science and priorities

Science and priorities.

For scientists, doing science is often about trying to satisfy deep

curiosity about how various bits of our world work. For society at

large, it often seems like science ought to exist primarily to solve

particular problems -- or at least, that this is what science ought to

be doing, given that our tax dollars are going to support it. It's not

a completely crazy idea. Even if tax dollars weren't funding lots of

scientific research and the education of scientists (even at private

universities), the public might expect scientists to focus their

attention on pressing problems, simply because they have the expertise

to solve these problems and other members of society don't.

This makes it harder to get the public to care about funding science

for which the pay-off is not obviously useful. For example, space

exploration. In this article Rick Weiss, a science writer for the

Washington Post, bemoans the threats to funding of NASA projects like

Voyager (still sending home data from the edge of the solar system).

More generally, he expresses concern that "Americans have lost sight

of the value of non-applied, curiosity-driven research -- the

open-ended sort of exploration that doesn't know exactly where it's

going but so often leads to big payoffs." Weiss goes through an

impressive list of scientific projects that started off without any

practical applications but ended up making possible all manner of

useful applications. Limit basic science and you're risking economic

growth. Of course, Weiss doesn't want to say the only value in

scientific research is in marketable products. Rather, he says, an

even more important for the public to support research is

Because our understanding of the world and our support of the quest

for knowledge for knowledge's sake is a core measure of our success as

a civilization. Our grasp, however tentative, of what we are and where

we fit in the cosmos should be a source of pride to all of us. Our

scientific achievements are a measure of ourselves that our children

can honor and build upon.

I confess, that leaves me a little choked up.

But, I don't know ... Scientists have to become the masters of spin to

get even their practical research projects funded. Will the scientists

also have to take on the task of convincing the public at large that a

scientific understanding of ourselves and of the world we live in

should be a source of pride. (Do you hear that Dover, PA?) Will a

certain percentage of the scientist's working budget have to go to

public relations? ("Knowledge: It's not just for dilettantes any

more!") Maybe the message that knowledge for knowledge's sake is a

fitting goal for a civilized society is the kind of thing that people

would just get as part of their education. Only it's not on the

standardized tests, and it seems like that's the only place the public

wants to put up money for education any more. Sometimes not even then.

Problem: Scientists value something that the public at large seems not

to value. The scientists think the public ought to value it.

Meanwhile, the public supports science, but feels like science ought

to deliver practical results ASAP. Can this marriage be saved?

Of course, when scientists do tackle real-life problems and develop

real-life solutions, it's not like the public is always so good about

accepting them. For example, it turns out there's now a vaccine

against human papilloma virus (HPV) that is nearly through the

approval process. HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer. (Not a

totally harmless virus for men: it causes genital warts.) Add another

vaccination to the battery of routine childhood immunizations and HPV

is outta there So, here's a perfect example of science doing precisely

what the public wants it to do. Except, politically, there's a little

problem:

In the US, for instance, religious groups are gearing up to oppose

vaccination, despite a survey showing 80 per cent of parents favour

vaccinating their daughters. "Abstinence is the best way to prevent

HPV," says Bridget Maher of the Family Research Council, a leading

Christian lobby group that has made much of the fact that, because it

can spread by skin contact, condoms are not as effective against HPV

as they are against other viruses such as HIV.

"Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful,

because they may see it as a licence to engage in premarital sex,"

Maher claims, though it is arguable how many young women have even

heard of the virus.

(If you want to read a spot-on rant about this, hie yourself to Amanda

Marcotte's post at Pandagon. She's done the ranting so I don't have

to.)

(The scientist scratches her head.) Let me get this straight: Y'all

want to cut funding for the basic science because you don't think it

will lead to practical applications. But when we do the research to

solve what seems like a real problem -- people are dying from cervical

cancer -- y'all tell us this is a problem you didn't really want us to

solve?

But here, to be fair, it's not everyone who wants to opt out of the

science, just a part of the population with a fair bit of political

clout at the moment. The central issue here seems to be that our

society is made up of a bunch of people (including scientists) with

rather different values, which lead to rather different priorities. In

thinking about where scientific funding comes from, we talk as though

there were a unitary Public with whom the unitary Science transacts

business. It might be easier were that really the case. Instead, the

scientists get to deal with the writhing mass of contradictory

impulses that is the American public. About the only thing that public

knows for sure is that it doesn't want to pay more taxes.

How can scientists direct their efforts at satisfying public wants, or

addressing public needs, if the public itself can't come to any

agreement on what those wants and needs are? If science has to prove

to the public that the research dollars are going to the good stuff,

will scientists have to, um, stretch things a little in the telling?

Or might it actually be better if the public (or the politicians

acting in the public's name) spent less time trying to micro-manage

scientists? Maybe it would make sense, if the public decided that

having scientists in society was a good thing for society, to let the

scientists have some freedom to pursue their own scientific interests,

and to make sure they have the funding to do so. I'm not denying that

the public has a right to decide where its money goes, but I don't

think putting up the money means you get total control. Because if you

demand that much control, you may end up having to do the science

yourself. Also, once science delivers the knowledge, it seems like the

next step is to make that knowledge available. If particular members

of the public decide not to avail themselves of that knowledge

(because they feel it would be morally wrong, or maybe just silly, as

in the case of pet cloning), that is their decision. We shouldn't be

making life harder for the scientists for doing what good scientists

do.

It's clear that there are forces at work in American culture right now

that are not altogether comfortable with all that science has to offer

at the moment. Discomfort is a normal part of sharing society with

others who don't think just like you do. But hardly anyone thinks it

would be a good idea to ship all the scientists off to some place

else. We like our headache medicines and our satellite TV and our DSL

and our Splenda too much for that.

So hey, for a few moments, can we give the hard-working men and women

of science a break and thank them for the knowledge they produce,