« Jan employment | Main | Quick take on the budget »
February 6, 2006
Fighting the wrong fight
In this morning's Washington Post, Sebastian Mallaby takes on the "science lobby" by declaiming The Fake Science Threat:
The U.S. science establishment, led by the big research universities and high-tech companies, has just persuaded President Bush to ramp up math and science spending. Part of the rationale for this new "American Competitiveness Initiative" is that it's needed to defend U.S. economic leadership. But while generous math and science funding should be a government priority, the invocation of the threat from China is mostly spurious.
Unfortunately, his article misses the point about the revived competitiveness debate. Boosting math and science education is not just about creating Noble-laureates, as he implies. The real goal is creating an economy where innovation, including technological innovation, can thrive. Yes, many factors, including the skills of the workforce play a role in our economy prosperity. And yes, basic research conducted in other countries, including China, can benefit the US and the entire world. But the US must have the capacity to absorb and utilize that knowledge. As Mallaby points out "what matters is the way science is diffused through an economy." This is where math and science education plays such a key role. Math and science are foundations for critical thinking and problem solving skills - which are linchpins of education in this information economy. Without such an educated workforce, how does Mallaby think that the diffusion of science throughout the US economy will occur?
He also dismisses previous competitiveness concerns with an airy wave of the pen by describing the strengths of the economy:
The United States scores well in nearly all these areas, which is why it's defied alarmist predictions for a quarter of a century and will continue to do so.
As someone who was deeply involved in the competitiveness debates in the 1980's, I can tell you that the predictions were "defied" not by forces of nature, but by hard work. Governments and companies alike took those "alarmist" predictions to heart and turned the situation around. What happened was that we got complacent in the late 1990's and early 2000's and forgot what got us to where we were.
In one sense, however, Mallaby is correct. I have argued that the various competitiveness packages are overly focused on science and technology and are incomplete. They lack attention to other important areas, such as shoring up our capabilities in design and creativity. I wish Mallaby had concentrated is firepower on that subject - rather than an attack on "the science lobby." The fact that the packages are incomplete does not mean these proposals are wrong. They are an important step toward facing our economic challenges. And they are preferable to the "what-me-worry" approach that Mallaby seems to be advocating.
As a side note, the Post op-ed page has an interesting juxtaposition. Next to Mallaby's piece is an op-ed by two distinguished medical researchers warning of Cancer Research in Danger.
Posted by Ken Jarboe at February 6, 2006 8:43 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.athenaalliance.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/534