Not every country fucked up their scientific community like the US did with their main focus on grants and star power but even with their educational system kneecapped by capital the US is still a scientific power house because of the thousands of people that do honest work and get ignored by biased and self-righteous comments like yours.
Science is not an American endeavor, it is a human endeavor. Nationalist tunnel vision only holds us back. All threats to scientific progress are problematic, not just domestic ones.
Are scientists only valued when the United States is against a country of equal education?
I haven't had much time to read into this, but it feels like the advantage the United States has over other countries in terms of academic institutions has stagnated.
Where are the Bell Labs, PARC, Los Alamos Labs of the 21st century?
Where are the Neumanns, Heisenbergs, or Einsteins of this era?
Probably not here.
The agitation of identity politics and growing wave of anti-intellectualism is keeping our best minds apart.
As a scientist, it is fascinating to watch developed societies slowly but surely chomp down at the very hand that feeds them.
The U.S. is the world leader in scientific research, and what they do, others follow. The absolute gutting of the NIH and other institutes, along with the ruthless exploitation of extremely talented graduate students in a nefarious pyramid scheme, does not bode well for the future of scientific research.
Make no mistake, the scientific method is the only thing that separates homo sapiens from the plethora of majestic flora and fauna on this fragile planet. Only through arduous devotion of driven individuals carried out over hundreds of millennia have we reached our current, almost unfathomable state of knowledge which has conferred upon us unprecedented control over our environment.
It's kinda sad how the U.S. perceivedly went from conquering space and innovating to getting stuck having basic discussions about climate change, flat earth, vaccination and the effectiveness of face masks.
I know it's all on the surface, a vocal minority if you will,and that great science continues to exist and innovation is ever so strong but boy would scientists from the 50s be disappointed if they were to look at the public discourse these days.
How is that different form what US has been doing for last few decades?
Seems like being ahead in science is like license needed to rule the world. In current time, everyone(no matter at what level in authority hierarchy) wants to rule over others. This kind of selfish mentality is sure to bring end to what we have achieved so far.
Your point about science is roughly correct but cannot be taken too far. A country's average will indirectly influence the R&D activities of the top group as well. Democratic support, educational funding, social perception all influence science career to an extent. For example, it is so much easier to rest on your laurel when everyone around you does much worse. And when the average performance of a group is raised even moderately, the number of people who passes a certain threshold increase substantially (assuming a distribution not too far from Gaussian).
Also, there needs to be a critical mass of good researchers to create a rich ecosystem that in turn produces significant technology. The US lead in R&D is partially caused by its large number of active researchers and the collective amount of funding these scientists receive compared to other countries.
What's with the China bashing? We all believe in what we are used to. That simple.
The author, as many commenters stated, does not define his article correctly? To say America does not elect scientists assumes that the US has many scientists who are rejected at the polls. A better question...Why don't more scientists run for office.
First, an engineer or scientist in Germany is not the same as an engineer/scientist in the US. The Bachelors degree (4 years of college), from what I hear, is almost non-existent in Germany where a Diploma is standard.
Science is not Enough to Affect Change
The author does not state what problems scientists could solve. And science is not everything. No policy can be implemented without the people's support. Example, South African scientist Ivor van Heerden being told "Americans don't live in tents" by US Army Corps of Engineers when discussing ways to house citizens after a Hurricane, pre-Hurricane Katrina.
Many engineers and scientists in the US are immigrants. Herbert Hoover's, the only engineer/scientist president, parents or grandparents came from Germany. Their original name was Huber. Hoover's technocrats were discredited after the 1929 stock market crash.
From my knowledge and little experience in advocacy, politics is ahem ...politics. Your successes are more about knowing and coercing the right people, not really if the numbers add up. For instance, defunding a program to balance the budget, might cost you and your party their hold on power.
Look how many scientists and doctors were researching HIV/AIDS. Their effect was miniscule. The major investments did not come from scientist advocates. The investments into HIV/AIDS came largely because Gay and Lesbian activists (e.g. ACT-UP) pressured and coerced the pharmaceutical industry. The most infamous act being the real 1987 occupation and shutdown of Wall-Street which resulted in real concessions.
This is how politics changes, by dedicated action.
As for Singapore, Singapore was ruled by Lee Kuan Yew (sp?) for about 36 years (1970-1990s) so it should not be compared to democratically elected governments,
Science has to be Accepted by the Population
As for climate change due to pollution. Politicians can't single handedly change the climate, only a curtailing of the excessive consumption patterns of the public can do that. I think it's silly to point at "anti-intellectuals" as the source of climate change when 50% of the nation turns the air condition to 20C/68F when it is 30C/88F in the summer time. The air-condition being the most energy expensive item in the household.
As a scientist, I'm biased on this issue. Being a scientist involves dealing with data and making/testing hypotheses. Being a scientist helps you understand scientific results, and then you can make a value decision with how those results affect policy.
Germany seems to be doing very well with many scientist leaders. Angela Merkel has a PhD in physical chemistry. Just because America doesn't respect scientists that much, doesn't mean they don't make good leaders.
As a former researcher I am not surprised to see another nation capitalizing on the counter-productive politicization of US science.
I used to be a researcher and writing proposals suddenly started taking up much more time around 2010 to 2013 because each grant became much smaller. Each grant also became more specific in what science you were expected to produce, which essentially made us all contractors for NSF plus DOE and winning a grant was sometimes more about politics than producing excellent scholarship. This pushed a lot of great scientists out of the field.
After I left research radical leftists started a more expansive politicized attack on science that is further politisizing who gets tenure or grants essential to making scientific progress.
- Biology as a subject is the most affected right now [1], because biology shows that there are biological differences that contribute to individuals choices in a way that invalidates the univariant equity doctrine political explanations. Women on average does are as capable as men in the sciences, but they differences in choices increase the more equal the societies are.
- Science as a competence hierarchy is under attack by the equity initiatives [2], making it so that the most important factors for getting grants and tenure is often not competence.
The fact is unfortunately that these programs have been shown to not increase the production of great science [3]. Moreover, these efforts further demoralize and alienate scientists.
We should at this point not be under any doubt that unless we defeat the politicization of science the US will not remain competitive. We should ask ourselves if we want to be equal on a sinking ship or make life better by allowing everyone to compete as individuals regardless of which identity you think they belong to.
What is the article arguing? Is there even an argument made? Why should Americans elect more scientists? Will it lead to a higher quality of living or more wealth or what?
It mentions China as a pro-scientists country, but why? It's riddled with human rights violations, corruption and environmental pollution. While American politicians decry climate change openly, China just seems to ignore it.
Singapore is a city-state with 5mio citizens, and a high cost of living. Finland also has 5mio citizens, is known for its wealth and the president Tarja Halonen has a degree in law - in fact, the other politicians mentioned on Finlands wikipedia page are missing a scientific degree as well.
I'm not buying it. Just staffing your government with scientists seems pretty irrelevant for the success of a nation.
How did you so quickly turn a nation's standing among the world's scientific powers into some sort of battle of the sexes?
I for one don't think that science supremacy is a reasonable goal for a nation. The goal should be to provide those Americans who wish to do so with the opportunity to spend their lives doing real research, and to carry that research product to other American who wish to use it for purposes that are useful to the nation.
reply