| [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Thread Index] | [Date Prev] | [Date Next] | [Date Index] |
Norm said:
>
> I've been getting more disturbing reports about a debate evidently going on
> in the US media right now about public funding for science. The refrain I
> keep hearing is that the US public (a polite euphemism for various groups
> of politicians?) is tired of funding science they don't understand. They
> (the public, or is it the politicians?) want the money to go to science
> projects they really care about, like UFO's, and astrology. Can someone
> take pity on us over here in the "old country" and tell us what is really
> going on over there and how it might affect paleontology?
Norm and others not in North America,
I am not an expert, but I do sense some of the mood of the common folks
(not politicians) and I think it is a dangerous mistake to assume that this is
just a move by politicians or a move toward pseudo science (both of which do
occur somewhat in the present climate). There is a broad reaction in this
country against the great society idea (Lyndon Johnson), that government can
solve all are problems. There is a general perception that we are in trouble
(and with our debt load and some other things there may be some reason for
that perception). This is, in my opinion, one of the reasons Clinton got in
was because he was perceived as being a new kind of politician and also I
think why the legislature went Republican, when he did not live up to their
expectations.
The broad distrust of science is real. We live in a postmodern age and
unlike the 60's when science was seen as God and looked to for direction, the
common folks are apt to mistrust them. It has not helped that major
Universities have not bothered to communicate with layity and have been more
concerned with research than educating the sons and daughters of the common
folks. Yes some of the layity do look to alternative pseudoscience, but there
is a broad "out of touchiness", for which (in my opinion) academicians are
partly to blame. Of course, when that means that money for academic research
needs to be cut back, the climate makes it easy for no scientific politicians
to do it.
As to its effect on paleontology, I don't see it being especially
effected by the downsizing, which is coming. Already when I was at the
University of Illinois in the 70's the emphasis was shifting toward cellular
and away from classical. At the same time most geology departments were moving
from soft to hard rock. What this means was that when grant money was fairly
easy most of it was not flowing to paleontology and much of the cuts have
already occurred in this area. We know from this list that most of the major
oil companies have already cut their own paleo staffs to bare bones. It of
course, helps that some of them are associated with public museums and the
public still likes those. Many of the paleo community have already learned to
live with less and in many cases can survive without big money (give me a good
light microscope and I can still do decent palynology). But I do get a feel
from some of the conversation on bionet, that money is already becoming very
competitive and with congress in a mood to cut will become even more so. It
also appears that the research labs which run on grad students are producing
more PhD's than there are research or academic slots for. Having a bunch of
bright PhD's without jobs is NOT going to help the climate at all.
Sorry for reacting a bit, but I teach undergrads at a good small liberal
arts college and it gives one a bit of a different perspective than the ivory
towers of academia (which I still try and keep in touch with). Now if I am not
mistaken Britain did not have the easy money we had for a while over on this
side and is not going through the same largess and current downsizing, so the
climate here is perhaps not the same as it is on the other side of the
Atlantic.
--
:
James F. Mahaffy e-mail: mahaffy@dordt.edu
Biology Department phone: 712 722-6279
Dordt College FAX 712 722-1198
Sioux Center, Iowa 51250
Partial index: