**N**o element of the R&D
enterprise is as important as the people who comprise it. Advances that save and
improve lives or help secure against potential aggressors do not simply spring
forth from the vast landscape of new scientific discoveries. They must be
identified from among this crowded field and then molded, refined, and promoted
by an extraordinarily diverse complement of talented, dedicated people. These
people are our most important national scientific asset, and we must continuously
and diligently nurture succeeding generations of people equally talented and
dedicated.

Knowledge is power.--Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.
Francis Bacon | We do this largely through education. We depend on our schools, colleges, and universities not only to turn out scientists and engineers, but also to turn out the people who play the myriad other roles in the scientific enterprise that are equally important, if less visible. |


For example, for every scientist who makes a potentially useful discovery in the lab, there must be those in the private sector who recognize the significance of the finding and act on it, providing or attracting capital, making research and production facilities available, providing marketing, management, and legal assistance, and so on. People with skills in these areas who also have some scientific or engineering training are relatively rare and thus highly valued. The industry scientists and engineers who must then transform a novel discovery into an eventual product must be aided by technicians and other highly-skilled employees. Once the new product is ready for the market, other workers must produce these new goods, often in factories or other workplaces that are themselves driven by technology.

The ramifications for society and for the environment of new technologies must also be considered. Again, these decisions do not happen spontaneously, but are made by people. Regulators help determine whether new products, such as medications, or new technologies, such as airbags, are safe. Lawmakers must balance the sometimes competing interests of various entities within the R&D enterprise, as well as those of their constituents. And finally, every citizen in our free-market democracy must be able to make educated and responsible decisions as a consumer and voter.

Each member of society plays a part in the
scientific enterprise. **Whether a chemist or a first-grade teacher, an aerospace
engineer or machine shop worker, a patent lawyer or medical patient, we all
should possess some degree of knowledge about, or familiarity with, science and
technology if we are to exercise our individual roles effectively.** Our
educational system--from preschools to research universities--is currently not up
to this challenge. We have much work to do.

In a technology-driven economy, jobs that require a scientific or technology background will gain increasing importance for our economy. We must ensure that we instill in younger generations the motivation and desire to obtain those jobs as well as the fundamental skills and knowledge to be able to perform them. Those who hold such knowledge control a precious resource--intellectual capital--of which we must ensure a plentiful reserve.

Our K-12 education system serves three main purposes: it is responsible for preparing future scientists and engineers for further study in college and graduate school; it provides a foundation for those who will enter the workforce in other capacities; and it provides scientific and technical understanding so that citizens may make informed decisions as consumers and as citizens. To achieve these goals, schools must be able to develop curricula that are rigorous, develop critical thinking, and impart an appreciation of the excitement and utility of science.

There are, however, growing indications that
science and math education in too many of our Nation's schools is letting down
our students. The most recent evidence of this is from the Third International
Math and Science Study (TIMSS),
54 which measured American students in
the fourth, eighth, and twelfth grades against comparable students in other
countries. The study, which is the most comprehensive study ever done on the
subject, was carefully designed and administered to provide a fair and accurate
assessment of the scientific and mathematical understanding of each participating
nation's students.

For the U.S., TIMSS revealed some serious problems. Although U.S. fourth graders did relatively well in both math and science, eighth graders sunk to the middle of the pack. By twelfth grade, the last year of mandatory schooling, U.S. students were among the very worst in the world, and in some areas, such as physics, were dead last.

The changes needed to improve math and science education in the U.S. are extensive enough to warrant further examination beyond this Science Policy Study, and the Science Committee intends to continue this effort. There are, however, a few principles that have been identified as crucial to addressing this issue. They are discussed below.


