Charlie Rose - Charlie Rose Science Series: The Imperative of Science (original) (raw)

Why Science Is An Insconsquential Enterprise............................................... The planet earth and the creatures that live upon it have existed for Billions of years. A monkey neither knows nor cares that man has walked on the moon nor landed a vehicle on Mars. So who does science benefit, but Human beings. Science is for the benefit of Human perception and human perception alone, and in that sphere of perception it is merely a tangential enterprise since other realms of perception exist. Since science serves humans in a material world and not humans serving science it is the human being and his perceptions that are important. Science has become of obsolete the minute that man exploded an atomic bomb in the desert of New Mexico. For at that moment man could with an instant of impulsive behavior wipe himself off the face of the earth. So what becomes of ultimate importance in that environment, but self awareness to better understand and control man's own impulsive behavior.

Hi,
I have just seen this talk show on the internet. I am a parent with children in the school system, currently. Two in college and one in middle school. I loved seeing all of you showing your concerns. Education is where we are failing. Political leadership is not going to change the urgency of the future of our nation. It's you and our communities that need to make the changes for our children who want to get educated and enjoy science, technology, that eventually will also prevent wars. It will take at least a decade, but if you start now it's not very far away. Your answer is in poverty neighborhoods. These children are being ignored by the public. They are the best to educate because they are use to being creative without all the luxuries, they work hard with just a little respect. They need the good teachers who will not crush there freedoms. Think of "Stand and Deliver" and what happened there. With just the five of you, you can open a private K-12. Being a non-profit you can make the best happen and your example will be a template for our future. Please don't be just talk you can do it. Sincerely,

The final segment of the Charlie Rose Science series on 9 April disturbed the dust on a few of my own thoughts concerning the value of intellectual curiosity and an independent mind in our postwar epoch. These considerations have to do with more than the narrower subject of the advancement of science as a conceptual enterprise. I am interested in the more general intellectual climate impacting increasingly integrated postwar social and political conditions. The ability to perform abstract thinking and manipulate intricate rule-based procedures called for in managing promising life enhancing institutions today is no longer the reserved domain of a small elite, as in the past, but has become an entry level requirement for a large segment of the population. Having lived most of the last forty years outside of the US, and the last 20 years in France, I finally made the decision to return to the US because, intellectually speaking, I believe it is the only place on the planet at present that is confronting head-on (if not by choice) the issues of the epoch, growth-caused issues that were causally implicated in the breakdown of order of the two World Wars. What we are confronting today (nothing world shattering in historical perspective) is nothing less than the advent of a post-national era that will welcome able minds up to confecting the conceptual mechanics needed for a post-national reality. Yes, indeed I have very conspicuously avoided using the term â??globalâ?? because our naturally inadequate present conceptual framework, adapted to process appropriate to past conditions of experience, produces from our experience only the fact of what is no longer the case_ a world order of nations _ not what is. â??Globalâ?? has no referent, though it shall do one day. Thinking past the nation is a big enough job for the moment. I think mental development and refinement in the coming age will necessarily be self-motivated, will depend upon autonomous personal learning strategies, and will be morally founded in such a way as to provide serious disincentives to making our minds, or persons instruments for satisfying the purposes of others. The cherished Old Red Schoolhouse will be a thing of the past, unless Horace Greeley drains the Pacific ocean and turns us back into pioneers. The tribal posturing and other useless ordering antics of self-described alpha- males (of either gender, excuse the pun) is the opposite of the quiescent conditions needed for real mental experimenting and growth. I trust intellectual honesty to do well momentarily in honest American chaos, never mind how unsightly it may seem in the passing light.

Wow. That had to be one of the most brain dead politicized batch of wannabes ever. It was painful just to watch. Charlie however does have an excuse. He truly doesn't know. Just look at the other guests. It's hit or miss.
What's truly troubling is this is what the 'system' sees. So the erosion continues.

1. Control US flooding by valves in concrete pipes to move water from flood plains to lower holding areas until rains have stopped.
2. Cylindrical vertical air pumps to filter out polluted air particles on the ground below. This idea was in Popular Mechanics at least 20 years ago.
3. Sea water powered electric generators using surface hot water and deep cold water with vertical pipes between the two power the generators.

Charlie how could you discuss politics and science and not invite our greatest scientist and politician, inventor of the internet, climatoligist: AL GORE ????????????????

Charlie - Thank you for making possible this conversation. I see a tremendous opportunity for the next administration to show leadership by making the solution of a global problem -- transitioning off our carbon-based economy -- a national goal.
In the same way the space race of my youth gave my generation a sense of pride and accomplishment the world round celebrated, I believe our nation is ready to take on a new challenge of solving the biggest societal problem of the 21st century.

