Eclipses

Every year when Gallup releases this poll, I get the exact same drop in my stomach, remembering again that I live in a nation where 4 out of 10 people think Earth is less than 10,000 years old. How do we make informed choices as a democracy when such a large percentage of the population is unwilling or unable to accept the most basic scientific knowledge?

I love seeing all the excitement over the recent eclipse, my Facebook feed is proof that people are excited about nature. And that's what this is about- nature. Sometimes I dislike the word science, so weighed down by white coats and high school chemistry labs. I believe the desire to learn about nature is universal, am I wrong? How do we convince ourselves, as a species, that understanding the world we live in is not only vital, but beautiful and interesting, like seeing an eclipse?

Republicans in Science and Art

As Slate's Daniel Sarewitz, points out, "A democratic society needs Republican scientists." His point being that less than ten percent of American scientists are republicans, and thus our nation's views on science are that much more divided. Think of issues such as climate change, stem cell research, and endangered species.

What Sarewitz's article doesn't address is the question of why the field is so strongly skewed to the left. Combined with the small number of typically democrat-leaning demographic blocks in the field (women and minorities are famously underrepresented in the math and science world), this question becomes even harder to answer.

Here's one theory of mine, admittedly rather speculative, and it comes from an idea I've held for years that began when I was attending art school but taking physics classes from a theorist at Fermi Lab; the life-choice required to become a scientist is not so different from the life-choices made by artists. Scientists and artists might use opposite sides of the brain (and there's plenty of evidence that even this claim is bogus), but both groups are full of people who've shunned the traditional path to success in this country. They share an interest in explaining, teaching, learning, rather than building, producing, and earning. They've chosen to follow a passion that doesn't include starting a small business or climbing a corporate ladder. And, tellingly, they've chosen paths that almost certainly exclude any chance at wealth.

The old cliche, "if you're not liberal when you're young you don't have a heart, and if you're not conservative when you're old then you don't have a brain" might be of some use here. Democrats are the party of youth, and art and science are are both passions that flourish at an early age and embrace youthful thinking, unlike, say real estate investment or wall street brokerage, where wisdom and experience are favored. And how many people grew up wanting to be a real estate investor, anyhow?

Generalizations aside, Sarewitz is right, we do need more Republicans involved in science, and for that matter, art and culture. This would only help spread science literacy and make for more balanced policy. It wouldn't hurt the candidate either, in my view at least. A republican with strong pro-science views would get my vote over a whole lot of democrats.

So how do we get a more republicans involved in science? Honestly, other than getting more people involved in general, I can't think of much we could do. Especially if the far right continues to pull the whole party down with its craziness, the claims that education is somehow elitist and un-American in particular.

A few questions for NASA

Does NASA engage in building unnecessary suspense? Regardless, the wording of their press release preceding today's press conference certainly built suspense, and NASA did little or nothing to combat this. So, was the hype useful? Did the suspense help garner public attention? Certainly. But for those expecting ET on stage, does the let-down hurt NASA?

The story seems to be doing pretty well in the media, so did the hype over this press conference goad the media into covering a story they might otherwise have glossed over? And to what degree was the media's focus on the hype itself rather than the science at hand? At least one reporter from the USA Today claimed their readers were disappointed and asked the scientists to explain they unnecessary hype.

Indeed, to scientists, this was a rather important discovery. To those in the biology, biochemestry, and astrobiology fields, many of whom had preliminary access to the embargoed paper, the story warranted hype. Perhaps the folks at NASA saw nothing wrong with the rampant speculation, since they were themselves rather excited.

In the end, I'm most interested in how this hoopla and related media coverage reveals the schism between the public and the science community. What can we do to bridge this gap?