Discussions explore science in society

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.”