Does Our Society Value Its Scientists?
Rogelio writes:
I think that anybody contemplating a career in clean energy has always to take a look at the engineering and scientific aspects of the field to find a very demanding and yet rewarding career, why because we live in a technical field….There will always be better ways to extract energy from the sun, the wind, earth and the water…. Lawyers, accountants as well as marketers cannot lead the way; they lack the tools and the vision to understand and unleash the forces of nature in our benefit. Cheers, Mate.
Rogelio, thanks very much for this great insight. It reminds me of my conversations with my fine friend, the extremely senior physicist Wally Rippel, who, when asked to speak in front of a crowd, has been known to offer this challenge:
Raise your hand if you can name a movie actress. Good!
How about an athelete? Excellent.
A famous criminal? Terrific.
A singer in a band? Fabulous.
What about a multi-billionaire? Nice going.
Now, raise your hand if you can name a scientist. Not Albert Einstein, or someone else who’s been dead even longer, but any prominent living scientist.
Each time he does this, the audience looks around at one another sheepishly. Not a single hand goes up.
His point, obviously, is that our society reveres rich people, hot starlets, people who can dunk a basketball, and a few others. But we really don’t care a whit for the people who, as you put it, are looking for better ways to “extract energy from the sun, the wind, earth and the water.”
Rogelio, I’m sure you would agree that we need to find a way to change this regrettable and self-destructive aspect of our civilization. Each day we show our approval of the Wall Street masters of the universe, the seven-footers with the obscene tattoos, and the coke-snorting actors. But our scientists have simply fallen out of favor. In the words of Bob Dylan, a hard rain’s a gonna fall. We’re in the process of getting the society we so richly deserve.
On a far lighter note, you bring up a wonderful point. I’m looking for a Renaissance here, as I’m sure you are too. Thanks for writing. Cheers back to you, Mate!
I can’t agree more with the premise that alternative energy development and promotion should be led by scientists and engineers. I have seen way too many nar-do-well hippy generation folks trying to get in on the green energy band wagon that have failed at everything they have tried over the last few decades after flunking out of college in a blue haze of dope and mind pickling booze. Why is it that the latter is associated with green energy more so than the former? L
We do have that association in our minds, though I’m not sure it’s valid. There are literally millions of top minds all over the globe working on everything from the dozens of flavors of renewables to smart-grid to energy storage to efficiency solutions.
Having said that, there are some really poor ideas out there too; you’d be amazed what I come across on a daily basis. Some of it’s quite amusing.
Probably the main reason for the difficulty of naming prominent living scientists is that they are not yet in the history books and get limited publicity. Just how much that has to do with public attitudes toward science is unclear.
From studying history, one can find scientists who had some hair-brained ideas that received considerable acceptance. Generally such ideas are corrected before long, but they have existed. In the very early 1900s, some scientists were misled into believing that N-rays existed; a google search will turn up articles on this. However, the “discovery” was soon debunked.
Global warming is a different matter. The evidence supporting it has been accumulating for many years and has the support of the vast majority of people in the scientific community.
Politicians and others who have an inadequate knowledge of science often make sub-optimal decisions. An interesting case occurred in Indiana in the late 1800s; the Indiana state legislature came close to defining the legal value of pi.
I think that last item is an urban legend; please see: http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.asp.
Craig, let’s not confuse “science” with “politics.” Many would like to see the distinction blurred. So-called research scientists, who are employed by universities, are almost monolithic in their liberal/leftist political outlook. A left-wing PhD says, “Global warming is anthropogenic,” so AlGore claims, “The debate is over.” Across the pond, another PhD says, “It was warmer in the Jurassic period than it is now,” and he’s utterly ignored. “Global warming” is about politics, NOT science. We do value our scientists, especially when they cure dreaded diseases or increase internet speed and bandwidth. But when their “science” has no results other than to advocate for the Kyoto treaty, that’s not science. That’s politics.
Global warming is political. Climate change is not. We are like Mayflies in the time frame of this planet. The dinosaurs
lived on a much warmer planet than we do now and were unable to adapt to changes in their world. Scientist help us to understand the world we live in and adapt to the changes we are seeing now. I think they do not want the distractions of being treated like a Rock Star, but the praise of their peers, and a Noble Prize would be welcome.