What Can The US Do To Keep Its Tech Edge?

[Marc]

There have been a few interesting discussions lately about the US's place in the technology world. With our supposed fall in the broadband rankings combined with US university's recent poor showing in the ACM's programming contest, a number of folks are worried that the US is losing its technology edge. There is the argument that things aren't as bad as they might appear -- and it's tough to determine the state of the entire industry on these two, somewhat random, datapoints. However, there's no reason people shouldn't at least be thinking about ways to improve US competence in the technology field. The head of the ACM suggests that a few simple changes could make a huge difference, just by showing young people that the country cares about technology. For example, he notes that schools in other countries base some of their funding wins on how well they do in the ACM contest, and the Russian winners a few years ago got to meet with President Putin -- while President Bush seems to focus on congratulating sports winners. While having the President say hi to some CS students is a nice idea, it's hardly a real plan to push tech education forward. Last year, remember all those claims from both Presidential candidates about universal broadband? It didn't actually do very much to stimulate broadband at all. So, politicians saying things isn't quite the same as doing things. Meanwhile, some are noticing that the real broadband competition appears to be happening in Europe, where there isn't duopoly control over access -- though, it's also not clear that many of those companies competing will be able to survive for very long. The real trick is (a) understanding how important technology is, and what it's real impact is and (b) making sure nothing is impeding competition. Right now it's not clear that the US is doing the greatest job on both of those points -- but that doesn't mean we should rush into making big changes that will cause even more trouble either.

 

[Jim Wynne]

So, politicians saying things isn't quite the same as doing things.

There is a lot that politicians are doing to stifle advances in science and technology. I don't want to turn this into a political whining thread, but you asked the question, and opened the door. You can read about the anti-science positions of the Bush administration here where there's information about the fact that "On February 18, 2004, 62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers released a statement titled Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making. In this statement, the scientists charged the Bush administration with widespread and unprecedented "manipulation of the process through which science enters into its decisions." The Union of Concerned Scientists issued a similar report, linked to on the page referenced above. Among other things, the two reports contend that:

• There is a well established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.
• There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.
• There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.
• There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the abuse of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented.

Add to this the fact that in public school districts across the country there are movements afoot to corrupt the teaching of science through the introduction of religious creationism, and you have an atmosphere that can hardly be expected to be conducive to leadership in science and technology.

 

[Jen Kirley]

There is a lot that politicians--particularly of the Republican variety--are doing to stifle advances in science and technology. ... you have an atmosphere that can hardly be expected to be conducive to leadership in science and technology.

Well said!

I perceive a selective appreciation that science and medicine can coexist with spiritualism and religion. One need not disdain one to advance in the other.

I am afraid the leadership of the day--indeed, of the past decade or so--looks too closely at the short term gain of initiatives and not enough at long term strategy. This means R&D is being sacrificed to mergers; it seems preferrable to buy your competition over beating them with a better product or service.

Similarly, in legislation it seems okay to attach a price to a person's health on a curve in ages in the population, when deciding how strenuously to demand emissions cuts in power plants and gas mileage improvements in motor vehicles. But the long-term environmental effects (we are now looking at mercury at a cause of the alarming rise in learning disabilities and autism in children) are not being weighed even though the damaged labor pool's effects will be profoundly felt in contribution to spending and taxation.

Meanwhile, our schools are financially stressed again as businesses pay a lower share of taxes, while households pay more and cry for relief. Budgets are being revised to accomodate the rising power costs. Look for larger classrooms and skimpier programs in things like home ec, which teaches how to follow a process. Band may be next, though we can now show that learning music develops pathways between the right and left portions in the brain, thus linking creativity with pragmatic thought and benefitting math scores.

Conservative prerogatives and morals are thus placed and enforced with apparent discrimination.

We could certainly be applying our considerable brain power to solving our most troublesome problems. My dad, whom I revered, often said "Science caused the problems, and science can fix them."