This is an excellent forum, covering thinking, working hypotheses, focus, mental rigor, peer review, and convergence on agreeing to agree. However, complexity, far beyond the insoluble three-body problem will always remain a tough nut to crack. Each generation has a savant who describes this conundrum. Mine was C. P. Snow's "The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution." My take on this schism was the word-oriented versus the byte arrangement of computer memory and registers. This continues today with the "conflict" between McIntosh vs.. PC -- cute, but nobody is getting shot in this war. "Science" The observation and comment on perception has risen and fallen over the millennia. Complexity overwhelms belief structures, the uninitiated either panic and run amuck, or bury their heads in the sand. The real question always is whose ox is being gored. When, next, will the peasants storm the hill with pitch forks and flaming torches?

This was a very rich discussion detailing the social significance of Science, the necessity of encouraging its development in various ways.
All of those who appeared are distinguished scientists themselves and also have public roles as advocates of Science.
What did however surprise me was that no mention was made of two critical subjects 1) Opponents of Science in various ways 2) Negative consequences resulting from scientific and technological developments.
These are huge subjects.
And my sense the show would have been more 'engaging' and ' realistic' had it tackled the opponents and the negatives.
I too would have appreciated on just one issue a bit more about the Large Hadron Collider, and the large number of issues related to it.

Dear Mr. Rose:
I really enjoyed your Monday April 7th evening show! The subject or topic was really interesting but it was your panel that made it doubly interesting. And it was great food for thought.
Personally, it got really interesting when the word "Sputnik" was uttered. All of a sudden, your show was/got spatial. For a guy like me, it got me out of my orbit, for a little while at least!
Had it not been for this conspicuous satelite, the United States would have never started to criticize their own education system. All of a sudden, a new "science" was born, that of evaluation.
You were asking the members of your panel "How do we stress the importance of science and education to our leaders?":
Well, for starters, some countries are more blessed than others. Their federal structure and strong legislative power allow/enable them to make sure that evaluation fulfils two fundamental functions: one of executive control over the local use of federal funds and the government control exercised by the legislative branch.
Congress oversees three government "Offices" to exercise its "control" over the executive branch: The "Congressional Budget Office" which evaluates "a priori" budgetary projects, the "Technology Office Assessment" (est. in 1972) which evaluates scientific and technical policies and finally, the GAO (The Government Accountability Office)which conducts evaluations "a posteriori".
These 3 government bodies play a crucial role in the implementation of scientific policies.
Thank you very much Mr. Rose for your terrific and insightful show! Keep up the good work! You are the best!
P.S. : I am happy to see that your eye is better.
Sincerely,
Paul Plamondon

Science at itâ??s root is a mental discipline It assumes that it is possible to be absolutely wrong, and also possible to be right, if not in a totally absolute sense, at least largely so, until even more is discovered and previous knowledge is incorporated into an even larger and more perfect understanding.
The scientific approach is skeptical, in the extreme. It starts with an assumption that oneâ??s notions are probably wrong, unless reason and irrefutable evidence convinces one of itâ??s correctness. In mathematics or science, opinion counts for nothing, without proof.
This isnâ??t how science is usually taught, though. The algebra student may be asked to learn the general quadratic formula, and most do remember it, at least for a while. Only a few manage to understand why it must be as it is, and are able to derive it from basic principles themselves, if need be. The rest learn science as a collection of facts to be remembered, and usually soon forgotten. Their grade is based on their memory of the equation, not comprehension of two dimensional reality, and an understanding of why this equation must be correct. Even most science studentâ??s understanding is based on faith. Faith that the discoverers of the particulars they memorize got it right.
This sort of memorization of particulars is the very same way one learns dogmas and ideologies. Without the critical skepticism that comes with learning the proofs of â??whyâ??, and not just the â??whatâ??, all theories and ideas can seem equally valuable, especially if some respected perceived authority offers them. This can result in people thinking that evolution, with itâ??s myriad proofs, is only a theory, and that unprovable Creationism is itâ??s intellectual equal, or even itâ??s superior. Or that the root of economic understanding lies in the principle; â??Tax cuts are always goodâ??. Or that spiritual salvation lies in believing the right formulas, with the willful exclusion of contrary evidence, and all manner of similar folly.
Evaluating a studentâ??s comprehension by testing his rather short term ability to answer test questions correctly, is the sure way to teach that the â??whatâ?? is the important thing, not the â??whyâ??. Such instruction can leave the student adrift in an ocean of ideologies, notions, and untested theories, with little ability or inclination for reality testing. Even in comprehension of subjects like civics and history, knowing the â??whatsâ?? is never as important as understanding the â??whysâ??. â??Leave no child behindâ?? may not be leaving children behind each other. Itâ??s leaving them all behind, en masse. Only the very few, who would get a good education without schools, with only a library card, are able to transcend this sort of education.
I believe that this sort of teaching is a primary reason why many people feel free to attack science, as if it was only another notion, even with no evidence whatsoever.
I think itâ??s also the reason that very few of our mechanical engineering graduates can give a brief explanation, simple enough for the untaught to grasp, of things like why a gyro precesses, a necessary result of three dimensional space time, easy for one who knows the â??whyâ??, to describe simply and understandably, but a mystery to most, even most of our educated.

