Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Science should be prominent in U.S. foreign policy
From the August 2, 2008 issue of Science News
A+ A- Text Size

From the August 2, 2008 issue of Science News

By Guest Columnists

Web edition: July 18, 2008

On May 28, the World Science Summit held in New York City convened an assembly of prominent scientists to discuss some of the critical issues at the interface between science and society. One of the panel discussions at the summit addressed the topic of the role of science in foreign affairs. Among the participants were Harold Varmus, former director of the National Institutes of Health and now president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York; David Baltimore, former president of Caltech and Rockefeller University in New York; and Nina Fedoroff, a plant geneticist who is the science adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Excerpts from their comments follow below.

Varmus: A component of my life is devoted to trying to make science a more global activity to address many of the unsolved problems that we’ve been hearing about.… Energy or food or water or health, every domain of activity, regionally or globally, can be influenced by science, and it’s become the conviction of many of us that paying attention to science is an element of foreign policy. It is a commandment that ought to be listened to by every administration.…

Science is an attractive way to try to reach out to other countries, even countries with different ideologies, because science practices common methods. Most scientists speak the same languages; science addresses issues that tend to be regional if not global; … science profits from and often depends upon collaborations carried out in an international way; … and science creates global public goods, information that everyone can use for the betterment of the world.…

There are a lot of opportunities for any administration, especially a new one, to foster science abroad and to enhance the status of the U.S. as a partner in doing good in the world.

Baltimore: Science and technology are not limited to a space surrounded by particular political borders. Provision of clean energy in the world is perhaps the most pressing problem we have in the long run. Issues of health are international ones, especially in this era of jet-age travel. Poverty is a problem that countries have individually, but its effects spread throughout the world. Clean water affects rural and urban areas alike, and recently the provision of just basic food rations to the world’s population has become a growing concern.

So we’re living with a constant crisis of having spawned a population of 6.7 billion people on the Earth today and an ever increasing number as time passes. It’s an enormous problem, and increasing the affluence of these individuals is something that each country is working on, and that is producing strains and challenges to stretch the resourcefulness of people throughout the world.…

The AIDS epidemic … by itself strains the resources of the world. Today we’re trying to provide 33 million people with drugs to prevent the progression of AIDS; we’re trying to avoid the deaths of the most productive people in society; we’re trying to avoid the increase in orphaned children.

At the same time, we can’t forget … tuberculosis, malaria, other infectious diseases. We still need to be alert to new emerging infectious diseases. Actually the world has literally millions of diseases, most of which we don’t know much about, in animal reservoirs, any one of which, as SARS showed us, can come out and start taking a toll in human beings.…

All of this requires the marshaling of the resources of the developed world because the research that has to be carried out must be carried out in very sophisticated venues.

Fedoroff: The population has more than doubled since the middle of the 20th century, and the population experts are expecting another roughly 3 billion people to be added to the planet’s population by midcentury. But here’s a sobering factoid: The amount of arable land has not changed appreciably over the past half century. And it isn’t likely to increase much in the future because we’re losing it to urbanization, salinization and desertification as fast as we’re adding it.… And now that we’ve decided that our crops must feed not just humans and animals but our cars as well, it’s perhaps not surprising that food prices have suddenly spiked.…

It’s my view that our research universities and institutes as well as those of other developed nations have a unique opportunity to contribute to building the needed capacity of everything ranging from plant and agricultural sciences to small, medium and large enterprises that add value and diversify livelihoods based on science and technology. This is not just about food prices but about truly flattening the world.… It’s about creating a future in which the citizens of all countries have not just the food security but the educational and economic opportunities that are today restricted largely to the developed world.

Scientists and engineers have a crucial role to play, by creating what you might call a science diplomatic core.… The notion of becoming a science diplomat, taking time out from a busy and competitive career to teach and develop research collaborations in the least advanced countries most in need of our help, is not yet on the academic radar screen.

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

Comments (3)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • Science, Or Technology Culture?


    Societal Implications Of
    Science And Technology Evolution Since The 1920s

    [Link was removed]

    I posit that the nature of the evolution of science and technology since the 1920s has been the most significant molding factor of the present characteristics of our society, and that it is vitally important for charting the future course of our society to learn and understand this evolution.


