Need for a Science White House???

I recently read an article in the Wall Street Journal: We Need a Science White House, by DAVID BALTIMORE and AHMED ZEWAIL, published on April 17, 2008; Page A18.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120839518424921607.html

While I agree with the authors premise that the White House should do more to promote science and to increase funding in science and engineering research, I have a problem with the way the authors, one of which is a Nobel Laureate and president of a prestigious university, go about it. Here's why:

Drs. Baltimore and Zewail look at the need for a "Science White House" primarily from the viewpoint of research funding. Their attitude is one reason why science is not understood and appreciated in the U.S. For a long time, the science researchers' message has been to ask for funding so they can conduct research and everything else will be fine. Scientists really don't need to explain (or justify) their work to the public or to inspire anyone, because they think they know what they are doing is significant.

The public is not buying this argument. Americans by and large are shunning science and valuing it less than other professional fields. The majority of science and engineering Ph.D.s are foreign (over 70%), there are only two science Ph.D.s in Congress, and salaries of scientists and engineers with advanced degrees are far lower than salaries of lawyers, MBAs, or physicians. Public interest in science is at (or near) an all time low, despite tremendous recent advances.

There indeed needs to be a White House that values science and supports higher levels of research funding. What is needed more, though, is increased public awareness about science. The science and engineering community, of which I am a member, will be of greater service to society if we use our skills and resources for the purpose of generating more public interest in science. We have to find ways of changing the prevalent culture that the average American does not need to know about science. We need to show the public that a career in science, math or engineering can be very satisfying. We should dispel the notions that STEM is hard and that students should not bother with it and they can make a better living studying other subjects.

In my future blogs, I will write about specific steps that need to be taken in order to increase public interest in STEM. I begin with two simple suggestions:

1) Let us push for stronger math and science curricula and higher standards in the K-12 system. Contrary to popular belief, as we water down science and math standards, the students get weaker and they lose interest in science. The same goes for colleges. The B.S. or B.A. degrees are much more watered down than what they were 20-30 years ago.

2) As scientists and engineers, let us participate more in the science programs of our local schools and communities. Let us lead by example. Let us show that we are normal people pursuing very interesting careers.