There is lots of misinformation put out by corporate people like Bill Gates everyday. The US graduates more than their fair share of engineering and science majors. The reason this misinformation is put out is so corporations are able to flood of the market with cheaper labor from abroad through various strategies of outsourcing and H1B visa programs. The corporations want to depress the wage scales of these high tech jobs. Just listen to these two pieces from NPR and judge for yourself: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5478159 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9910492

Science at itâ??s root is a mental discipline It assumes that it is possible to be absolutely wrong, and also possible to be right, if not in a totally absolute sense, at least largely so, until even more is discovered and previous knowledge is incorporated into an even larger and more perfect understanding.
The scientific approach is skeptical, in the extreme. It starts with an assumption that oneâ??s notions are probably wrong, unless reason and irrefutable evidence convinces one of itâ??s correctness. In mathematics or science, opinion counts for nothing, without proof.
This isnâ??t how science is usually taught, though. The algebra student may be asked to learn the general quadratic formula, and most do remember it, at least for a while. Only a few manage to understand why it must be as it is, and are able to derive it from basic principles themselves, if need be. The rest learn science as a collection of facts to be remembered, and usually soon forgotten. Their grade is based on their memory of the equation, not comprehension of two dimensional reality, and an understanding of why this equation must be correct. Even most science studentâ??s understanding is based on faith. Faith that the discoverers of the particulars they memorize got it right.
This sort of memorization of particulars is the very same way one learns dogmas and ideologies. Without the critical skepticism that comes with learning the proofs of â??whyâ??, and not just the â??whatâ??, all theories and ideas can seem equally valuable, especially if some respected perceived authority offers them. This can result in people thinking that evolution, with itâ??s myriad proofs, is only a theory, and that unprovable Creationism is itâ??s intellectual equal, or even itâ??s superior. Or that the root of economic understanding lies in the principle; â??Tax cuts are always goodâ??. Or that spiritual salvation lies in believing the right formulas, with the willful exclusion of contrary evidence, and all manner of similar folly.
Evaluating a studentâ??s comprehension by testing his rather short term ability to answer test questions correctly, is the sure way to teach that the â??whatâ?? is the important thing, not the â??whyâ??. Such instruction can leave the student adrift in an ocean of ideologies, notions, and untested theories, with little ability or inclination for reality testing. Even in comprehension of subjects like civics and history, knowing the â??whatsâ?? is never as important as understanding the â??whysâ??. â??Leave no child behindâ?? may not be leaving children behind each other. Itâ??s leaving them all behind, en masse. Only the very few, who would get a good education without schools, with only a library card, are able to transcend this sort of education.
I believe that this sort of teaching is a primary reason why many people feel free to attack science, as if it was only another notion, even with no evidence whatsoever.
I think itâ??s also the reason that very few of our mechanical engineering graduates can give a brief explanation, simple enough for the untaught to grasp, of things like why a gyro precesses, a necessary result of three dimensional space time, easy for one who knows the â??whyâ?? to describe, simply and understandably, but a mystery to most, even most of our educated.

Vaughan... my rant hits the nail on the head and you proved it in your response...the REASON these brilliant scientists/scholars do something OTHER than science is because....BOTTOM LINE HERE... the MONEY isn't there! and its not THERE simply because the major capitalists here in the USA REFUSE to step up and pay the fare to be the NUMBER ONE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD....WHY? you ask...because MOST of them KNOW a big secret thats not MUCH talked about.. we will be the NORTH AMERICAN UNION soon and the highgest paid people will be around $7.00 per hour...

