My first thought when seeing this article on Science Daily was how my students would react. "Why do they bother to study that?" is one of the most common questions I hear in my classroom (even more common than "Do we have homework?"). I hear it when we talk about the deep ocean ("Why do they spend so much money to find some tiny fish?") geology ("Why would someone bother to just look at rocks?") and biotechnology ("Why do they work so hard to clone animals that we have a lot of anyway?"). I also hear it when we talk about chemistry. In general I find that middle school students respect chemistry, mostly because they think it is all about mixing stuff and causing explosions. However, we always end having the discussion about artificial elements. Students rarely understand why researchers would spend the amount of money required to build these particle accelerators (though I don't think most students really have a strong understanding of the scale that they are built on), especially once they find that the elements only exist for a fraction of a second.
Usually I have a good answer for the questions I get in class. There are legitimate reasons to explore the ocean, study geology and work on cloning and other biotechnologies. However, I have never had a very good answer for the questions about artificial elements. Maybe I just don't know enough about particle physics, but I have never known an answer better than "because we want to extend the bounds of science as much as possible." Although that response is generally accepted, I have always found it rather empty. How do I justify to my students the money spent on this research when it could be spent on curing diseases or helping build water treatment plants in underdeveloped nations?
I have always thought that part of my job, as a science teacher, has been to promote science as a worthwhile pursuit. Sometimes I feel guilty when I don't always believe in it myself.
5 other thoughts:
--How do I justify to my students the money spent on this research when it could be spent on curing diseases or helping build water treatment plants in underdeveloped nations?
The answer is because humans reach. And it's because of human reaching beyond the immediate that we've created a world much better, brighter, and more just than we ever would have imagined.
Isaac Newton didn't worry about the poor, but understanding basic classical mechanics and calculus has led to more developments in engineering and medicine than digging a few more wells would have helped.
Trying to understand quantum mechanics has given us more technology in the form of computers, chpis, memory, and gadgets than we could have dreamed of, leading to vast improvements in every field. etc etc etc.
but I guess you could ask why Shakespeare or VanGogh or Mozart didn't do something "useful". Do they have to justify their existence, too?
I don't think the comparison to Shakespeare, VanGogh and Mozart is apt. The difference is the use of resources. Those artist were not using resources (i.e., governmental funding) that could have gone elsewhere. If there are individual scientists who want to fund their own research, I have no problem with them doing whatever they want. The problem is that we all come back to funding. There is a limited amount of money available, so decisions must be made. Chosing to do one project will mean that another is left out.
really? your students are sophisticated enough to ask why there's federal or state funding for certain things?
then tell them the truth: becaues legislators like giving the people at home a reason to vote for them. Academia exists in its present form because of too much federal funding. I'm a scientist and believe that federal grant money in the sciences is almost always a complete waste.
But that's not "why do we do what we do" at all. We scientists do science as artists create art. The question why anyone funds ridiculous science is because of earmarks and votes, just like any other bad project is funded.
Okay, then perhaps debate the bigger issue: when should we believe that the fed. govt is capable of doing something better than the private sector can? Under what circumstances?
But then you have to talk about why central planning doesn't work well either.
In any case, that's not the reason most scientists do what they do--and they would do it even if there were no federal funding, just as they did before.
A few things to say:
1. Yes, my students ask about money. All of the time. Just today a student said, "they spend all of that money on submarines and my parents won't even by me a cell phone?" They may not understand the ways that money is allocated or the politics behind it, but they are very aware of the fact that these things cost a great deal of money.
2. As long as the research is not possible without significant funding, I think it is impossible to separate the issues of why we do the research and why we spend the money for it. To as the question "why do we do this?" is the same, in my opinion, as "why do we use the resources we do for this?".
3. I think it is interesting that you refer to "ridiculous science", since I thought the point of your first comment here was that there really isn't ridiculous science. The point I was making in my original post was that some research is worth the cost and some is not (therefore making it ridiculous). I thought you were arguing that I was wrong and that all research was worthwhile. Apparently I misunderstood. However, since you are willing to concede that there is some science that is ridiculous, what is wrong with my original claim that, in my opinion, the research I linked to is not worth the cost and should be considered ridiculous?
I think the connection to artists is a fine one (you can quibble over whether Shakespeare is an appropriate one to include--Handel certainly is). The government (a king, or baron or other wealthy person) often funded the artists, and they certainly could have used those funds to feed the poor, or decrease the burden on their taxpayers, but they didn't.
There's always more obvious things to do with the money than to fund basic research, and you rarely know ahead of time what you will find when you do basic research, and therefore what will have been worth the money. Are heavy elements any good to us now?--no. Will they lead to something useful? No one knows.
Post a Comment