21,500 isn't nearly enough to make the kind of necessary impact to (maybe) make Iraq managable.

And they keep saying 21,500 more troops, but don't those troops need to be fed? What about paperwork? Transport? Security? That many troops means an awful lot of additional support personnel. There's some discussion to that effect, but not nearly enough. I remember seeing a blurb on CNN a few weeks ago, and hearing about it on NPR, and, naturally, on a few blogs, but not much otherwise. I'm willing to bet the majority of Americans have "21,500 troops" in their head and haven't considered that it will actually end up being twice that many (or more), with all the attendant costs. Obviously it behooves the administration to keep people thinking it's only 21,500, but shouldn't the newspapers be shouting "40,000! maybe more!"

PTSD denials

The March issue of Playboy has an article worth reading about how the Dept. of Defense and Pentagon are severely under representing (and, by many accounts, under diagnosing), as well as failing to provide treatment for, the estimated 15-20% of soldiers serving in Iraq (and returning home) with post traumatic stress (PTSD).

As much as this administration harps on supporting the troops, and continues to characterize those who disagree with the war as "anti-troop", I find it disappointing (but not surprising) that they're actively undermining the health and welfare of those same troops- even beyond the obvious dangers of sending them into war- by limiting their access to mental health resources for political reasons.

The article's author (Mark Boals) makes a good point about the political ramifications for those who supported (and continue to support) the war if it were made apparent just how many soldiers are coming home profoundly damaged psychologically. He says, "Healthy, happy soldiers bespeak a just war... A ruined soldier bespeaks a ruinous war," and he uses the examples of WWII and Vietnam to good effect.

Despite attempts to conjure some connection with Nazis and fascists, in this war there is no clearly defined enemy and, really, no shared principle for soldiers (or the population at large) to rally around. The war on terror is a war on an idea, a concept- and it's not even a concept everyone can agree on. The word "terror" (and all of its manifestations) are starting to become nonsense- semantically satiated and sufficiently indistinct in definition that the words have begun to sound like gibberish. They might as well be telling us we're on a snipe hunt.

This war is a messy, complicated political chess game, but the pawns are real people with lives and families. That the administration would be ostensibly looking out for these people (and criticizing those who disagree with sending them to fight in the first place) while simultaneously undermining their access to the mental health diagnoses and resources many of them need (as a direct result of this war) is one hypocrisy too many. The administration doesn't appear to know what they're doing, and their reasons for continuing the war seem increasingly spurious. The American people are, by and large, fed up. The majority of soldiers serving in Iraq are being exposed daily to direct combat and, unlike in past wars, are unable to escape the anxiety even in guarded bases, or to spend enough time at home to decompress between deployments. Under those conditions it's surprising that the numbers for PTSD aren't higher. And absurd and embarrassing that those soldiers who are suffering are not being given accurate diagnoses and care.

Edwards Health Care Plan

I see one glaring omission.

The text of the plan says that only about 55% of patients get appropriate care, and goes on to mention medication errors and delayed or mistaken lab results. Seems to me these things are usually the result of under-staffing. Likewise the long wait times, impersonal care and the simple mistakes made when the doctor or nurse has only 10 minutes to talk with and diagnose each patient.

We already have too few nurses and doctors to meet current needs, with no signs of relief on the horizon. Increasing the number of insured people without taking corresponding measures to bolster the health care infrastructure will only ensure that everyone gets substandard care. While substandard care is certainly an advantage for those who currently have no care, it's likely to create resentment among those who are currently insured. They are already experiencing longer wait times for a doctor, fewer nurses, and decreased availability of certain types of specialized practitioners. Adding 40 million plus people to the ranks of the insured will only exacerbate the problem. Longer wait times and diluted care could potentially alienate much of the middle class (for whom the quality of care is likely to suffer most), and keep them from embracing the real advantages of Edwards plan.

I'd like to see a provision within the plan to offer more grants to those interested in studying medicine and nursing, as well as some programs for exposing junior high and high school kids to careers in medicine. Some incentives for adults to study nursing, and for experienced nurses to transition into retirement by way of teaching would also be useful. Federal grants to help community colleges develop more nursing programs, and help existing nursing schools to recruit faculty and increase classroom space makes good sense, since tens of thousands of qualified applicants are being turned away every year.

It also wouldn't hurt to work up some ideas for reducing medical malpractice insurance. Tort reform wouldn't be a bad place to start. Although Dems tend to avoid it (and largely vote against it each time it comes up), it does seem a necessary issue to tackle.


A good place to read about tort reform:

Mother Hillary

Hillary Clinton is dull. In the best possible way. And that's exactly why she could win the next election. And also why she might be just the sort of president the country needs.

The past 6 years of Bush have been like staying with a crazy uncle while your parents go on a cruise.

He delights in telling you that the terrorists, er, boogeyman, does indeed live in your closet and will jump out and grab you the moment you close your eyes. He shouts BOO! every time you turn a corner, and rattles your doorknob while you sleep.

He tries to buy your friendship with promises of no chores, limitless junk food, all the X-Box you want to play and no consequences... but after awhile your clothes stink, you have to wade through pizza boxes and you've got a headache.

You get a sneaking sense of unreliability with everything he says, but after awhile you're too immersed in his world to escape. The paranoia and shifting sense of right and wrong creeps in, despite your attempts to hold it back. "Maybe the boogeyman IS trying to get me... maybe borrowing cable really isn't stealing... maybe playing video games and eating Doritos really IS good for me... Holy shit! Maybe he really DOES have my nose!"

After a few years of this, Hillary in the White House would feel like mom coming home.

Sure, mom still tells you lies, but they're the benevolent kind. The world is full of monsters, but she wants you to sleep at night and wake up ready to face them, not cower under your covers and spend your days paralyzed with anxious fear. She knows that there are things you don't want to do, and that you might whine and say you hate her, but she'll stand her ground because she wants what's best for you.

She returns you to sanity and familiarity. Sets you back on a positive path; a more mature and productive path. She smoothes your hair and reminds you that crazy uncle can be such a kidder... as she glares at him over your head. She won't let you play X-Box until your homework is done, chores are finished and you've eaten all your green beans. And you might resent it, for a minute, and it certainly doesn't make mom as enticing as crazy uncle, but it settles your mind and restores some order and routine in a chaotic world.

And order and routine... as well as sanity and some soothing... is exactly what this country needs right now.

Testing

This is only to see how it looks.