{"id":896,"date":"2006-12-07T11:27:44","date_gmt":"2006-12-07T11:27:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/principles\/2006\/12\/07\/perceptions-of-science-funding\/"},"modified":"2006-12-07T11:27:44","modified_gmt":"2006-12-07T11:27:44","slug":"perceptions-of-science-funding","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/chadorzel.com\/principles\/2006\/12\/07\/perceptions-of-science-funding\/","title":{"rendered":"Perceptions of Science Funding"},"content":{"rendered":"

There have been a couple of science funding items in Inside Higher Ed<\/cite> in the last few days, one suggestiong prizes to spur research<\/a>, and the other reporting that most people aren’t convinced there’s a crisis<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Generally, the public appreciates some of the message of the reports going out — that the United States is likely to face heightened competition from other countries. And the public generally thinks those who do go into science and math deserve support and more scholarships. But as to whether more students should be encouraged to do so, and whether non-science students should graduate with more scientific knowledge, the public is ambivalent at best.<\/p>\n

Noting the impact of Sputnik 50 years ago, David Ward, president of the ACE, said that “we need a better symbol or rallying cry” today. As of now, Americans aren’t sure they want to learn more science, which they think of as “difficult, uninteresting or poorly taught.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I would tentatively submit that the idea that the funding issues can be circumvented with cash prizes is a symptom of this public ambivalence…<\/p>\n

Of course, as you might expect of a publication aimed at academics, the most interesting material in the second piece has to do with the place of science in academia. It’s also kind of depressing to see what people think about education in general and science specifically:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Asked about the “ultimate goal” for a college education, here is the breakdown:<\/p>\n