    A.

    Science and technology are clearly and distinctly two separate faculties, separate branches of learning and teaching. Yet since the 1920s the titles of these different faculties appear inseperably jointly everywhere.

    B.

    Why is it that since the 1920s technology has been evolving dynamically whereas basic, non-applied, science has been progressing - in my opinion - at ever decreasing rate?

    C.

    And what have been and what are the societal-social implications of the format of this evolution and of the present state of science and technology?

    D.

    Definitions of terms for the subject of this thread:

    Science: state of knowledge attained by systematized studies and tests through established scientific methods.

    Technology: capability of and manner of practical application of knowledge.

    ======================

    PS1: (response to a comment1)

    - I do not have current or historical figures of extents of basic versus applied research. I do remember, though, 2006 NSF figures in the United States: basic R&D in 2006 made up slightly less than 20 percent of the total R&D, applied research made up a little more than 20 percent, and 60 percent was industrial development R&D. This is drawn from memory, and without knowledge how the "extents" where measured.

    - IMO the observations in the opening post of this thread are factual and correct and the statement "... the nature of the evolution of science and technology since the 1920s has been the most significant molding factor of the present characteristics of our society..." is correct and true to life.

    Since the 1920s Technology development has been THE TOOL of capital formation and accumulation together with their inherent social and societal values, attitudes and life style and even together with their inherent individual and societal-social ethics.

    Basic, non-applied science, since the 18th century Enlightenment the banner of social and societal evolution out of entrenched traditional doctrines and values, has been abandoned and presently barely survives in few institutions. Enlightenment's inherent philosophy and attitudes in regards to individualism, universal human progress and the applications of reason have been pushed off the western culture highway by the ever rising flood of values, attitudes and texture of life of the technology era.

    - And IMO "...it is vitally important for charting the future course of our society to learn and understand this evolution", to analyse and assess the societal-social implication of the bare survival of basic research, of further comprehending our place in the universe.

    ==============================

    PS2: (response to comment2)

    "The original post":

    - Deals with the different RATES OF EVOLUTION of science and technology since the 1920s.

    - The RATE of evolution of science is, IMO, lagging very very much behind that of technology.

    - Technology evolution since the 1920s has been and still is also a "technology culture evolution", comprising mostly ever increasing life improvements and comforts.

    - "Universal human progress and the applications of reason" are definitely not parameters contributed to society by the technology culture; they evolve only from further comprehension of our nature and function in the universe, i.e. from further science evolution.

    - The terms science and technology appear mostly together in our present technology culture in order to lend technology the weight and reverence rightly due science; this is done deliberately, with the cooperation of the obedient ear-drilled scientists servants (Exodus 21:6), to blurr the distinction between science and technology, to commend most public funds to technology while suppressing funds to science, i.e. to enhance and maintain the acclaimed supreme technology culture.

    - And IMO "...it is vitally important for charting the future course of our society to learn and understand this evolution", to analyse and assess the societal-social implication of the bare survival of basic research, of further comprehending our place in the universe.

    ===========================

    PS3: (response to comment3)

    Pre 1920s science "was sufficiently far ahead..."

    Ahead for what?

    For further fueling-feeding the Technology Culture?

    For comprehending our nature, our place and function in the universe?

    For continuing our present variety of domestic and foreign policies?

    Are we sure that the present Technology Culture is the culture we want to reign supreme from now on forever?

    THIS IS THE POINT OF THIS THREAD...

    ===================================

    PS4 (response to comment4)

    Science Will Never Be "Sufficient"

    SCIENCE may never and will never be "sufficient" for anything.

    Science is as extensive and as evolving and as expanding as the universe is.

    We are what we decide to be, and for electing what to be some of us want to know the nature of our essentiality and our place and function in the universe; science will never be sufficient for this but our continuous endless quest, science, is an inherent human characteristic...

    Dov Henis

    [Link was removed]
    Dov Henis Dov Henis
    Jul. 22, 2008 at 1:37am

  • dasrf Bely dasrf Bely
    Jul. 29, 2008 at 1:55pm
  • fuweyruewiyru
    dasrf Bely dasrf Bely
    Jul. 29, 2008 at 1:55pm
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us