It is nothing short
of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have not yet entirely
strangled the holy curiosity of enquiry.
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) | Coursework in science must convey the
excitement of science to capture and maintain the interest of students. Children
are naturally inquisitive. We must build on this natural curiosity and encourage
it, not squelch it by teaching science as just an accumulation of facts and
figures, as it so often is. Science curricula should involve hands-on
experimentation, allowing children to experience the thrill of learning how the
world around them works. As Bill Nye, the host of the television program
Bill Nye the Science Guy, said in his testimony, "A teacher doing a
demonstration is one thing, but a student doing it for her or himself is another.
There is nothing more empowering."55
|


Other curricular issues, particularly those
affecting grades seven or eight, the years when our students' test scores start
their downward plunge, and higher must also be addressed. Specifically, we must
seek to avoid a problem identified in the TIMS study, that is, that science and
math curricula in the U.S. are overly broad and insufficiently thorough. Dr.
William Schmidt, the U.S. chairman of the TIMSS project and a professor at
Michigan State University, described these curricula as "a mile wide and an inch
deep," in his testimony.56 American students, he explained, are
exposed to an extremely broad range of facts and topics, none of which they learn
very well.

Keeping the interest of these students for science and math remains important at the high school level, as many students make the decision to pursue science or engineering during these years. In fact, many colleges require students to declare the engineering major at the freshman level. Thus if students get "turned off" to math and science at the high school level, this decision often becomes irreversible. To prevent this from happening, it is vital that high school students get a sense of how their math and science courses can lead to interesting and challenging technical careers before they decide to withdraw from the world of science and engineering.

It is precisely for this reason that high
school engineering design competitions like JETS (Junior Engineering Technical
Society) and FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology)
have been established. By exposing high school students to the practice of
engineering in an exciting manner, these programs provide compelling, hands-on
reasons to study math and science in high school. As Michael Peralta, the
Executive Director of JETS, testified, "JETS provides high school students with
an opportunity to "try on" engineering before they select a college major. JETS'
task is to develop a larger and better prepared pre-college talent pool and to
encourage these students to consider engineering, science, mathematics or
technology as a career path."
57 The results of these programs can be
remarkable. In the case of East Technical High School in Cleveland, a school
located in the center of Cleveland's most impoverished public housing project,
school officials credit the FIRST program with beginning their turnaround from
being slated for closure to becoming the "Lighthouse School" for math and science
in the Cleveland School District.

We must also expect more from our Nation's students with respect to math and science. Curricula that contain rigorous scientific content must be developed and applied; children must have an adequate grounding in science knowledge. As a society, we seem to have lowered our expectations as to how much scientific and mathematical understanding the average citizen should have. We learned from the TIMSS project that most of the rest of the world holds their students to a higher standard. We must disavow the notion that not every student can master science and mathematics--that the subjects are "too difficult" for some, or that only students with innate ability can tackle math and science. Our children will not be able to sustain the accomplishments of previous generations unless they are prepared to compete with their peers in the rest of the world. Their preparation starts in the Nation's classrooms.

Recruitment of qualified K-12 math and
science teachers should be pursued far more aggressively. A number of states now
require middle and high school teachers to possess a college degree in a specific
subject area other than education, but many teachers still teach subjects in
which they may not have had extensive training. For example, only 41 percent of
high school mathematics teachers (and just 7 percent of middle school math
teachers) possess an undergraduate degree in mathematics.
58 Of course,
a lack of formal scientific training does not in and of itself disqualify one
from teaching science or math well. There are teachers with limited science
backgrounds who have, through determined self-education, become thoroughly versed
in their subject matter. But as long as there are not enough talented teachers
able to take the time to do this, science and math education will continue to
suffer.

It seems reasonable, therefore, to suggest that those with backgrounds in science and math who also have an affinity and aptitude for teaching be allowed--indeed, encouraged--to pursue this line of work. Currently, many of those with training or educational backgrounds in math and science are dissuaded from teaching by the need for substantial additional schooling to gain a teaching credential. To address this, a number of states around the country have begun to implement credential programs that allow people with backgrounds in science, math, or engineering to learn teaching methods and to obtain their teaching credential on an accelerated schedule. States offering these programs are to be applauded.

