Without a strong science base no nation can claim a leadership role in the modern world. But new evidence indicates that support for science in America is in trouble; therefore, so is the country's potential for a new American century.
The findings of a recent survey confirm the argument of my book, The Body Politic: The Battle Over Science in America, that America has entered a new and unprecedented era of politicized science. University of North Carolina health services researcher Gordon Gauchat has found that trust in science among American conservatives has plummeted since 1974. The issues that divide us are familiar. Among them are planetary and human origins, climate change and the remarkable advances of the new biology.
Importantly, Gauchat found that the lost confidence is found not only among self-identified conservatives with less education, but among "high information" conservatives as well. This result undermines the notion that the more people know about science, the more they trust its conclusions. In fact, as the psychologist Jonathan Haidt has shown, people tend to select data that support their prior belief preferences. In his survey Gauchat found that more sophisticated conservatives appreciated the threats to their values posed by science (e.g., intensified government regulation) more than those who were less educated.
As Gauchat observes, if this trend persists the implications for science institutions could be dire. Both public funding of basic research and the use of evidence in policymaking are threatened by politicized science. Citing Chris Mooney's theory that the change in public attitudes began in the Reagan era and intensified under George W. Bush, Gauchat observes that until then most people identified science with the space race and moon landing, triumphs that gave science great cultural authority across the ideological spectrum. Indeed, as I've argued, historically American science policy has been closely aligned with the civic narrative of progress and the pushing back of frontiers: where Americans saw new worlds to conquer they've been enthusiastic about pioneering technologies: the telegraph, transcontinental railroad, telephone, vaccines, organ transplants, information technologies and spacecraft.
The obituary of the American frontier has been prematurely written before, starting at least with Frederick Jackson Turner's "Frontier Thesis" of 1893. But with the close of the continent, the rise of China, and the uncertain future of space exploration it is hard to see where the next American frontier will lie. Well-intended but unsexy abstractions drawing on the "Sputnik" analogy, like energy independence, have not gotten modern Americans' blood flowing.
And as science has become specialized it is harder to find an Edison or a Salk who inspires with a personal story. Post-Vietnam America allows for little heroic mythologizing, even of revered technology leaders like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.
To make matters worse, in recent decades "experts" have come to be seen (and in fact often are) in charge of public policy. This is partly a result of the fact that modern society is so complicated and so dependent on science-based technologies that expertise is required to run them as never before. But conservatives who worry about threats to traditional values and encroaching government harbor doubts about the motivations and moral compass of scientists. Gauchat's results square with those of the sociologist John Evans, who finds that it is not science in general or even the scientific method that is the ultimate object of mistrust, but rather scientists themselves.
The grounds for mistrust of science are found in the DNA of the Enlightenment itself. Francis Bacon is often credited as the first to articulate the modern idea of science, distinguishing between basic and applied research. In Bacon's 17th century utopian tale The New Atlantis, the governors of Bensalem are scientists. But, as one of them explains to the shipwrecked visitors, not all of their knowledge is generally shared: "And this we do also: we have consultations, which of the inventions and experiences which we have discovered shall be published, and which not; and take all an oath of secrecy for the concealing of those which we think fit to keep secret; though some of those we do reveal sometime to the State, and some not."
What is to be done? One answer is to change the conversation. The focus needs to be placed on what Bacon referred to as the fruits of science that can help achieve Enlightenment goals of human flourishing, the same goals that the American founders saw as keys to the prosperity of the new nation.
Another answer is to emphasize the activities of scientists that are publicly observable, concrete and transparent, activities that are often under the heading of engineering. This answer argues that, instead of looking to the space program as an analogy, we should focus on the modern version of the program itself. A manned Mars landing is controversial among many progressives and is far more difficult to achieve in every sense than many of us used to believe, but the implications of such a national commitment may redeem scientists themselves in all sorts of secondary ways.
