Assoc. Women in Science Magazine  (11 February 2000)

Over the past 50 years, the National Science Foundation has contributed directly and substantially to advances in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology by supporting basic research.  NSF has also aided in the shaping of policy related to science, as well as science and mathematics education.  From a solid platform, and with able and imaginative new leadership, NSF is well-poised to take advantage of opportunities to further scientific research and the public understanding of science.

Science has become more inclusive over time.  Yet, while great strides have been made in the numbers of women in many fields, they remain under-represented in other disciplines.  Improving the climate for females in the sciences and mathematics remains a concern for many.  Minority representation remains virtually constant and some fields have virtually no under-represented minorities in their ranks.  When we consider the substantial demographic shifts occurring in the population as a whole, we must re-double our efforts to recruit more minorities into the sciences, mathematics, and engineering so that the face of scientists reflects that of society. 

While there are many exciting developments in science, and a number of major new initiatives at NSF that we might consider, two significant challenges face all of us in the scientific community: communicating science to the public and improving science, mathematics, and K-12 education.  The contributions of scientific research have initiated a number of revolutions in technology and medicine, a fact that increasingly is recognized by members of Congress.  The results of basic and applied science funded by NSF have directly fueled the country's unprecedented economic expansion.  However, funding for NSF, thus support for research, is often threatened, as it was last summer.  Fortunately, scientists were vocal, and funding levels were restored.  We should be encouraged by the impact and potential for future action of a strong and united message from the scientific community, while also realizing that funding levels are never certain. 

 I will address communicating to decision-makers specifically in another column, but why is it increasingly important that scientists communicate with the public?  The answer is straightforward – we have a responsibility as scientists and citizens to ensure that our results are presented clearly and that scientific knowledge is applied correctly.  We also have a responsibility to communicate our results and their implications to those who fund our work.  Without such communication we cannot expect ongoing support.

The process of science, scientific uncertainty and risk analysis are not well understood by the public.  While aware that weather forecasts can be poor predictors, the public seems to expect certainty from science and scientists.  In our litigious society, tort law develops from cases often brought by personal injury lawyers with interpretations being made by expert witnesses.  A lawyer tries to find the right witness, and there are unfortunately scientists, engineers, physicians and others who are for hire in such settings.  This is not unlike a newspaper reporter or a governmental agency that also can have a tendency to search for the one expert who will be able to tell them the "right" answer.  The complexity of systems, the lack of knowledge about many basic features of the planet, and the uncertainty associated with predictions seems lost as a reporter wants to know exactly what happened in response to a spill from a tanker or as a prosecuting attorney wants to demonstrate something went wrong, assigning blame as though outcomes are predictable in all cases.  Hopefully, new initiatives at NSF (e.g., on biocomplexity) will lead not only to greater scientific understanding, but also to improvements in communicating complex information.

Improving science education at all levels is another essential element for the long-term success of science.  The excitement of discovery and curiosity so evident in children are so often absent in high school seniors or college students.  How can we be more effective in teaching science to all students?  How can we ensure that K-12 teachers have the training, disciplinary knowledge, and confidence necessary to help students learn science in their classrooms?  Systemic reform of our public educational systems and highly trained teachers are required to build the necessary infrastructure and improve science education.  We all share a responsibility in this strengthening of our educational systems.  The support and leadership of NSF in undergraduate and K-12 education is of utmost importance and its increasing emphasis on education at all levels should be applauded.

Many of us are at universities where perhaps our greatest challenges are teaching science to all students and ensuring that prospective teachers are well-prepared.  We face large groups of students who are either science and math phobic or who enroll in our classes to fulfill "general distribution requirements."  What ways can we find to engage both non-majors and majors in the process of science and provide meaningful experiences for all students?  How can we communicate not only our understanding, but also our excitement in ways that will produce informed and scientifically literate citizens?  Perhaps we could re-shape our courses to focus on practical and appealing examples, while still illustrating general principles.  If we cannot foster an appreciation of why we are interested in whether there is water on Mars, how black holes elucidate gravity, what switching on a gene might mean in terms of a particular disease, how forest pathogens spread, or how species might be lost, we not only risk being considered irrelevant, but also may lose support for our work. 

Research experiences and inquiry-based methods of teaching are proving successful in involving students and teachers in the process of science.  We nonetheless face significant hurdles in providing meaningful experiences for all students.  We also must address what works in different settings and find ways to extend the application of best practices across all institutions, while arguing effectively and persuasively for institutional investments in infrastructure to support improved science education.  These efforts to change institutional priorities and funding will require support and leadership from academic administrators.  NSF can play an important role in identifying departments, colleges, and universities that can serve as models or experimental sites for major initiatives. 

Traditional graduate education at research universities is likely ineffective in training the faculty needed for most institutions or settings.  Some novel programs have developed, but if we are trying to recruit balanced teacher-scholars who will collaborate with students in research and will be leaders in revising and reforming curricula, we must do more.  It is important to recognize outstanding institutions that combine innovation and excellence in teaching and research and work with them to provide training grounds for new faculty members.  The model of a postdoc teaching and engaged in research with students could be established.  Support for NSF-sponsored grants for such efforts would greatly aid faculty while facilitating a better institutional balance among research, teaching, and student learning.  NSF will need a constant focus on bringing research and education closer together in the future.  Expanding and strengthening NSF's efforts in education should be viewed as supporting its desired expansion in research.

Given the present political climate and lack of understanding of science, threats to funding will remain constant even as we strive to see NSF funded at a level approaching NIH.  Education and communication are keys to the long-term success of science and NSF.  The involvement of scientists with the public and in K-baccalaureate education is essential.  If we are successful in meeting the challenges in science education and communicating with the public, I suggest that these achievements will be reflected directly in higher funding levels for basic and applied scientific research and science education.