An Essay I Wrote That I'm Kinda Proud Of
The nineteenth century Islamic scholar, Jamaluddin Afghani set forth the belief that what made the Western world powerful was its mastery over science. Today, much of the Islamic world believes that the way to gain power throughout the world is to become a competitive scientific power. Many Arab governments currently promote the study of math and science at their universities, and about eighty percent of students do so. Fundamentally, Islam and the Quran promote science. Ironically, the Arabic word for religious scholar, ulema, translates directly to scientist. What Americans need to learn from Islam is that in fact, science and religion can actually complement each other. If a student asks a biology professor “how does life form?” the professor will tell them about the process of biogenesis and cellular division and development. However, if the student asks “why does life form?” the professor will respond by saying that is not a topic for biology. And herein lies a perfect symbiosis with science providing the ‘how’ and religion providing the ‘why’.
Unfortunately, this is not how science currently persists in our society. Instead, it is stigmatized as dangerous, unethical, and ungodly. Such a situation has caused science to lose its influence in society and is subsequently causing the United States to lose its scientific standing throughout the world. Beset by deficits, the government has been steadily cutting back on investment in research and development. Simultaneously, the quality of education in math and science has plummeted which has led to a drop in the number of students majoring in technical fields in college.
America is no longer the scientific “city on the hill.” The political, social and economic atmosphere which fostered the breathtaking discoveries of Americans Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and the Wright Brothers no longer exists. Students pursuing degrees in science are now faced with numerous decisions regarding paths of study and possible careers. Unfortunately, these decisions are generally not left to the individuals but instead to their bank accounts. Scientists are faced with the choice of entering the fields of academia or industry, both of which have their benefits and drawbacks. Scientists in academia engage in pure research. Their findings are published in journals for the entire scientific community to see, add to, collaborate with, and present with new ideas. However, funding for research in academia is limited. In order to get funding and put money in the bank, researchers must go through the bureaucratic granting process relying on primarily NIH (National Institute of Health) grants. However only about 40% of NIH grant applications receive funding, meaning that 60% of potential research in academia must rely on sparse private funding or more commonly not occur at all. For fully justifiable reasons, many scientists do not wish to pursue careers in the cutthroat-competitive, financially unreliable world of academia, and instead turn to private industry.
Scientists working in the research and development sectors of industry, on average earn 30% more money than those in academia. That is, 30% more money than those scientists in academia that are able to receive funding at all. Scientists in research and development departments receive as much funding as they need because their companies rely on their productivity; something scientists in academia could only dream about. But industry too has its drawbacks. In industry, scientific discoveries are kept a secret and used to develop products for the company’s sole profit. There is no large scientific community to collaborate with and zealous patenting of new technologies prevents other companies from furthering the research of that company. In other words, the Biotech Boom is synonymous with ineffective and inefficient scientific research. This fact is supported by a 505-page report published shortly after 9/11, co-authored by distinguished scientists, CEOs, Nobel prizewinners, and university presidents, entitled “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,” and which outlined just how bad the situation is at every level of research in this country and called for new government funding.
Now, one might say “It’s okay if the U.S. doesn’t lead the world in science. We can’t be the best at everything.” This is a very valid thought. Is it really important that the U.S. keep up science?
The answer is yes. The fact that science in the United States is in decline could have dire impacts on society and the world if the government does not change its current course of action. Indeed the decline has already begun. The United States is currently engaged in a war in Iraq. Iraq possesses the third largest oil reserves in the world. Currently, the world consumes about 82 million barrels of oil per day. Of those 82 million barrels, the United States consumes about 21 million of those barrels, or 25.2% of the world’s oil. However, the U.S. only produces about 7.6 million barrels of domestic oil per day. There is no denying that the United States is dependent of foreign oil.
