The United States has a contradictory relationship with science. In one respect, we brag about what we have done along with demanding that we must remain the leaders in innovation for the 21st century. On the other hand, the country has a whole has more interest in everything else than science. This can be proven by what people consider important or interesting to them. Our television shows people taking on 5th graders as something worth more of their attention than science. People do tend to neglect the impact that it has on their lives since most products in society is created from scientific ideas.
Although, we would still be able to advance despite the general apathy of people if it was funded properly and allowed for a breadth of ideas to have a chance at the spotlight. This is not the case. For example, according to a New York Times article, cancer researchers are forced to conform to research small but safe projects instead of potentially groundbreaking research. Similar to what we have learned in policy where donor of think tanks want secure and specific investments, the same concept applies to scientific grants. There is too much inherent risk of spending money on a project that can have no upside, even if that upside would be enormous.
Scientists are fuming over this. Scientific American published an article in May 2011 posing inquiries into this issue. They researched scientists receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health, and the result was that "the NIH grants last three years, end abruptly if they are not renewed and have very strict requirements—for instance, preventing scientists from shifting money from a project that is not working out to a more promising approach."
The funding agencies are looking to the traveled down path in order to create scientific advancement. This is a folly and will not allow the country to be the leader in the 21st century if it continues to stifle researchers. Many of them who must take up residence in a lab or university to make ends meet since their skills are not conducive to the business world. Combine that and the thorny U.S. patent system and banks giving less loans to start-ups due to the recession, and you have successfully bounded up plenty of potential that people may be able to offer.
Another constraint occurs in academia as young doctoral students will likely face an uphill battle. A study by Virginia Tech states that "But for many of today's graduate students, the future could not look bleaker". There is heavy competition for grants and a lack of opportunity for jobs requiring PhDs, and this is certainly the case due to the money aspect. Also in the study, Thomas R. Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, said that graduate students "...get a sense that this is a really frustrating career path,". Universities find it much cheaper to hire post-docs and graduate students than full fledged PhD researchers with tenure. Industry echoes a similar tune where they see PhD as demanding too much money. Why would you pay someone with a doctorate degree in theoretical physics when few jobs require that level of expertise? In fact in engineering, Master's degree holders make more than PhD holders while those with a professional license make out even better.
We have to stifle this before the country lags behind in science. Admissions to graduate schools should become in line with the market openings. The government should risk more innovation that can create new industries and hence jobs. Eroding science research wears down on new technology, so other countries can create the products first. Then we end up importing more than exporting. The future of national security rests with a stable scientific base since pure manpower is quickly becoming an archaic concept. If the the 21st century is to be another American century, priorities have to change.
No comments:
Post a Comment