I agree with the points made by Vaughan below. What I meant by my earlier remark about "share the wealth", is not a hand out but a fairer piece of the pie. The level of disproportionality between ceo and average employee pay is way
out of scale. In the US the average ratio of ceo to employee pay is 100-500:1, while in Europe it is only
about 10:1. This is what I'm talking about. If you want to entice people into scientific and
engineering careers, pay them a decent salary and provide them with some security so that they can
fully concentrate on the task(s) to be done. Don't be greedy. This is a capitalist system, so recognize
the value of the work being done and to be done by US citizens. Pay scientists and engineers fairly and
the problem will solve itself. Don't be cheap; trying to dupe young people into careers where currently the long term rewards in many disciplines
are unstable and uncertain.

dan's rant really misses the mark. It's not that science and engineering pay rates are artificially lowered compared to the same jobs overseas, although H1-B visas do lower them. It's that in the US, there are so many opportunities for someone who has the intelligence to become an engineer or scientist, to make *far* more money doing something else. Another data point: This week's _Barron's_, page L19, describes Tony Yao, who got his MD & PhD in Immunology at Stanford. But, influenced by colleagues (one who started a hedge fund and another who went to work for Janus), when he graduated, Yao also went to work for Janus as an analyst. None of those three who got advanced science degrees are using them to do science.

You should have included Dr. Gary Zukov, the Genuine Scientist! These folks are mostly 5-sensory humans, who appear to be accomplished. All the same, this IS GREAT discussion.
Sincerely,
Raman

Sorry for the typos not caught in initial proof, among the "lead" for "led", and "Mobile" for "Mobil"... sorry Mobil.

I would like to point out 4 things regarding science "education" and our commitment to science...
1. Our post WWII scientist community was populated to a major extent by scientists relocated from Europe. I would argue that our commitment to science eduction at University was not what we pat ourselves on the back for.
2. The National Imperative for science has largely been military driven and that was a major factor in bringing all the scientists to this country prior to, during and after WWII.
3. Immediately post Sputnik (I was in 3rd or 4th grade), I remember 2 critical things that played to excitement....1). The Bell Labs Science Series (on television). These are perhaps a bit dated, but still magnificent. 2) Bell Labs produced a series of "loanable" demonstrations which were sent to middle schools, all expense paid. These included solar energy and solar powered vehicles, and many other hands on and illustrative demonstrations. The certainly engaged me, made me even more curious and ultimately lead me to jobs and careers in Computers and Physical Sciences.
4. The demise of corporate research laboratories in Physics/Chemistry (Bell Labs), Computer Technology and Software (IBM) and Energy/Chemistry (Exxon, Mobile, Chevron, Soho) leaves a huge gap in our research capability.
I believe that a "great" rethinking is needed of our educational soup as the panelists discussed.
Over two hundred years ago, the least educated person who helped to structure our country was educated in the Arts, Science, Mathematics and Languages. And they were well read (including newspapers). As a result, they were able to grapple with the complex issues of the time. I have to agree that our children (and many of our adults) are not able to grapple with the complex issues of our time whether they are science issues or non-science issues. The panelists speak of a "process". This is what I have always thought of as the "scientific method" which applied to every walk of our life, and especially our commercial life. How else do we even decide which shirt to buy or which MP3 player or even which computer.
With this 13th episode, I have to say thank you Charlie. The series was generally fascinating and I learned a great deal from in even in fields that I already knew quite a bit.

Charlie, What is this obsession with global leadership about? We've been the economic global leader for a good while, in part because of science leadership. But where has this scientific leadership gotten us? Our per capita murder rate is 6 to 10 times that of other developed nations, we have more poor and homeless than our peers, 15% of our population can't even go to the doctor if they are sick, no other country has engaged in more warfare than we have since WW II, and we have 100s of military bases to protect our precious leadership in every corner of the world.
It is telling that the panelists see the apex of American scientific spirit in the aftermath of the Sputnik shock, a time when the two scientific "world leaders" were at each others' throats to kill one another and to take down the whole planet in the process! Give me a break.
Then there is this notion that we must remain the global leader and continue to attract the brightest and the best minds. Did you ever stop and think about what that means for the poor nations where they are coming from? How is a society going to develop and prosper if all the geniuses pack up and move elsewhere? How is this going to produce a sustainable global community of nations?
No, we don't need more science, we need more reflection. All the money in education goes to science anyway while the humanities go down the drain. The fact is scientific and economic success does not automatically produce a more livable society.

we Have ONLY CORPORATE AMERICA to blame here people.... they continually strive to LOWER our pay scale and then and ONLY then do they find out NO ONE in the U.S.A. WANTS TO WORK FOR THEM ANYMORE! [THE GREAT SCIENTISTS/SCHOLARS HAVE MOVED ON TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES THAT WILL PAY THEM HIGH WAGES!!!\ bill gates has been doing this for years!! ...instead of paying the EMPLOYEES he has he allows them to leave because of low pay levels... so what does he do? attract foreign students with loans and grants for schooling to work at SUB PAR wages for him as long as he can possibly keep them! [SLAVERY\ now he wants to have congress modify the H1B visa program for his and other large CORPORATIONS allready bloated PROFITS! while sucking the bottom right out of the US MIDDLE CLASS...one day there is going to be a revolution in the middle class i just hope it doesnt come too late... dan

Shouldn't we be asking why Philosophy isn't taught "better" in schools? Because, doesn't science eventually address the questions proposed by ontology at some point? Why wasn't this part of the dialogue?

