How well science and technology weather the budget wars is in large part
up to the institutions you represent -- the research community, the universities,
the scientific societies. Our task, to put it succinctly, is to articulate how scarce
taxpayer dollars assigned for research in science, engineering and technology
predictably translate into future benefits for society as a whole.
This is a crucial period of transition for academic science and engineering. We need to redouble our efforts to send a clear signal about linking our work in research and education to the challenges and concerns that face our society.
But this vital contribution is not so easy to convey to an uninformed public. What scientists and engineers must do is convince those who support their work -- the taxpayers, who are the ultimate stakeholders in this venture.
At NSF, our surveys continue to show that more than two-thirds of the public believes that science is a net good. And over 40 percent say they're strongly interested in science and technology. When we reach out with additional examples to convey the excitement and importance of research, we can be reassured by this reservoir of public good will. Nonetheless, only one in 10 surveyed believes that he or she is well informed about science and technology, and only one in four has some knowledge of science. And two-thirds have no understanding of the scientific process -- they don't know what research means. To me this gap is very troubling: two-thirds laud the value of science, but very few understand the enterprise.
Over my last couple of years at NSF, I've come to believe that it's time for the science and technology enterprise to embrace reaching out to the public. In more personal terms, researchers need to engage in genuine public dialogues with their local communities, in the mold of what I have come to call the "civic scientist." My own experience over many years as an academic physicist and a university administrator demonstrates the isolation that many scientists experience. Before I became NSF director, I was accustomed to speaking to scientists around the world, and to students, but only rarely to groups outside the research community. Now I've come to see how vital it is to reach beyond the converted -- even to the local Rotary club, the local radio talk show, community forums of various kinds.
I might even venture to say that it is time that such outreach be numbered among the professional responsibilities of scientists and that training for it become an integral part of a scientific education.
Preparation for research careers has not included this dimension, and most of us could use some help. I have been urging researchers to seek out and take advantage of the public affairs resources available at their institutions -- your expertise -- in making a compelling case to the public.
One of my personal favorite examples of a science communicator, whose passing we continue to mourn, is Carl Sagan, an astronomer renowned not just for groundbreaking work in planetary science, but for his one-man campaign to increase the public understanding of science. Sagan understood the need to bring science into American living rooms, to link it to everyday life, to share the excitement of discovery. Sometimes scientists may have failed to credit him and others properly who break the mold of the traditional research and try something new. On May 7 we will honor Sagan with the NSF Distinguished Public Service Award, the first one we've given in three years, because of his contributions to public education.
Researchers simply must learn to speak in terms that their non-scientist friends and neighbors can understand. They need to be reminded that the payoff is worth the effort, because working with the media amplifies our words. With only one interview, we can reach people across the state or the nation, and it's worth taking some time to learn to do that better.
In closing, I would like to return once more to Carl Sagan, because in his recent bestseller The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, he brilliantly exposes the danger underlying our current dichotomy. "We've arranged a global civilization," he wrote, "in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces."
Probably the most important message that I would hope you might take back to your institutions is that the climate for science has changed forever. While it is necessary to increase public understanding of science and technology, it is equally important for scientists to deepen their understanding of the public. This two-way communication has the promise to benefit us all.
Members of the Cornell community are invited to submit "Commentary" articles of no more than 800 words for consideration by the Chronicle. Topics should be of importance to higher education in general or, specifically, to Cornell faculty, staff or students. Submissions should be sent to Chronicle Commentary, Cornell News Service, 840 Hanshaw Road.