Whether possessing a college or graduate degree in science, math or engineering or not, teachers should be required to undergo periodic training and professional development. This is especially important for science teachers because of the continually changing nature of the subject matter. By staying current with new ideas and trends, science and math teachers can increase their value to their students and communities.

Another disincentive to entry into the teaching profession by those with a science, math, or engineering degree is the relatively low salaries K-12 teaching jobs offer compared to alternative opportunities. With the fierce competition for technically skilled workers, it is time that school districts consider paying science and math teachers competitive wages both to attract new teachers and, just as importantly, to retain current teachers of outstanding ability.

Currently, the U.S. spends approximately $300
billion a year on education and less than $30 million, 0.01 percent of the
overall education budget, on education research.
59 At a time when
technology promises to revolutionize both teaching and learning, this miniscule
investment suggests a feeble long-term commitment to improving our educational
system.

The revolution in information technology has brought with it exciting opportunities for innovative advances in education and learning. As promising as these new technologies are, however, their haphazard application has the potential, in the worst case, to affect adversely the classroom and the learning process. Research is needed to determine how these promising new technologies can best be adapted to the classroom, and particularly to math and science teaching.

Undergraduate education programs suffer from some of the same problems as K-12 education in that the standards that students are held to are not always very high, and often students are not exposed to coursework that captures their attention. Many in the workforce, including most K-12 teachers, are formally exposed to math and science for the last time during their college years. Others who plan to pursue further study in math and science must have a solid foundation in order to succeed at the graduate level. Thus our expectations of these students and curricula issues at the undergraduate level need to be addressed. Education research at this stage must also be considered, as professors, while experts in their fields, are often not exposed to, or familiar with, teaching pedagogy.

Talented graduate
students provide the right mix of agitation and skepticism that feeds new ideas,
and the energy to explore them. They are a significant source of innovation and
in that sense indispensable for the research enterprise.
Paul Berg (1926-) | Courses that are aimed at non-science or
engineering majors that nevertheless em-ploy a rigorous treatment of the subject
must be provided. David Billington, a Professor of Engineering at Princeton
University, has designed such a course, which has proven to be very popular. It
highlights important engineering advances of the last two centuries by placing
them in historical and social context, and lays to rest the notion that a
rigorous treatment of complex technical concepts need be dry and boring. Dr.
Billington's description of one of the lessons of the course, the contribution of
steamboat inventor Robert Fulton, illustrates this: "By performing the same
simple algebra that Fulton himself used in his patent application, our students
relive the thrill of discovery as Fulton himself did. In light of modern
understanding, they also learn about Fulton's mistakes and how he nevertheless
developed a workable steamboat. This understanding can only be conveyed through
numbers, but the numbers do not lose rigor by being simple."
60
|


By most measurements, our graduate programs in
science and engineering are, as David Goodstein, Vice Provost and Professor of
Physics at Cal Tech University, said in his testimony, "the jewel in our crown,
the only part of our system of education that the rest of the world
admires."
61 Indeed, citizens from a number of other countries flock to
our graduate schools for training at the Ph.D. and post-doctoral level. The
attraction of these students to U.S. science and engineering programs, however,
helps mask a situation with serious long term implications for the U.S.--the
apparent lack of interest or preparation many of our own students seem to have
for careers in science or engineering.

