Sorta-long article which argues that the current research framework in the US is untenable. It suffers from the misconception that the only career path of a scientist is to become a university professor, and only occasionally acknowledges this isn’t the case. What it does point out, though, is that we have a glut of post-docs, about half of whom are foreign students here on H-1B visas, and (paradoxically?) argues that we have plenty of home-grown scientists. The result of this is that there is no financial incentive to enter the field, which is why domestic students are shunning science. Color me skeptical. This completely ignores the effect of simply loving science, and going on to get a degree might have something to with liking your work, rather than the cold pursuit of money.
By focusing on the labor aspect it also completely misses one of the supporting arguments for improving science education. Not all people studying science need to become scientists, and it is not a tragedy if you take science classes, or major in a science field, and don’t become a scientist. There is value in being scientifically literate, and it’s painfully clear that we have a large chunk of scientifically illiterate people in the US. I think we’re better off having a population that can call bullshit on some of the howlers our politicians try to pass off as the truth; I’d like to set the bar a little higher than recognizing Reagan’s trees cause more pollution than automobiles do as baloney. If you aren’t savvy enough to know that antibiotics don’t affect viruses, or reject evolution in favor of creation, can you make effective decisions about biological research like stem cells? Can you be informed enough not to cower in fear when the subject of radiation or nanotechnology comes up?
1) Science is centrally managed.
2) Centrally managed science is crap.
3) Study to be a science manager.
If you have a lab or a lathe in your garage you wll not exist for long. Uncle Al perceives a world of cognitive stratification (floating crap).