As is well known, funding for NASA's manned Mars mission has taken a hit in the 2012 budget. In truth, I have not been an advocate of a human mission. The risks to a human crew are (pun intended) astronomical and the benefits to scientific knowledge modest compared to a robotic mission. But there are some experiments that machines alone probably can't do. And for a unified sense of national purpose, especially rescuing the public profile of scientists, there may be no other solution.
Of course, the financial obstacles are also extreme, especially in the current fiscal environment, when there are so many pressing human needs back on Earth. But for the future of America's commitment to science, one that will eventually lift all boats, the manned Mars mission might appeal to another traditional American principle: pragmatism.
Follow Jonathan D. Moreno on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pennprof
Chris Mooney: The Science of Truthiness: Why Conservatives Deny Global Warming
Conservatives and Science : The Intersection
Conservatives Lose Faith in Science over Last 40 Years: Scientific ...
Conservatives' trust in science has declined sharply - latimes.com
Chart of the Day: Conservatives Don't Trust Science | Mother Jones
Study: Conservatives' Trust In Science At Record Low : The Two ...
Study: Conservatives' Trust of Science Hits All Time Low - US News ...
These are the same brain-dead knuckle draggers who would prefer that we never got out of the Dark Ages to begin with.
This planet is getting smaller every day and humanity has to start looking to the stars.
There IS life out there. And I don't just mean "microbial".
We float among billions of planets. I find it devastating and incredibly arrogant that so many people, still in this century, simply refuse to acknowledge that we are not the only ones out there.
This planet is in for one heck of a waking moment.
:-)
I am not anti-science. I supported the first space program (before it was privatized) and know of the many advantages that program created which became part of the civilian world. But even then, people in need were shunted aside to feed corporate greed - and these days, that is about all "our" Congress can do with the power they have been given.
When the nation is as prosperous as it was during the first space program of the 1960s, then we can think about Mars. Not until.
The GSS asked respondents the following question: “I am going to name some institutions in this country. As far as the people running these institutions are concerned, would you say you have a great deal of confidence, only some confidence, or hardly any confidence at all in them the Scientific Community?” Respondents were then given the choice to respond “a great deal,” “only some,” or “hardly any” (they could also choose “don’t know” or “refuse”).
That's not a question about confidence in science, but about confidence in scientists and their organizations. And conservatives know full well how politicized many scientists and science journalists have become.
:-)
That was not my assertion, and you known it. I said that conservatives are climate-change deniers.
If you think that 'climate-change denial' means denying that climate EVER changes, you're more out of touch than I thought. It means buying into the Koch-brothers-funded pseudo-science that human activity has no impact on climate, and denying that we are experiencing drastic climate change that goes beyond what would be expected by normal cycles.
I previously included a link explaining that. Either you're lazy or you're mendacious.
Now, cite a Koch funded study claiming that humans have NO influence on climate.
As a scientist myself I find the amount of money wasted on manned space shameful.
The same funds should be diverted to improving math and science education for our children and
energy and materials research.
Far more is learned about the cosmos flying instruments not people.
The author not only acknowledges these concerns, but notes that he has not been an advocate of manned missions. He explicitly adresses the issue of manned vs instrument missions
However, based upon the arguments he makes in the first part of his post about the need to find ways to inspire interest in science and provoke curiosity about science among younger and future generations, the author quite clearly at the end of the post suggests that a manned mission to Mars might provide just that sort of spark.
The asserted value of a mission to Mars program in exciting young people about science and building cultural support for scientific inquiry can be legitimately challenged on its merits. Alternative ways to achieve the objective of education and inspiration can be proposed.
But to talk about the cost vs robotic missions is to miss the entire point of the post.
Or, to reveal that you have not actually read it, or the linked report that forms the basis for his conclusions, in the first place.
there is no rational basis for the manned program. Inspiration can be better achieved on earth with more investment in science education. As a Physicist and Computer scientist who grew up in an era when the NSF was poorly funded I can tell you
We need more than inspiration. There is a vibrant scientific community at risk due to a vocal conservative cultural bias in some regions of the country. Planting the flag on mars won't keep creationism and other mythology Out of our textbooks.