This dependence on foreign oil could be forgotten with the development of alternative fuel sources. Yet, instead of allotting adequate funding for the research of alternative fuel resources, the United States chooses to engage in geopolitical wars over control of oil resources. However, the oil reserves of Iraq will not last forever. When they run out, the United States will be left with no choice but to continue flexing its military might wherever valuable resources are located. A dangerous pattern of behavior has developed. Waging geopolitical war across the world is not a permanent solution. The permanent solution lies with alternative fuels, and with science. And here the paradoxical relationship with science and our government is exposed. The government is dependent on science if it is to maintain any longevity as a world power. The government needs science to develop alternative fuel sources which would prevent further geopolitical war. The government needs science to solve the climate crisis in order to prevent more crippling Katrina-like disasters and the eventual flooding of coastal regions caused by melting of the polar ice caps. The government needs science to develop cures to possible pandemics such as the bird flu. Yet the government has an odd way of showing its appreciation for the science is depends on as it hacks funding, denies important research for being unethical, and promotes the religious education of creationism which breeds no scientific thinkers.
History has shown us that science prevails. Galileo was originally persecuted for his postulation of now widely accepted views. Though still debated, Darwin’s theories, which were also stigmatized, are now believed in most places around the world to be the prevailing truth. So why worry? Shouldn’t these issues work themselves out, given enough time? Perhaps, but time is now of the essence. What separates today from the days of Galileo and Darwin is that the world now sits on the threshold of no return. If global warming continues to progress its effects may never be undone. Similarly, those killed in avoidable geopolitical war can never be brought back. So here is what must be done.
Improving science should be a top priority of the United States Government. First, a quality scientific education should be provided for all children. Emphasis must be placed on teaching science in schools and not creationism whose place is in religion class. Also emphasis on a scientific education, as present in many Arab and Asian nations, will cause more students to pursue science in higher education and create an overall society of more scientific thinkers, in contrast to the current scientific ignorance present in our society. With more students pursuing science in college and graduate school, society will have more scientists in its arsenal. The second major change that must occur is to enhance the world of scientific academia and provide incentive for scientists to partake in it. A much greater amount of funding for research must be given to academia. This will make acquiring federal grants less competitive and more practical for scientists wishing to acquire enough funding and earn a livable salary. This will prevent more scientists from escaping academia for industry and enhance the collaborative atmosphere of the scientific community. Additional funding must compensate for the financial gap that draws scientists away from academia and into industry.
Of course, instituting any drastic change is much easier said than done. However, what is at stake must also be recognized. Science has always been a tool used to solve problems and break the boundaries on what was once thought unimaginable. In a world with so many problems, what we need now more than ever is science to pull us through.
Unfortunately, this is not how science currently persists in our society. Instead, it is stigmatized as dangerous, unethical, and ungodly. Such a situation has caused science to lose its influence in society and is subsequently causing the United States to lose its scientific standing throughout the world. Beset by deficits, the government has been steadily cutting back on investment in research and development. Simultaneously, the quality of education in math and science has plummeted which has led to a drop in the number of students majoring in technical fields in college.
America is no longer the scientific “city on the hill.” The political, social and economic atmosphere which fostered the breathtaking discoveries of Americans Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and the Wright Brothers no longer exists. Students pursuing degrees in science are now faced with numerous decisions regarding paths of study and possible careers. Unfortunately, these decisions are generally not left to the individuals but instead to their bank accounts. Scientists are faced with the choice of entering the fields of academia or industry, both of which have their benefits and drawbacks. Scientists in academia engage in pure research. Their findings are published in journals for the entire scientific community to see, add to, collaborate with, and present with new ideas. However, funding for research in academia is limited. In order to get funding and put money in the bank, researchers must go through the bureaucratic granting process relying on primarily NIH (National Institute of Health) grants. However only about 40% of NIH grant applications receive funding, meaning that 60% of potential research in academia must rely on sparse private funding or more commonly not occur at all. For fully justifiable reasons, many scientists do not wish to pursue careers in the cutthroat-competitive, financially unreliable world of academia, and instead turn to private industry.
