science & progress

it is an unfortunate fact that issues in science are simply not prominently discussed as much as they should be, specifically in the media. there is a simple reason for this: ratings. science makes for boring television. really? i think the true problem lies in the fact that the general population does not understand the ideas and facts behind the issues and problems at hand. furthermore, the media only covers news in science when research has culminated in a fantastic discovery or advancement. the public does not hear about the blood, sweat and tears that went into the research for the past decade, and the small steps required to get to the final achievement. thus, there is an overall impression that if the science does not work now, it never will, and the developments can not be trusted.

there are at least two sources that shape the people's ideas of science: education and media. i actually believe the state of affairs in the uk and canada are decent. the amount of research funding can not compare to that of the usa, but high school and undergraduate science courses are consistently strong across the nations, and there is an inherent belief that given time, science will work. in turn, the media does not sensationalize or ignore scientific progress; science and engineering schools and companies are strong and could be even better, if they had access to more funding.

on the other hand, the american educational system is inconsistent at best. in fact, when compared to other 1st world nations, most americans receive a below-average education, beginning in high school. thus, immediately, the people's understanding and belief in science is at risk. the media does nothing to aid this situation, and in fact makes it worse. they publicize and exaggerate the rare incidents of fabrication of data/results, and the real scientific issues, if covered at all, are sensationalized and politicized with buzz words, like bioterror, cloning, and stem cells (see ratings). as a result, many people don't trust science, or fear developments. surely there are ethical questions to be answered, but to question the advances without a true understanding of the facts is pointless and only undermines progress. most of the time, american viewers are bombarded not by real news, but more sensationalization: lawsuits, murders, evangelists, and political backstabbing.

offshoring. all this time, americans have been under the impression that only menial, administrative jobs could be sent to men and women in china and india. but that is changing even as we speak, and more and more r&d will be occurring offshore as well. furthermore, much of the science and technology being developed at the fundamental level in america is by foreign students. if the educational system here does not improve dramatically, there will be consequences twenty, thirty years down the road.

i believe canada has a lot of potential to be a global leader in science and research and technology. when paul martin first ran for pm, he talked about leading canada as one of the world leaders in scientific progress, and i was actually excited that may be martin was the man to take us there and realize this vision. unfortunately, shortly after he took office, he turned into a bumbling fool of a took! i doubt harper has the vision and leadership to take such steps (and a minority gov't does not help). although canada does have some of the world's best research ongoing in genetics and cell biology, and robotics, i think it will be some time yet until the nation's full potential will be realized; a strong, purposeful government is required to truly lead and implement goals on the international stage.