I was impressed by the cal for leadership
I too am old enough to rememeber the 'space race' and can remember how exciting and proud we were of our part in it.
While I would like to see us go to mars, I believe that the political leadership could make us all just as proud and excited about talking global warming.
But they need to put their money where their mouth is and get our scientists going

Charlie,
Thank you for taking such a firm leadership role in this important subject. At some point over the next year it might be helpful to showcase national initiatives that are underway to help address the issues raised since the messages are being heard and talked about and beginning to be acted upon.
Thanks for being on public television. Your shows have credibility where others lack it because of the network affiliations.
Kathy Vanar

Why are we trying to spur ourselves on with fear--fear of losing our preeminence in science among the world's nations--rather than joyful anticipation of the greater role we can play in COOPERATION with other nations for the betterment of humanity? Why are we in this country (and on your excellent science program) so focused on dread of losing our position as NUMBER ONE? Why do we rely so much on competition rather than cooperation and the inherent value of getting things done as ways to get the adrenaline and the money flowing?

Thinking is hard work.
Try it some time.

Hi Charlie,
I hardly watch television, since most of it really is a "vast wasteland." But I love watching your program whenever possible. On Monday evening, I caught the last episode of your Science series. I am an Economics major at NYU, and last night was a treat. I do hope that you will soon do a series dedicated specifically to Engineering, as there is much about this field that seems elusive.
And how about something on the Economics Sciences, with Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke as a guest? I know that he is a proponent of financial and economic education--which is sorely needed in these distressed times.
Thank you for giving us programming that is civilized and encourages critical thinking.
Sadly, these qualities are all too rare in American politics and culture.
All the best.

I absolutely agree with Mike H that pay is the critical factor in why the US is losing its edge in science and engineering. All this moaning and hand-wringing about why we're graduating fewer scientists and engineers, and assertions that we have to make our society view science and engineering as more important, and get our teachers to make science more interesting -- all that completely misses the point. Ever since the dot-com crash, after which pay rates for software engineers dropped 50-70%, American college students have dramatically decreased opting for science and engineering majors. And I know of so many who do major in science or engineering, but then decide against grad school to instead become quants and analysts for hedge funds or consulting firms -- *because* they can immediately start making much more money than they ever could with a graduate degree in science or engineering. One data point: a software engineering manager with 20 years experience can make a maximum that's about the same as the *starting* salary for a fresh law school grad. Charlie, PLEASE address this elephant-in-the-room issue. And your panel of academics, important and brilliant as they are, are the people *least* likely to come up with a solution -- they're not participants in the market.
Mike H is also right that the H-1B visa does nothing but exacerbate the problem. But calling for sharing the wealth is as pointless as calling for society to give more esteem to science and engineering. This is a capitalist country, and if we want to emphasize an endeavor, we must do so with money. Likewise for our public education system. We get lousy results because we pay teachers so poorly. But that's an even broader issue...

Charlie: the science series was wonderful, though some went over my head. The last in the series, speaking to education, the need for an enlightened U.S. administration, and for a congressional body equally enlightened may be ours in the near future, but two things are going to have to occur first: one, answer your guests' repeated inferred question: what are we going to do? You call, please, for Senators Clinton, McCain and Obama to come to you. Invite Sir Paul back to join you. The second item has to do with addressing the fundamentalist: how can science education stimulate positive support for his beliefs? If it can, it needs to be addressed. If not, that needs to be addressed as well.
Many, many thanks from my good wife and me.
Dennis Tapley, Dorinda Tapley

Thank you for the FABULOUS science series. In your last episode, Lisa Randall mentioned the most important word for increasing interest in the schools and in the general public: CREATIVITY.
lITERALLY everything that is not of nature hAS TO BE CREATED, INVENTED, BROUGHT FORTH FROM THE CREATIVE MIND. If we keep taking creative studies out of school, we deny use of half our children's brains. how will we gever et out of the mess we're in, if the arts and sports (requiring quick creative actions) are denied our students. Look around. Find someting that is NOT created by man. EVERYTHING has to be thought up. EVERYONE must rely on creative thinking. I hope you do a program on that very subject someday, though your interviews with writers, architects, artists are invaluable and enlightening on that subject, as you ask them their process of creating. Fabulous. Bravo. More, more, more. Thank you.

