Very interesting posting you've sent.
I cannot see much future for America while the present tide of anti-science continues. Paradoxically, I am sure that the Bush administration is concerned about this -- and also the decline in standards generally -- despite its electoral reliance on born-again Americans -- and this is why Bush has increased Federal spending and control over States' educational standards in the last two years. But this, I fear, will not succeed. In this country we have been down that path already with a highly centralised education control over 93% of schools. But almost all our research scientists and best engineers now come via the private educational system -- the 7% of secondary schools.
While America prospered during the last century, its universities and research establishments were able to recruit significant proportions of the very best scientists from Europe, and latterly from Asia. But that is surely now ending. Recruitment of bright students from China is also declining -- and they have been a powerful contribution to American science (and business) in the last 20 years.
It is significant that the anti-science antipathy is directed against evolutionary biology in particular. It is also significant that probably the most explosive technology of all -- for consumerist as well as scientific reasons -- stem cell research and the similar genetic studies -- is relatively less expensive in terms of equipment than any other so far -- a microscopic fraction of what is spent on space research or particle physics or electronics, for example. There are at least 400 genetic research groups all over the world delving into what is probably the complex scientific problem that man has ever set himself -- how exactly does the DNA express itself within the cell. It's ferociously complex. But almost any one of these research groups could supply the crucial breakthroughs that will allow the replacement of failed organs, and also the production (in vivo or in vitro) of babies who have been engineered to avoid the most serious deleterious genes. This research is not a matter of throwing big money at it -- as America is good at -- but of those rare geniuses or small groups of brilliant minds (think Crick and Watson!) who could be found almost anywhere. America has many of those potential groups, of course, but generally it is cutting down its chances of retaining its scientific lead in what will be a far more powerful technology than has existed so far in the whole existence of mankind.
Keith
At 20:16 15/05/2005 -0400, you wrote:
The following short AP article, now on CNN's website, speaks loudly about the poor state of education in the U.S., and about the reason for declining educational achievement. I think that Kansas is but the tip of the iceberg here - fundamentalists have gained control of local school boards in a surprisingly large proportion of the U.S. The end result is that reasonable public education is in even more rapid decline than it otherwise would be. One implication is that the next generation will not be uneducated. They will be mis-educated, which makes it even more difficult for them to aspire to a higher standard of living.Kansas looks at redefining science
Barry
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/05/15/kansas.evolution.ap/index.html
Sunday, May 15, 2005 Posted: 6:59 PM EDT (2259 GMT)
TOPEKA, Kansas (AP) -- The Kansas school board's hearings on evolution were not limited to how the theory should be taught in public schools. The board is considering redefining science itself.
Advocates of "intelligent design" are pushing the board to reject a definition limiting science to natural explanations for what's observed in the world.
Instead, they want to define it as "a systematic method of continuing investigation," without specifying what kind of answer is being sought. The definition would appear in the introduction to the state's science standards.
The proposed definition has outraged many scientists, who are frustrated that students could be discussing supernatural explanations for natural phenomena in their science classes.
"It's a completely unscientific way of looking at the world," said Keith Miller, a Kansas State University geologist.
The conservative state Board of Education plans to consider the proposed changes by August. It is expected to approve at least part of a proposal from advocates of intelligent design, which holds that the natural world is so complex and well-ordered that an intelligent cause is the best way to explain it.
State and national science groups boycotted last week's public hearings, claiming they were rigged against evolution.
Stephen Meyer, a senior fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which supports intelligent design, said changing the schools' definition of science would avoid freezing out questions about how life arose and developed on Earth.
The current definition is "not innocuous," Meyer said. "It's not neutral. It's actually taking sides."
Last year, the board asked a committee of educators to draft recommendations for updating the standards, then accepted two rival proposals.
One, backed by a majority of those educators, continues an evolution-friendly tone from the current standards. Those standards would define science as "a human activity of systematically seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." That's close to the current definition.
The other proposal is backed by intelligent design advocates and is similar to language in Ohio's standards. It defines science as "a systematic method of continuing investigation" using observation, experiment, measurement, theory building, testing of ideas and logical argument to lead to better explanations of natural phenomena.
The Kansas board deleted most references to evolution from the science standards in 1999, but elections the next year resulted in a less conservative board, which led to the current, evolution-friendly standards. Conservatives recaptured the board's majority in 2004.
Jonathan Wells, a Discovery Institute senior fellow, said the dispute won't be settled in public hearings like the ones in Kansas.
"I think it will be resolved in the scientific community," he said. "I think (intelligent design), in 10 years, will be a very respectable science program."
Evolution defenders scoff at the notion.
"In order to live in this science-dominated world, you have to be able to discriminate between science and non-science," said Alan Leshner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "They want to rewrite the rules of science."
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
<br>
<div>_______________________________________________</div>
<div>Futurework mailing list</div>
<div>[email protected]</div>
<div><a href="" EUDORA=AUTOURL>http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework</a></div>
</blockquote></x-html>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