 

[Marc]

Let's try to keep politics and religion 'neutral' in this thread, please. I admit, I did open the door a bit but let's keep the conversation civil.

I take responsibility for bringing in a controversial topic.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I won't say "how" to vote, but the fact is:
by not voting, we effectively give control to an organized and passionate minority, regardless of which side of center their politics lie.

The act of voting requires something more than 10 minutes at the polling place and getting a little paper sticker on your chest. It implies making yourself completely knowledgeable about the issues and who really represents your view.

This means keeping up with issues on every level:
from zoning in your own backyard
to
how your city and county decide paving contracts
to
how your national government deals with issues on national and international matters.

It means ensuring you don't give away your own rights out of fear created by demagogues masquerading as nice guys who are tough on law and order.

Are you really aware how funding for science programs or art programs is decided in your local school district? Did you exercise your opinion by voting for folks who think and will act the way you want?

Former Speaker of the House, "Tip" O'Neil, is famously quoted as having said,
"All politics is local." Take that to heart and pay attention to your local politics.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Let's try to keep politics and religion 'neutral' in this thread, please. I admit, I did open the door a bit but let's keep the conversation civil.

I take responsibility for bringing in a controversial topic.

Please read the title you gave to the thread: "What can the US do...?" I'm not sure that this is actually a partisan issue, because there are plenty of moderate Republicans who are appalled at the Bush administrations anti-science policies. This issue can't be discussed without reference to what is actively being done to stifle achievement in science and technology, unless all you want are platitudes.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Please read the title you gave to the thread: "What can the US do...?" I'm not sure that this is actually a partisan issue, because there are plenty of moderate Republicans who are appalled at the Bush administrations anti-science policies. This issue can't be discussed without reference to what is actively being done to stifle achievement in science and technology, unless all you want are platitudes.

Thank you for that.

The other day I was discussing appropriate assessment topics with a social studies teacher at my school. While we are supposed to remain secular in school, it seems fair to notice, trace and compare religion's impact on government policies, private practice and civic developments throughout history.

There are many examples in various countries, such as Muslim clerics discouraging further science, mathematic, medicine and literary advances beginning in the 14th century with profound results. Galileo was called a heretic for claiming the earth was not the center of the universe, but orbited around the sun.

I think we can draw a few parallels, perhaps note history attempting to repeat itself.

And so I stress that I do not wish to simply make political statements, but form connections between very influencial factors and link them to outcomes or potential results so people can see the long range potential of current incremental changes.

 

[Randy Stewart]

All you have to do is watch a few minutes of a golf match on TV and you'll see Phil Mickelson in an ad to keep the young interested in science. It doesn't really matter who is behind it, we can argue evil administrations for weeks without getting anywhere (except kicked out of the cove!).
Why is this happening? What would be the point of reducing our advancements?
IMO it is due to the instant gratification needs of the younger generations. There is no desire to do research all they want is the end result. They don't want the journey they want the destination. My son in college actually feels that when he graduates he will walk into a 6 figure a year job. I told him he better be including the cents in that figure, even coming out of a Big 10 school.
Science is a great deal of hard work in the background, that doesn't always get noticed. I don't believe many want to do that.

 

[Marc]

I guess my point is there are plenty of Democrats in the same boat as the Republicans which is why I saw it as more of an issue discussion. When I posted it I hadn't thought of this as a partisan, but in retrospect that aspect looms large. I probably shouldn't have posted it because of the potential to bring partisan politics into it. But it's here and as long as it stays civil I'll keep it open.

When I posted this it was in part because as I look around it seems like so much in the US is dying as other areas of the world are increasingly thriving.

Again, I'm on the border myself for starting the topic. I probably shouldn't have started it, in retrospect, but it's here so let's see what happens.

 

[Marc]

...we can argue evil administrations for weeks without getting anywhere (except kicked out of the cove!).

Just to clarify, threads have been closed but I do not remember anyone who was literally 'kicked out' of the forums for expressing their views or for breaking rules applicable to this thread.