Thank you for the FABULOUS science series. In your last episode, Lisa Randall mentioned the most important word for increasing interest in the schools and in the general public: CREATIVITY.
lITERALLY everything that is not of nature hAS TO BE CREATED, INVENTED, BROUGHT FORTH FROM THE CREATIVE MIND. If we keep taking creative studies out of school, we deny use of half our children's brains. how will we gever et out of the mess we're in, if the arts and sports (requiring quick creative actions) are denied our students. Look around. Find someting that is NOT created by man. EVERYTHING has to be thought up. EVERYONE must rely on creative thinking. I hope you do a program on that very subject someday, though your interviews with writers, architects, artists are invaluable and enlightening on that subject, as you ask them their process of creating. Fabulous. Bravo. More, more, more. Thank you.

below, rather

I'm with Marc Alderstein above. It seems that non-scientists who say "yes â?? we need more science!" are talking about scientists inventing stem cell cures and preventing flu pandemics. We need to make a distinction between "science" and "technology." Each of us can apply scientific inquiry to information and decide how to use it â?? the fact that most would dismiss the notion of a 9/11 conspiracy as "unscientific" is a prime example. It concerns me that scientists and science-literate elitists are more interested in creating a nation of big science cheerleaders than creating the "educated electorate" Thomas Jefferson talked about.

The last program in your science series was by far the most important. It dealt with WHAT SCIENCE IS! No, science is not the contents of a biology, chemistry or physics text. Subject taught in school (the lectures and the books) usually concentrate on the probable facts obtained so far in a given field. One can take years of required courses and still not understand the true nature of science. As Dr. Nurse said: 'It is a way of acquiring knowledge about us and the cosmos -- the most reliable method we have.' Books about the various fields of science are really probability statements concerning observed phenomenona.
Epistomology is the philosophy of knowledge; science is a subset which follows very clear rules and ways of obtaining knowledge. Theory, hypothesis, methodology, results, replication . . . The scientific method has the capacity to discern in the greatest possible manner the nature of all in the universe.
The last 'science series' program was, indeed the most enlightening for the intelligent layman. I know of NO other program which I have ever seen on television which dealt so intelligently about this most important subject. The implications are enormous: we and the world in the present and future!

Start kids off with "Blood and Guts" - or any Brown Paper Bag book by Linda Allison - then work them up to the wonderful BBC series, "Rough Science," where they will learn the richness of multidisciplinary projects. I didn't have the advantages of these tools. But, with any luck, the new generation will derive as much lifelong pleasure from science as I have.

The quiet crisis of science burdens many individuals. It is time for a serious change. Science is central to our lives and it is becoming endangered in our society. This Science Series brings an awareness to the world... that we do need change. Change in our science advisory processes, roles of scientist, government and our nations school system.
In the late 1950's, the space race began, and interest in the relationship between artistic and general creativity reached a peak. At the time, Russian technological achievements in space spurred Congress to fund educational programs in mathematics, science, and foreign languages in order to catch up with the Soviet Union in producing creative scientist and engineers. The interests of strengthening the position of the art curricullum, some educators believed it important to relate artistic creativity to the development of a general creativity of life, especially in mathematics and the sciences.
Let us look back in time and study our history and learn from our past mistakes so they may never be repeated.

The panel for the Science Series was once again outstanding. A few comments I had while watching.
It was hard to get a clear picture of what â??educating Americaâ?? was supposed to entail. Many of the ideas given have been repeated several times before without success. I thought the closest to a â??stepping out of the boxâ?? view was the comment by Lisa Randall who pointed out that the science community needs to do some work and reach out to society.
In terms of educating society I would identify this series as the type of format to get individuals excited about the field(s).
The other comment I would make concerns the view that was presented about societies perception of Science. I whole heartily agree with the point that it is a thinking process much more than memorization of the past. However, when the lack of money and specialization and competition are all also discussed I think that the impression of most is that it is too â??technicalâ?? and beyond the average citizen. They arenâ??t given the information about the â??thinking processâ?? which is what needs to be presented. The â??fieldâ?? has a tendency to come off as â??elitistâ?? and restrictive for most people. How is the average student supposed to come to terms about supposed needed grants, University access, and competition? If the goal is to stimulate interest and thinking these are all perceived obstacles.
When talking about education today, I couldnâ??t help but compare this discussion with the one we as a family had with our daughters entering college. Should they choose a specialized field, limited in scope but financially rewarding or a â??Liberal Artsâ?? focus which works on stimulating interest and growth in many areaâ??s of the world. Many people today did not understand our decision to go with the well-rounded Liberal Arts path as opposed to the monetary incentives. It is this line of thinking that I fear may also be discouraging interest and participation in Science today.
I am sure that your panel would be the first to recognize that looking at any problem involves some bias. My hope is that the Science field is open to recognizing that the answer most likely does not lie with them. For they are people of logic and reasoning. Society is made up of many people that do not necessarily fit into that model.
Again, a great program, thank you to all involved!