This is a zero sum game as many worthy projects at NASA get the axe when the big political projects get funded.
It still costs 10k$ per lb.
Let's get that down to 10$ per lb.
Then your mars mission is a breeze.
There are several breakthrough techs for achieving low earth orbits.
The simplest is probably using kerosene and LOX instead of Liquid Hydrogen.
But there are also:
Electromagnetic launchers that could achieve 2$ per lb.
high altitude planes used to launch missiles,
High altitude balloons to launch missiles.
And no doubt, some flaky crazy ideas that just might work....
That's where we need to spend the money.
I guess you don't think much of the NASA dreamers...
LOL.
The electromagnetic launcher has several complete designs. They are expensive to build, but dirt cheap to run. Not even new tech. Just big engineering.
JP Aerospace has been working on the balloon concept for 10 years. Look em up.
The original NASA shuttle road on a plane to high altitude and speed , then launched it's shuttle.
Just like the privet spaceship 2 planes to.
It's science, not magic.
Maybe you just had a bad day.
Of course it did. To this day scientists are trying to get grants to analyse those rocks we brought back, and despite the fact that a single shuttle flight cost $1 billion, to this day this research can not be done... because of lack of funds on the order of a few hundred thousand to a couple million per research project.
"Heck, just developing the technology to do the missions was valuable. "
They didn't develop that much new technology for Apollo. As much as possible was lifted off or re-engineered from existing resources at the time. If they had run the program on a "not invented here" basis, we would have never gotten to the moon.
And you may have heard that NASA lost pretty much all of the design documents and tools after the program wound down. Absolutely nobody cared to secure what had been learned during the program. It was a one-off effort and almost everybody in the leadership treated it that way.
In any case, the Apollo program wasn't a waste of time and money. It might very well have saved the world from a nuclear WW III because it changed the thinking of people and politicians on both sides alike at the hot end of the cold war.
But a political win is not necessarily a scientific one.
("You never did, the Kenosha Kid")
Not on the planet I am living on. The real problem is that it takes much less money to fund a top theoretical physicist for all of his or her career than to do a small scale experiment in e.g. a coal fired power plant to reduce emission or increase efficiency by a fraction of a percent (and even the total cost of CERN is no more than a single new nuclear power plant). What seems "arcane" to you happens to be a very cheap effort to drive the knowledge of mankind forward, while the things that have actually large scale effects in energy are conceptually and intellectually very simple, but enormously expensive to actually carry out in practice. What is missing is the willingness of US politics to invest in these very expensive, long term technology and infrastructure measures.
Science is in decline for many reasons but main and most important of which is the denial of critical thinking fostered by the false ideologies of "religion". Religion has been the single biggest factor in stunting the growth of the human species since the invention of religion.
Let us all pray to the CARGO god. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
By its very nature, religion promotes belief in things without evidence and in spite of evidence.
By its very nature, religion promotes unquestioning acceptance of authority - the model of received knowledge from others, rather than active exploration using one's own independent mind.
By its very nature, religion - ALL religion, not matter how superficially "liberal" - is incompatible with a reality-based approach to life and policymaking based on the scientific method.
"The growth of antiscience, antipoor, antigovernment religion is relatively new."
That is so historically contrafactual that it is hard to take anything else in your comment seriously.
My generation (mid-40s) was probably the last to be taught in Imperial. Time it got laid to rest, but it never will, because that's what keeps "us" different from those unwashed Europeans.
The Mars Climate Orbiter. Went BANG because part of the the engine software was designed in newton-seconds and fed the result in NS to another part of the software that was expecting pound-seconds. Only $330 Million down the tubes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter
Now, and I do mean this to be ironic, if we suddenly discovered there was a secret iranian plan to colonize the Moon and Mars, it might suddenly prove otherwise but until something happens to energize Americans, this just puts the cart before the horse.
People who know nothing now know more than people who watch the leading media network.