Initiative for Science, Engineering, and Technology
The Initiative was organized at the urging of our Fellows who are concerned that
the level of science literacy in the public is not proportionate to the prominent
role science and technology play in the lives of all Americans. The purpose of the
Initiative is to examine how the world of science and technology is evolving, how
to help the public to understand those changes, and how we as a society can better
adapt. The work of the Initiative will focus on three broad areas: Science and Engineering
Education and Career Choice, Science Funding and Regulation, and the Public Understanding
and Distrust of Science.
The Academy can play a unique role in science policy discussions by bringing prominent
new voices to the table from across disciplines and professions. The strengths of
the Academy are its independence and its power to convene experts and leaders who
have the capacity both to recommend and to implement policy changes.
The Advisory Committee consists of co-chairs, Charles Vest (National Academy of
Engineering) and Neal Lane (Rice University) and members Thomas R. Cech (Howard
Hughes Medical Institute), Marye Anne Fox (U.C. San Diego), John Hennessy (Stanford
University), Shirley Malcom (American Association for the Advancement of Science),
Richard Meserve (Carnegie Institution), Richard Nelson (Columbia University), Greg
Papadopoulos (Sun Microsystems), and Hunter Rawlings (Cornell University).
Current or Emerging Projects:
Alternative Models for the Federal Funding of Science
Science and technology are vital components of American
economic prosperity both now and in the future. The United States’ leadership role
in science, engineering and technology is being challenged from every corner of
the globe in the new global economy. As a result, investment in science and technology
is critical to American competitiveness. A clear statement of principles for science
funding that is nonpartisan in tone, supported by data and analysis, would help
guide policy in the coming years.
Many reports have recommended the need for increased
funding for science, which is important. This study,
ARISE: Advancing Research in Science and Engineering, has a different
goal. It examines science funding from the perspective of analyzing current funding
policies, mechanisms, and processes, and it recommends strategies for maximizing
the impact of science funding. The study considers, for example, the effects of
boom and bust funding cycles, the proper balance of capacity-building versus merit
in funding considerations, the proportion of funds set aside for high-risk versus
incremental research, and whether the current system of distributing funds is effective
in supporting and retaining early-career scientists.
The Committee is chaired by Thomas Cech (Howard Hughes
Medical Institute) and is comprised of the following members: David Baltimore (California
Institute of Technology), Steven Chu (Lawrence Berkeley National Lab), France Córdova
(Purdue University), Thomas Everhart (California Institute of Technology), Richard
Freeman (Harvard University), Susan Graham (University of California at Berkeley),
David Goldston (Former Staff Director of House Science Committee), Robert Horvitz
(MIT), Linda Katehi (University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign), Peter Kim (Merck),
Neal Lane (Rice University), C. Dan Mote Jr. (University of Maryland), Daphne Preuss
(University of Chicago), David Sabatini (New York University), Randy Schekman (University
of California at Berkeley), Richard Scheller (Genentech), Albert Teich (American
Association for the Advancement of Science), Mark Wrighton (Washington University),
Keith Yamamoto (University of California at San Francisco), and Huda Zoghbi (Baylor
College of Medicine).
Science in the Liberal Arts Curriculum
The American Academy is undertaking a study to examine
the role of science education in the liberal arts curriculum. More than two-thirds
of enrolled students at colleges and universities do not major in the natural sciences,
engineering, or mathematics. For these students, the science courses they take in
college represent their last formal science education and preparation for the increasingly
scientifically and technologically-based society in the 21st century.
The primary objectives of the study are to: 1) examine
philosophies behind science requirements for nonscientists in the liberal arts curriculum,
2) determine how non-science majors fulfill their science requirements, and 3) disseminate
findings to enrich discussions of curriculum reform at higher education institutions.
The Academy has assembled a group of colleges and universities to join as partners
to the project. The partner institutions will not only provide information on how
non-science majors at their institutions fulfill their science requirements, they
will meet to discuss the goals of science education for nonscientists and to share
lessons learned.
The project is co-chaired by Jerrold Meinwald (Cornell
University) and John Hildebrand (University of Arizona). Members of the Advisory
Committee currently include Michael Doyle (Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry,
University of Maryland), Martha Haynes (Department of Astronomy, Cornell University),
Robert Hazen (Geophysical Lab, Carnegie Institution of Washington), Sally Hoskins
(Department of Biology, City College of New York), Eric Jacobsen (Department of
Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University), Darcy Kelley (Department of
Biological Sciences, Columbia University), Eugene Levy (Department of Physics and
Astronomy, Rice University), and Shirley Malcom (Education and Human Resources Program,
American Association for the Advancement of Science).
Scientists’ Understanding of the Public
Much important work aims to strengthen the capacity
of the scientific community to educate the public about science and technology.
Far less attention has been paid to the problem of improving scientists’ understanding
of the public and its perspectives on their work. This neglected element of the
communication between scientists and society ultimately undermines the public’s
trust in science and requires remediation. Public attitudes about science and technology
are complex, informed by a variety of sources, anchored by ethical considerations,
religious beliefs, and cultural norms and values. Public opinion is more often favorable
than unfavorable toward science. Yet reservations about science are close to the
surface. In certain areas—for example, global warming, biomedical research, or research
on dangerous pathogens—scientific progress and public policy concerns may come into
conflict. The capacity of scientists to gain adequate funding, to pursue both their
laboratory work, and to provide sound advice to policy makers depends crucially
on an understanding of the social implications and likely public responses to their
research.
The American Academy, drawing upon the breadth and
distinction of its membership, its convening authority, and its independence, is
well-positioned to address the challenge of improving scientists’ understanding
of the public. Toward this end, the Academy is convening meetings in four cities,
gathering scientific leaders from academic institutions and from industry, together
with public policy experts, theologians, and industry executives from that particular
region to discuss a topic or set of topics with experts on public attitudes and
concerns regarding science.
Advisors to this project include Charles Vest (MIT),
Ralph Gomory (Alfred P. Sloan Foundation), Alan Alda (New York, New York), Hunter
Rawlings (Cornell University), and Greg Papadopoulos (Sun Microsystems).
Return to Science, Technology, and Global Security
|