Great program presenting the needs of our community. Trilogy Publications has produced two short books designed to inspire a career in Science and Engineering in children.
The books are an easy read, with many graphics and are available at low cost in large quantities. Our "Those Amazing Engineers" was sponsored by the American Council of Engineering Companies and has already achieved distribution of over 75,000 copies.
You can also check out our website www.trilogypublications.com.

I want to buy a DVD of the 4/7/08 final science discussion, but the "BUY" button doesn't work.

The comment of David Hamber is right on. Our elected officials have nothing to gain and much to lose in creating a truly educated populace.

Re: A Higher Appreciation for Science Education with Paul Nurse, Lisa Randall, Harold Varmus, Shirley Ann Jackson, Bruce Alberts
Quite an interesting panel who concur on both the ideology that govt policy should encourage the import of foreign brains, regardless of its depressive effect on salaries, and that federal grants are insufficient to discourage brain drain exedus. While funding that is directed to universities under the umbrella of the DoD - DoE / military - weapons development budget, transparent and black, was conspicuously absent. www.snipr.com/NorthropGrummanLaser
There was discussion on the "BI-PARTISAN" support necessary to elevate the priority of science on the national agenda without mention of third party influence, that historically has been the principal instrument of change in the context of DEM and GOP convergence toward a common NEO-LIBERAL / PROTO-FASCIST IRON TRIANGLE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATE political platform, which is intrinsically tied to weapons sales to numerous opposing international factions as necessary to provide sufficient chaos for rapacious capitalism to thrive despite the economic collapse that cyclically occur. With respect to that obvious conclusion, is it that these egg heads suffer from tunnel vision, or is full spectrum reasoning considered subversive by your sponsors, thus taboo?
Also, why was the small black hole risk associated with the supercollider not mentioned?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/33600
http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/science-of-the-apocalypse.php
PS:
How the hell did you manage to leave Bill Frist (HIV communicable via perspiration), and the anti stem cell fundamentalist lobby (weekly evangelical Whitehouse conference call participants), completely out of the conversation?
BTW:
Of course you are aware that if any member of your panel were asked if the NIST and FEMA reports' unique singularity physics used in their 9/11 WTC report could be reproduced in a laboratory, they would have to concede that either; they hadn't read the reports, or that NO the MATH DOESN'T WORK!!!
There are numerous assumptions made which require the suspension of the fundamental laws of conservation of angular momentum and thermal conductivity in other fro the official theory to compute absent the use military grade controlled demolition equipment.
Perhaps you could have a panel of certified licensed architects and accredited prominent engineers from http://www.ae911truth.org on your show to discuss the implications on the SCIENCE BUDGET and the US REPUTATION as a magnet for the worlds top brains in the context of the http://www.nyc911initiative.org that would restore confidence in the US ideals of TRUTH JUSTICE and the AMERICAN WAY.
It's inevitably going to come up again in the corporate media, since Larry Silverstein has filed suit for $12.3B more from the airlines, et. al. Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein set a fact-finding deadline coinciding with elections at the end of this year. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/nyregion/27rebuild.html?\_r=6&pagewanted=print

I rely on closed captioning because of my hearing loss. This discussion group was great ( I thought it was anyway) but I lost half of the program because the captioning was so bad on KCET. Most of the sentences were dropped half way through. And the captioning was totally lost in the last half.

Shirley Ann Jackson almost got it right in her argument concerning education. Independent critical thinking has to be fostered in the schools from the beginning not beating it out of the students. No Child Left Behind is an absolute disaster for our future. The other point that was backwards was that the panelists were talking in terms of Top Down which can produce only short term results though that may be what is required at this point in time. But, Bottom Up will produce the desired results in the long term. An educated populace is what is required, and they Will trickle up and from them the requested support will grow. What do you expect from a bunch of buffoons in control that think the world started 5,000 years ago. This has been building for a long time and no amount of hand wringing will correct it. Bottom line is that there must be a national will and a commitment to the effort required to turn this around.

