• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

Former UCLA earth and space science Professor Ashwin Vasavada (far right) participated in a Cal T

Students, teachers and scientists rallied together Wednesday night at a neighboring university to discuss the ways Americans think about science and how they can help keep people and the planet healthy.

The event was one in a series of roundtable-style discussions being organized on campuses across the nation, meant to bring members of university communities together to discuss how science policies of the current and future government administrations can be improved and reformed.

The event was hosted by the California Institute of Technology, and was free of charge and open to the community at large.

Although the scientists spoke on topics ranging from stem cell research and renewable energy to better management of fossil fuel emissions and water resources, they shared a common opinion about how the scientific community should, and does, interact with politics and culture worldwide.

“Today we view politics trumping science to an extent that’s widely viewed as unprecedented in modern society,” said David Baltimore, a Nobel Laureate and president of the California Institute of Technology, He was also one of the featured speakers at the discussion.

The event featured a panel of four scientists from different specializations, including Ashwin Vasavada, a former UCLA adjunct assistant professor of planetary science in the Department of Earth and Space Sciences.

One of the shared topics of discussion was “scientific illiteracy” and the negative attitude toward science that the panel members and some audience members perceive in American culture.

“There’s a big dichotomy in our cultural perception of science,” said Vasavada, who is now a planetary scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. “It’s not cool to be a scientist. There is an air of anti-intellectualism that is growing in this country, and it’s very dangerous.”

Vasavada said this danger lies not only in the perception that science has lost its objectivity and is therefore unreliable, but also in what Baltimore referred to as the “outsourcing” of science, as people from other countries become the world’s main scientific work force.

Baltimore warned that cultures which show more respect for scientists may advance technologically until they dominate the field.

“(Ours) is a culture of instant gratification. There are other cultures where that is not true, and they are going to eat our lunch – particularly the Asian countries,” Baltimore said. “They are turning out vastly more engineers than we are and they’re willing to work at lower wages.”

Janet Hering, professor of environmental science at Cal Tech and engineering executive officer for Keck Laboratories, encouraged people – especially students – to fight against these growing anti-science sentiments by keeping themselves educated and by sustaining children’s interest in science.

“My sense is that it’s not so much getting kids interested in science; (rather), it’s not turning them off from science,” Hering said.

Hering, who was formerly an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at UCLA, stressed the need for a different type of university science education – one in which students are encouraged to incorporate their scientific training into other fields and occupations.

“We need to encourage our students to look at a wider range of activities,” Hering said.

Vasavada addressed the students in the audience directly, encouraging them to become involved in science policy-making.

“We need to have more classes in science policy, not just science,” Vasavada said, “classes that teach science majors how their work relates to social policies.”

Concerns about some of the current scientific policies regarding distribution of funding sparked comments from panelists and audience members.

“The scientific community has historically been run by principles that I think are now being trampled,” Baltimore said.

“There’s a group of people in Washington that have a very set agenda,” Baltimore added, which he said can lead policy makers to ignore the accepted findings of the scientific community for political, economic or religious reasons.

He cited as an example the response of the United States to the AIDS epidemic, which included funding of “faith-based programs” that do not necessarily agree with the conclusions of scientific studies.

But while some industrial and governmental science policies were evaluated by community members at the meeting, the panelists also cited successful federal efforts to better manage natural resources. According to the Environmental Protection Agency Web site, the EPA and other federal agencies are working locally and globally to avoid the risks associated with climate change.

David Goodstein, a featured speaker who is vice provost and professor of physics and applied physics at Cal Tech, spoke about the conflicts between scientific and political concerns, especially relating to potential oil shortages.

“Any politician who told Americans they’d have to give up their SUVs would never be elected,” Goodstein said.

All panelists supported making scientists advisers for policy makers.

“Most policy makers do not think like scientists. They misunderstand the scientific method, and the importance of doing research.” Vasavada said, adding, “(Scientists) may bark up 12 wrong trees before they find the right one.”

Instead, Vasavada recommends that the U.S. government works with scientists to develop a formal set of scientific goals for the nation to pursue, and a centralized plan for how industries, universities and the government can accomplish those goals.

“Lawmakers don’t have enough resources to help them judge the merits of science or to produce an independent analysis. ... (There is) a need for people who understand science to provide that information to policy makers so they can make decisions,” Vasavada said.

But no matter how the relationship between scientists and lawmakers should improve in the future, the panelists were in consensus in expressing the need for “free and unfettered research.”

“Science changes. Nothing’s perfect  nothing’s written in stone,” Baltimore said. “(Policy-makers) should try to implement policies that take that into account. ... They shouldn’t try to block our knowledge of the facts.”