Washington Post article on the stature of U.S. Science

29 May 2008
David Weinreich's picture

I think this is definitely true, both from the standpoint of the politicization of science and the issue of visas for foreign students and workers to the U.S. Do those of you from outside of the U.S. see the same thing? Do European scientists see a change in where you are looking for the expertise and cutting-edge research? Given that the U.S. has always been sort-of self-centered in its worldview, it is hard for me to judge.

-----

U.S. Experts Bemoan Nation's Loss of Stature in the World of Science

By Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 29, 2008; A04

NEW YORK, May 28 -- Some of the nation's leading scientists, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's top science adviser, today sharply criticized the diminished role of science in the United States and the shortage of federal funding for research, even as science becomes increasingly important to combating problems such as climate change and the global food shortage.

Speaking at a science summit that opens this week's first World Science Festival, the expert panel of scientists, and audience members, agreed that the United States is losing stature because of a perceived high-level disdain for science. They cited U.S. officials and others questioning scientific evidence of climate change, the reluctance to federally fund stem cell research, and some U.S. officials casting doubt on evolution as examples that have damaged America's international standing.

"I think there's a loss of American power and prestige that came about as a result of our anti-science policies," said David Baltimore, a biologist and Nobel laureate and board chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Raising questions about the science of evolution, he said, "leads to a certain disdain for American intelligence." He added, "What we need is leadership that respects science."

The panelists also expressed concern that science funding has not been a major issue for any of the presidential candidates. "The campaign so far has given too little attention to what science means for our own economy and our status in the world," said Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate and president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Nina Fedoroff, a plant molecular biologist who is Rice's science and technology adviser, said science in the United States "has really kind of died over a quarter of a century, even as the importance of science has grown."

Although the United States has long been the recognized global leader in science, Fedoroff said, that position is now being challenged by others, specifically China, which is raising its global profile. "They're educating 10 times as many students as we are," she said. "The next generation of scientists in other countries might not speak English."

Speaking about the global food crisis that has sparked unrest in some countries, Fedoroff said that genetically modified crops are one answer to shortages. But she said that "persistent misperceptions," particularly in Europe, about genetically modified foods has led to their underuse and even their prohibition as food aid in needy countries.

She and the other panelists said one impediment to wider use of genetically modified crops is suspicion of American motives. "We're in a delicate position," she said. "If we push biotech too much, it looks like . . . we're trying to protect our own economic interests."

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg opened today's science summit echoing many of the same themes. Bloomberg bemoaned a tendency toward "political science," which he called "the willingness to disregard or suppress scientific findings when they don't confirm to a predetermined political agenda."

Bringing the science festival to New York, Bloomberg said, will showcase the city as a hub of innovation. New York is known more as the site for the hit television series and new film "Sex and the City." But Bloomberg, who majored in engineering, called science "just as exciting, just as cool, just as cutting-edge" and said the festival will "make science in our city sexy."

0

MCrosby's picture
03 Jun 13:54

Thanks for bringing this to

By MCrosby

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. ScienceDebate 2008 (http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php) was also trying to at least get a discussion rolling, but this never happened for the current campaign. I think that the current economic issues are one thing and the aspect of how the greater public relates to science is quite another. Yet, together, both things are affecting the perception of science. I am not sure that the promotion of making "science sexy" is really the issue here. There are so many other factors involved in deciding whether or not to pursue a career in science. Unfortunately, a lot of this information is kept behind closed doors, or is not readily accessible. Still, we may be able to take small steps in our communities. Being funded by non-NIH organizations and through private grants may afford opportunities in which someone can speak to an audience that is ready to hear about what is going on in labs.
On the other hand and aside from the federal level, there are so many states that have lost manufacturing (jobs) and are hoping to be a biotech hub. From this economic point of view, perhaps there may be a chance for someone to leverage this thought and bring it to the table where it will also be heard.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
Please type in the words you see below to help prevent automated spam submissions.
Syndicate content