A recent international test from December 2007 comparing 30 countries revealed that American students had an average science score that was lower than the average score in 16 other OECD countries. Their math results were even worse posting an average score that was lower than the average in 23 of the other leading industrialized countries.
In a poll taken in June 2007, 66 percent of U.S. citizens said they believe in creationism (39 percent â??definitely trueâ?? and 27 percent â??probably trueâ??) while only 53 percent of Americans say they believe in evolution (18 percent â??definitely trueâ?? and 35 percent â??probably true.â??).
In 2006, the National Geographic-Roper Public Affairs 2006 Geographic Literacy Study paints a dismal picture of the geographic knowledge of the most recent graduates of the U.S. education system.
I think our increasing level of mediocrity and ignorance serves the interestiing of powerful people in our society. Why would these politicians, government bureaucrats, corporate executives, religious leaders (even etablished educators) want a thoroughly educated and knowledgeable public that would challenge their entrenched positions built on avarice, insufficiency, and obfuscation? Many of them have been carefully lining their pockets at our expense for years. Setting higher standards of morality, knowledge, competence-uplifting standards of excellence-would put a lot of these so-called VIPs out of business and out of power.

Particularly in today's wrapup of this exceptional series, there was a substantial omission: the role of religious zealotry.
As a scientist, I find no conflict between science and faith, even the faith of religion. But dependence on faith as the source of truth is inherently antithetic to science. That conflict underlies many of the weaknesses discussed this evening.

I just caught the last show of the series- excellent (and timely) topic! Will a DVD of the series be available?

Regarding your show on the Science Imperitive, which showed this evening: Thank you so much for all the work you do to highlight the interesting nature of science as well as the challenges posed by our nation's lack of engagement in science.
Perhaps the greatest risk to science education is the crushing of curiosity in children early in their education.
That curiosity can be reawakened at any moment in an individual's life. We just have to find the spark.
Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this excellent serice, and especially to Charlie, for being curious in the first place.

Your show on Science, which is on now, angers me. As a representative of PBS, the 'education' channel, I have never felt anything other than let down with respect to your (PBS's) failure to do its duty to American science education.
In 1959 and 1960, when I was just 9 or 10 years old, I could get up at 6 am, before my dad had to get up to go to work, and turn on our new TV to channel 4 in San Francisco to see 'Continental Classroom.' This was the most memorable and exiting TV series I have ever seen (with a few Novas and Ken Burns specials in the running).
For 15 minutes, I could see an excellent teacher teach algebra: blackboard, equations, X and Y, application of laws. Incredible for a 9 or 10 year old.
I could then watch a real chemistry class: ball and stick models of atoms and molecules (even in black and white, I could tell the green Nitrogen from the yellow Oxygen and the black Carbon), beakers and flasks, precipitates and solutions, bonds, crystal lattice structures, more equations: reversible and irreversible.
I was 9 or 10 and I was hooked... Outstanding Chemistry Student in my high school (I still have the CRC Handbook awarded to me in 1967), degree in Interdisciplinary Physical Science with a concentration in Chemistry, San Francisco State University, 1973 (despite the student strikes and S. I. Hayakawa's blue arm bands).
I still love science, and I always will. But, the cries of we haven't educated scientists and engineers in our schools falls on my deaf ears. PBS has failed me and my children and my grandchildren. You have the resources to teach high school and college chemistry, physics, math, geology, meteorology, biology. microbiology, and computer programming to 7 to 12 year olds, just by putting the programs together.
I am insulted by the lack of science content between Sesame Street and Charlie Rose on PBS. Since 1963, we have had innumerable game shows, variety shows, and situation comedies on TV, but nobody has tried to just use TV to teach high-school or college level classes to the people who need it most: American Citizens.
Thank you for your great insight and thought provoking programs over the years.
Sincerely,
Richard Burr

Thank you so much. I'm writing as I'm watching your the episode in Alaska. I teach 5th & 6th grade. I've also worked as a math and literacy specialist coaching and mentoring teachers.
Food for thought: Our district offers wonderful grade level science units / kits for teachers in the elementary classrooms. However, with the incredible pressure to meet reading standards and state and national testing requirements, so many teachers don't even open the science kits. There are mandates to use specific reading programs for specific amounts of time each day, and the reality is that when you add up the minutes, science loses out to reading and math.
I teach in an optional program and therefore have more freedom. I have the opportunity to integrate content across the board. The students I teach go through a lottery system to enroll and therefore have involved families. The reason I say this is simple. Once again, kids in poverty often lose out on opportunities for a rich and balanced curriculum through no fault of the teachers or the students.
Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.

Wonderful series! Thank you Charlie.
You are preaching to the choir of course. Those who should be paying attention can't pronounce "newkewlur" and are asleep by nine.
As Carl Sagan said, "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."
Tragic is it not, that we allocate trillions for war as well as countless millions for sports and entertainment yet scandalously little to education, health care or science?
When scientists get the sort of attention and recognition that vacuous starlets and lying politicians receive then, we will have made some progress. Let us hope that the people waiting in the wings have the proper priorities and value science or we shall lose our leadership role in the world in short order because, virtually all progress in the 21st century depends on science.
"Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount."
Omar N. Bradley