Science education has been the subject of much reform and debate over the years, sensitive to national test scores, career statistics, and perhaps most importantly, thw priority of science in many nations’ social and political agendas. Many stress the importance of science education as the best possible hope of solving the multitude of mankind’s problems, because only with a good education can scientific breakthroughs continue to populate news headlines and make their way into the average person’s life. It isn’t often, however, that the younger generation is able to teach the older generation, which is exactly what physics undergrad Xiaohang Quan has done in researching her thesis, according to The Daily Princetonian. (Read more…)

Not long ago, about 20 years, the largest amount of federal dollars on research was spent by federal funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and National Science Foundation (NSF) as part of their annual budgets. Each agency employed staff scientists to help determine which areas of study were ripe for new advancements or in need of more attention, which funding mechanisms were most appropriate (grants for seasoned investigators or fellowships to entice new scientists to enter a particular field), and which scientists should be invited to review the proposals that came in to fill those needs.

However, over the last two decades, there has been a major shift in how we fund science from line item budgets to “earmarking,” or congressional provisions that direct approved funds to be spent on specific projects and/or take place in designated districts. Federal agencies still have their budgets, but, because the big money is in appropriations, both big and small companies and nonprofits have hired lobbyists. They’ve also invented a new positions for employees to determine which way the wind is blowing in DC and to work with lobbyists to figure out how to get a piece of the pie. You may remember K Street, a short-lived 2003 HBO series about lobbyists and politicians in DC produced by George Clooney. It starred James Carville and Mary Matalin. Among other things, their job was to chase down and try to direct or earmark funds in the best interests of their clients.

If this sounds shady to you, you’re not alone. (Read more…)

If you do a Google Image search for “scientist,” seven of the first twenty pictures are either labeled outright as “mad scientist” or are clearly pejorative cartoons of carcinogen-toting, absented-minded professors.  This is sort of surprising in a world that’s heaving a collective sigh of relief to watch President Obama restore science to its rightful place.

But we’ve always been of two-minds about science.  On the one hand, we trust and respect it.  For example, the highly regarded General Social Survey released preliminary data last month showing that twice as many Americans have a “great deal” of confidence in the scientific community as they do in organized religion.

On the other hand, popular culture still reflects the sentiment uncovered in my Google search.  From “The X-Men” to “Heroes” to the opinion pages of the national’s leading newspapers, society vilifies scientists and highlights the archetypal fear that research runs amok if unchained.

Unchained greed is another theme that taints science.  Indeed, we can expect plenty of news coverage about overpaid doctors and big bad industry as policy makers rethink how we pay for health care and examine the way clinical research is reimbursed.

So, as scientists boldly answer the President’s call to re-enter the public arena, I hope they do so with humility and honor.  They are ambassadors of an exquisite power.  And like all powerful things, human beings revere and revile it.  We fear it even as we seek it out.  This is a great opportunity for science.  Don’t blow it.

I have to say – a fresh spring breeze is in the air.  Yesterday Barack Obama rescinded an eight-year moratorium on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Now, some of the most promising opportunities for treating or even curing diseases like Parkinson’s and diabetes can move forward with federal support and oversight. (Read more…)