Much blame has been placed on a K-12
educational system that does not sufficiently excite or educate students in math
or science and discourages further pursuit of them. While, clearly, there is much
to be improved at the K-12 level, we must not be tempted to ignore problems
at higher educational levels and the effect the overall economic picture has on
students' choices. **Today's American students will go where they perceive the
opportunities to be.** Earl Dowell, Professor of Engineering at Duke University
addressed the decrease in the number of students entering into science and
engineering graduate programs in his testimony: "The decline has come in part
because the economy is generally doing well and since engineering and science are
demanding courses of study, some students may perceive that a good job awaits
them even without a degree in science or engineering."
62 **We must
address the question of why American students do not apparently view science and
engineering careers as providing sufficient incentives if we are to encourage
students to pursue study in these areas that are so important to our Nation's
economy and our citizens' lives.**

Medical training involves a period of post-college training not unlike that for Ph.D. researchers in the sciences in terms of length, and requires similar preparation. However, in general, the practice of medicine provides far higher salaries than does scientific research. This contrast may explain, at least in part, why medical schools continue to attract large numbers of qualified students while Ph.D. programs must turn increasingly to foreign-born students to make up for declining enrollments.

Part of the problem may be that students perceive training in science and engineering, particularly at the graduate level, as narrow preparation for a career they are not likely to pursue. At many institutions, Ph.D. training in the sciences focuses students narrowly on training for a research career, particularly one in academia. But a number of witnesses and other contributors to the Policy Study pointed out that only a fraction of these students will actually follow the academic research career path due to a limited number of available positions and a far greater pool of potential candidates.

The fact is a majority of Ph.D. graduates in
science and engineering take jobs outside of academia.
63 A consequence
of this mismatch between the focus of training in graduate school and the
available career options at the other end has had a negative effect on student
interest in graduate science and math programs. "The students are bitterly
disappointed when they find out that the jobs that they want aren't there," Dr.
Goodstein said, "and their disappointment seeps down through the ranks, turning
younger students away from science."

Apparently, this effect is already being felt.
According to Dr. Goodstein, "Around 1970, the fraction of the top students in our
colleges and universities who decided to go on to graduate school started to
decline, and it has been declining ever since. Our best students, in other words,
proved their worth by reading the handwriting on the wall." In physics, for
example, the number of American students deciding to pursue a Ph.D. education has
dropped by approximately 27 percent just in the last six years.
64 What
has allowed this precipitous decline to go largely unnoticed has been the steady
influx of foreign students who have filled the vacated slots. Finally, recent
surveys have indicated that a significant fraction of newly graduated Ph.D.s
would not get their Ph.D. if they had to do it all over
again.
65

Of real concern is the possibility that the
pessimism graduate students experience will trickle down to pre-graduate science
and engineering education as well. Recent statistics do indeed indicate such a
trend, at least in certain fields. Undergraduate enrollments in physics are at
their lowest levels since the Sputnik era
66 and enrollments in
mathematics and computer science majors are down.
67

Similar patterns are seen in engineering. The
number of college freshmen declaring the engineering major declined by 19 percent
between 1983 and 1996.
68 This tepid interest comes at a time when many
employers are in such stiff competition with each other for recently-minted
engineers that they are offering signing bonuses--on top of attractive
salaries--for recent graduates of undergraduate engineering programs, as Dr. Earl
H. Dowell, Dean of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at the Duke
University School of Engineering explained to the committee. Furthermore,
employers are petitioning the Congress to increase the number of visas granted to
technically trained immigrants.

There appears to be a serious incongruity between the perceived utility of a degree in science and engineering by potential students and the present and future need for those with scientific training in our society. This disconnect is mirrored in the narrow focus of science programs when viewed against the increasingly broad roles that those with scientific training are needed to play in our economy and our society. For example, in business, whether in finance, consulting or management, those with backgrounds in science and engineering will be increasingly sought for their analytical abilities and knowledge of technology-based industry.

Similarly, the legal profession needs those who understand science and technology, not only for addressing patent and intellectual property issues but also for evidentiary analysis in both civil and criminal law. An extraordinarily wide range of career options--journalism, communication, policy and ethics being just a few examples--will be open to those with backgrounds in science and engineering. Bachelors and graduate education programs must adapt to these changing circumstances if we, as a Nation, are to maintain the preeminence of our scientific enterprise and attract the very best and brightest students to pursue studies in science and engineering. To do so, students must be convinced that this education will provide them with broad, attractive career options.