Scientists working in the research and development sectors of industry, on average earn 30% more money than those in academia. That is, 30% more money than those scientists in academia that are able to receive funding at all. Scientists in research and development departments receive as much funding as they need because their companies rely on their productivity; something scientists in academia could only dream about. But industry too has its drawbacks. In industry, scientific discoveries are kept a secret and used to develop products for the company’s sole profit. There is no large scientific community to collaborate with and zealous patenting of new technologies prevents other companies from furthering the research of that company. In other words, the Biotech Boom is synonymous with ineffective and inefficient scientific research. This fact is supported by a 505-page report published shortly after 9/11, co-authored by distinguished scientists, CEOs, Nobel prizewinners, and university presidents, entitled “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future,” and which outlined just how bad the situation is at every level of research in this country and called for new government funding.
Now, one might say “It’s okay if the U.S. doesn’t lead the world in science. We can’t be the best at everything.” This is a very valid thought. Is it really important that the U.S. keep up science?
The answer is yes. The fact that science in the United States is in decline could have dire impacts on society and the world if the government does not change its current course of action. Indeed the decline has already begun. The United States is currently engaged in a war in Iraq. Iraq possesses the third largest oil reserves in the world. Currently, the world consumes about 82 million barrels of oil per day. Of those 82 million barrels, the United States consumes about 21 million of those barrels, or 25.2% of the world’s oil. However, the U.S. only produces about 7.6 million barrels of domestic oil per day. There is no denying that the United States is dependent of foreign oil.
This dependence on foreign oil could be forgotten with the development of alternative fuel sources. Yet, instead of allotting adequate funding for the research of alternative fuel resources, the United States chooses to engage in geopolitical wars over control of oil resources. However, the oil reserves of Iraq will not last forever. When they run out, the United States will be left with no choice but to continue flexing its military might wherever valuable resources are located. A dangerous pattern of behavior has developed. Waging geopolitical war across the world is not a permanent solution. The permanent solution lies with alternative fuels, and with science. And here the paradoxical relationship with science and our government is exposed. The government is dependent on science if it is to maintain any longevity as a world power. The government needs science to develop alternative fuel sources which would prevent further geopolitical war. The government needs science to solve the climate crisis in order to prevent more crippling Katrina-like disasters and the eventual flooding of coastal regions caused by melting of the polar ice caps. The government needs science to develop cures to possible pandemics such as the bird flu. Yet the government has an odd way of showing its appreciation for the science is depends on as it hacks funding, denies important research for being unethical, and promotes the religious education of creationism which breeds no scientific thinkers.
History has shown us that science prevails. Galileo was originally persecuted for his postulation of now widely accepted views. Though still debated, Darwin’s theories, which were also stigmatized, are now believed in most places around the world to be the prevailing truth. So why worry? Shouldn’t these issues work themselves out, given enough time? Perhaps, but time is now of the essence. What separates today from the days of Galileo and Darwin is that the world now sits on the threshold of no return. If global warming continues to progress its effects may never be undone. Similarly, those killed in avoidable geopolitical war can never be brought back. So here is what must be done.
Improving science should be a top priority of the United States Government. First, a quality scientific education should be provided for all children. Emphasis must be placed on teaching science in schools and not creationism whose place is in religion class. Also emphasis on a scientific education, as present in many Arab and Asian nations, will cause more students to pursue science in higher education and create an overall society of more scientific thinkers, in contrast to the current scientific ignorance present in our society. With more students pursuing science in college and graduate school, society will have more scientists in its arsenal. The second major change that must occur is to enhance the world of scientific academia and provide incentive for scientists to partake in it. A much greater amount of funding for research must be given to academia. This will make acquiring federal grants less competitive and more practical for scientists wishing to acquire enough funding and earn a livable salary. This will prevent more scientists from escaping academia for industry and enhance the collaborative atmosphere of the scientific community. Additional funding must compensate for the financial gap that draws scientists away from academia and into industry.
Of course, instituting any drastic change is much easier said than done. However, what is at stake must also be recognized. Science has always been a tool used to solve problems and break the boundaries on what was once thought unimaginable. In a world with so many problems, what we need now more than ever is science to pull us through.