The 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 in the Liberal Arts Curriculum
	Scientists’ Understanding of the Public

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 has a different goal. It will examine science funding from the perspective of analyzing current funding policies, mechanisms, and processes, and it will recommend strategies for maximizing the impact of science funding. The study will consider, 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. Recent meetings with congressional staff members indicate that a report of this nature would be welcome.

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), Paul Nurse (Rockefeller University), Ralph Gomory (Alfred P. Sloan Foundation), Alan Alda (New York, New York), Hunter Rawlings (Cornell University), Greg Papadopoulos (Sun Microsystems), and Alan Leshner (American Association for the Advancement of Science).

> Back to Science and Global Security