The testimony of Catharine Johnson, a Ph.D.
student in Biological Chemistry at Johns Hopkins University, is a case in point.
She said, "The American system of graduate education produces highly trained
scientists and engineers of unparalleled quality. Changes in both the global and
our national economy, however, are expanding the role of science in commerce and
society. Thus, our system of graduate education must continue to educate
pre-eminent scientists, but also must generate scientists educated to fulfill
these new roles. Scientists working outside of research and academia, who
interface with all facets of our culture, help demystify both science and
scientists, and diminish the gulf between the scientific establishment and the
public. The current system of graduate education, however, is too narrowly
focused on training specialists in a market that increasingly needs generalists.
We must...better prepare young scientists to fully participate in the challenging
opportunities that lie ahead."69

Graduate education in the sciences and engineering must strike a careful balance between continuing to produce the world's premier scientists and engineers and offering enough flexibility so that students with other ambitions are not discouraged from embarking on further education in math, science or engineering.

The National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Science,
Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPuP) made this suggestion in their 1995
report, *Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and
Engineers.*
70 The Chairman of the COSEPuP project, Phil Griffiths,
testified to the rationale behind some of their recommendations, which were based
in part on interviews with industry employers of Ph.D. scientists. "Here is a
typical comment to our committee from a representative of a multinational
corporation," he said. "...Skills like project management, leadership, planning
and organizing, interpersonal skills, adaptability, negotiation, written and oral
communication and solid computer knowledge are critical. If you walk on water
technically but can't explain or promote your ideas and your science, you won't
get hired. If you do get hired, your career will stall."
71 We must
ensure that students are educated for success in a workforce that demands far
more than research skills.

The engineering field has begun to address these issues in a formal manner by establishing a new undergraduate engineering degree accreditation program, a process described by Dr. Dowell in his testimony. Individual academic institutions and the NSF have also made some progress in addressing education and training issues for other graduate programs in math and science.

However, the situation of post-docs has been
largely ignored, as a recent report by the Association of American Universities
(AAU) pointed out.
72 The concern that the postdoctoral appointment has
become a "holding pattern" for those seeking academic positions that are
increasingly difficult to obtain, and the lack of consistent standards and
expectations for postdoctoral education noted in the recent AAU report need to be
addressed.

Finally, we must also ensure that the opportunities that promise to unfold for those with an education in science and engineering are available to all citizens. Today, women and some minorities are underrepresented in many scientific and engineering fields. This represents a tremendous under-utilization of our Nation's resources.

On May 13, 1998, in an effort to address the
relative lack of women in the fields of science, engineering and technology
development, the Committee on Science passed H.R. 3007,
73 the
Advancement of Women in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development Act. The
bill creates a Commission to identify the underlying causes for the gender
imbalances found in fields such as engineering and computer science, and make
recommendations to address these causes.

Research and education at the graduate level are tightly linked. The training of scientists and engineers in the U.S. occurs largely through an apprenticeship model in which a student learns how to perform research through hands-on experience under the guidance of an experienced researcher--the student's thesis advisor. In many fields, students continue this training in post-doctoral study. A result of this link between education and research is that students and post-doctoral researchers are responsible for actually performing much of the federally funded research done in universities. Thus, these students and post-docs represent a key component of the overall research enterprise.

Dr. Vest underscored the link between education and research in his testimony: "...education--especially graduate education--is an explicit goal of any research partnership that has a federal component...The United States has forged the efficient and productive arrangement of conducting its long-term fundamental research and its graduate education in university research laboratories. We take this arrangement nearly for granted, but it is the essential ingredient in our world leadership in science and engineering." Indeed, most of a Ph.D. student's time is spent not in classes, but performing research. This gives the student hands-on training and experience and at the same time generates data that form the basis of the advisor's scientific publications.

This connection between research and graduate
education must be maintained as a critical element in the success of our graduate
schools to turn out top-quality scientists and engineers. However, the actual
mechanisms by which this link occurs can and should be addressed. Typically, a
Ph.D. student's research is funded by federal grant money controlled by the
student's thesis advisor, making the student directly dependent upon his or her
advisor for support. In contrast, many post-doctoral fellows seek and obtain
their own funding for their research projects (through a competitive grant
process based on peer review). Extending to greater numbers of deserving graduate
students * this increased control over their own financial
resources for their research projects should be considered, as allocating the
financial resources exclusively to the faculty places the focus on the needs of
the advisor, not the student. The potential thus exists for the student's
graduate experience to be dominated by the faculty member's need to generate
publishable research results--and not the student's own scientific and
professional development.

*Limited funding of this type is curently available. for example, both the NSF and the Howard Hughes Medical Intitute (HHMI), a private, non rofit organization that is a significant funding source for research in the biomedical sciences offer competitively-awarded grants to graduate students.

Unlike the case in engineering, **the Masters
degree in the sciences is viewed by many of those in academia as a "consolation
prize" for students unable or unwilling to fulfill the requirements of the Ph.D.**
Yet, ideally, such programs would allow students to pursue an interest in science
without making the long commitment to obtaining a Ph.D., and thus attract greater
numbers of students to careers in science and technology. Students with Masters
of science degrees would be qualified to contribute in numerous important ways to
the overall science and technology enterprise.

The length of time involved in graduate
training in the sciences and engineering is a clear disincentive to students
deciding between graduate training in the sciences and other options. The median
length of time required for a Ph.D. in the sciences is now between 6.4 and 7.4
years, depending on the field (see graph on next page).
75 In most
fields, additional years of postdoctoral research are required. It is not unusual
for this added training to last another 3-6 years, making 10 years spent in
training not at all uncommon.


Source: National Research Councill, Summary Report 1996: Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities

Ms. Johnson emphasized the choices from the student's view, saying, "Science promises an interesting career of intellectual challenge, but it is not alone in this respect. There are significant disincentives, however, for pursuing science. During the extensive training period--and remember, it's nearly a decade after college and before getting a real job--during that period, we accrue no pension. We are granted poor benefits. Usually we do not contribute to Social Security. And, most importantly, we earn just above minimum wage...In order to recruit and retain young scientists, graduate studies must better compete with other interesting, satisfying, and lucrative professional options...We need to reduce the opportunity costs for pursuing advanced degrees in science and math."

One of the ironies of our modern age is that although our society depends on science as never before, what scientists do remains an enigma to most people. As any nonscientist who has tried to wade through a scientific journal knows, the language of science is virtually incomprehensible to the layman. While these journals are not written for a general audience--nor should they be--they are perhaps the clearest example of the widening chasm between scientists and the rest of society.

If we are to maintain public appreciation and
support for our scientific enterprise, a way to translate the benefits and
grandeur of science into the language of ordinary people is sorely needed.
**Scientists have wonderful stories to tell, yet too often they get told poorly, if
at all.** Educators and journalists have a role to play in communicating the
achievements of science, but scientists must recognize that they, too, have a
responsibility to increase the availability and salience of science to the
public.

Literary
intellectuals at one pole--at the other scientists...Between the two a gulf of
mutual incomprehension.
Sir Charles Percy Snow | We cannot rely on an improved math and science
education system alone to provide Americans the knowledge they will need to
navigate effectively today's highly technical job market and make well-informed
policy choices. The expanding base of scientific information means that to remain
scientifically literate we must engage in continual learning. Mr. Jim Hartz,
former co-host of the Today Show, and Dr. Rick Chappell, Director of Science and
Research Communications and Adjunct Professor of Physics at Vanderbilt
University, said in their (combined) written testimony, "There has been an
outright explosion of new scientific knowledge just in our lifetimes. No one
person can know it all. Many scientists, themselves, say they are hard put to
stay up with cutting-edge research in their own specialties."76
|


To bring accurate, relevant information from the front lines of science to the pages of newspapers and into peoples' living rooms via television, journalists and scientists must be willing and able to communicate with each other. This does not always come easily. Mr. Hartz and Dr. Chappell, with their individual perspectives from journalism and science, respectively, sized up the basic problem this way: "Scientists complained that reporters didn't understand many of the basics of their methods, including peer review, the incremental nature of science, and a proper interpretation of statistics, probabilities and risk. Conversely, journalists complained that scientists get wrapped up too much in the jargon about such matters and fail to explain their work simply and cogently." The result of this apparent impasse is that good, important stories may go begging for lack of communication.

If we do discover a
complete [unified] theory [of the universe], it should in time be understandable
in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all,
philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the
discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we
find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason--for
then we should know the mind of God.
Stephen William Hawking | Most Americans get information on scientific
advances from their local print and broadcast media. While many major papers do a
credible job of covering science, and some even have science sections, many local
news outlets often do not have the wherewithal to devote precious resources to
science stories that are often difficult to write and may not attract a wide
audience. Ms. Deborah Blum, a Pultizer Prize winning science journalist formerly
with the Sacramento Bee, made the point in her testimony that readers do indeed
respond to science articles when they are done well. But she also noted that
writing these stories requires mutual trust between the scientist who is the
object of the story and the journalist who writes it.77
The advice of Ms. Blum as to how to improve communication between scientists and the press was representative of the advice of other witnesses before the committee. She said, "I believe that at least an entry level science writing course should be required of journalism school graduates. We also need...training workshops at existing newspapers, magazines, television stations, radio stations...Some programs should also be designed for editors." She also advocated more training in communications for scientists. "I would argue that we should eventually require every person majoring in science to take a science communication course, to be taught that communicating with the public is part of the job description. ...[Scientists] know very little about the culture of journalism--what makes a story, how to talk to reporters." |


Clearly, the gap between scientists and journalists threatens to get wider. Closing it will require that scientists and journalists gain a greater appreciation for how the other operates.

As important as bridging the gap between scientists the media is, there is no substitute for scientists speaking directly to laypeople about their work. In part because science must compete for discretionary funding with disparate interests, engaging the public's interest in science through direct interaction is crucial.

All too often, however, scientists or engineers who decide to spend time talking to the media or the public pay a high price professionally. Such activities take precious time away from their work, and may thus imperil their ability to compete for grants or tenure. Even for those who prove adept at public communications, the price among a scientist's peers is often great.

University of California at San Diego
Professor Dr. Stuart Zola, a scientist who has successfully negotiated the public
speaking circuit, testified to the importance of getting institutional backing
for such efforts. "It is critical that institutional officials, at the highest
level, recognize the importance of communicating science to the public, and
encourage faculty to speak to the public about science and scientific
issues."78

Public speaking is one of the best ways for scientists and engineers to reach the public and share their enthusiasm for their work and educate the public about it. Efforts can include speaking at local civic clubs and other organizations, working with teachers in local schools, and inviting interested groups, such as students, into their laboratories. Without these efforts, support for science may erode.

Research sponsored by the Federal government should be more readily available to the general public, both to inform them and to demonstrate that they are getting value for the money the government spends on research. Agencies that support scientific research have an obligation to explain that research to the public in a clear and concise way.

The roles of the specialized RaDiUS and PubMed databases in disseminating information to the scientific community were mentioned earlier in this report. Few comparable systems, however, exist for getting information to the general public.

The National Research Initiative (NRI) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State, Education, and Extension Service does a credible job of making scientific information available to a wide audience. It distributes what it calls Research Highlights, newsletters featuring competitive research sponsored by NRI that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The newsletters are written in plain English and describe the results of the research and its impact on U.S. agriculture. These reports serve a useful purpose and could serve as a model for other agencies interested in making the results of their research more readily available.