Can Movies Inspire Kids To Be Future Scientists? 298
Hugh Pickens writes "MSNBC reports on a recent panel that discussed studies showing that people, especially children, often model their behavior on what they see on the big (or small) screen and science shows up in many Hollywood films. In fact, 22 of the 60 top-grossing movies of all time are science-fiction or superhero flicks, including history's No. 1 box office hit, Avatar. The movie science doesn't even have to be entirely accurate, some of the panelists added when asked to consider the role and impact of science in cinema. As long as it plants a seed of curiosity in viewers, it may spur them to investigate scientific issues on their own — and perhaps consider a career in science down the road. 'It's not an educational medium, it's an emotional medium,' says Seth Shostak, an astronomer with the SETI Institute in Mountain View, Calif. 'Kids get turned on by the emotion.' Interestingly enough although movies work hard to get the science right, many make errors ranging from the understandable to the egregious, but that's ok, say the panelists. 'Even if a film or media product is not very accurate, that becomes a teaching moment,' says Arvind Singhal. 'So there's room for everything.'"
Avatar is what? (Score:2, Insightful)
Avatar is a modern fantasy, not science fiction. There's barely anything plausibly speculative about Avatar. The few pieces of plausible fiction (cold sleep, avatars, aliens, and mechs) are plot devices, not plot points. All of the actual plot is implausible speculative fantasy.
Re:Avatar is what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't read the article, did ya? The protagonists in Avatar are all scientists. They go on to win the day. Ergo, kid scientists. The movie doesn't need to be about lab tests and submitting papers to have the desired effect...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you're going to rebut not reading by not reading, why bother?
The EMOTION is all that matters. RTFA!!
Re: (Score:2)
The protagonists in Avatar are all scientists. They go on to win the day.
By punching people in the face with dinosaurs.
(and carefully observing the results, while previously observing the results of not punching the same person in the face with the same dinosaur, and then forming and publishing a hypothesis to the effect that punching people in the face with dinosaurs is AWESOME).
Re:Avatar is what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The few pieces of plausible fiction (cold sleep, avatars, aliens, and mechs) are plot devices, not plot points. All of the actual plot is implausible speculative fantasy.
This is absolutely irrelevant to the point being presented, which is that kids will see the scientists in the movie, and some of those kids will be inspired by them. These kids presumably haven't acquired the same taste for hard science fiction that you have, so they don't immediately eschew the idea of there being science involved in a movie like Avatar.
In fact, the scientists are the heroes. Avatar strikes me as an excellent movie for promoting science to children.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
and probably some trolls?
Trolls are not fantasy, you have just responded to one.
Re: (Score:3)
Avatar (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Avatar (Score:4, Funny)
It inspired me to be a giant tree.
Still working on it, but as a computer geek and gamer I've got the whole "stationary" thing down pat.
Pendulum swings both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
And not just FUTURE scientists (Score:2)
We need Scientists of ALL kinds.
Violent movies ? (Score:2)
Positive views of the future (Score:2)
Are there any good sci-fi movies that have a positive view of the future? Most recent things I've seen paint the world / galaxy as some sort of war-torn dystopian nightmare.
Best I've found so far was AstroBoy... I'm even renting out ST:TNG, though it's annoying because I feel socially compelled to filter out some of the softporn situations :-P
Re: (Score:2)
* for certain values of "positive"
Re: (Score:2)
Not any I know of. A positive future doesn't make for intriguing drama (almost all stories are based on conflict) .
I watched the World News last night also.
I think it's great that movies focus on that kind of thing. Many of us sit discontentedly in our safe little sheltered lives, and movies based on conflict like that allow us to explo
hopefully... NOT!!!!! (Score:2)
otherwise we are doomed on security. every part of password can be verified stand alone in every movie.
but then again, we will have awesome webcams with infinite detail zoom
Wasn't this answered generations ago? (Score:2)
Can Movies Inspire Kids To Be Future Scientists?
Comics, TV and movies have been generating interest in science and engineering for generations. Do you think there was a shortage of NASA engineers in the 1960s who had not read sci fi comics or watched sci fi shorts/serials in the theaters when they were kids? Do you think there was a shortage of engineers in the 1980s who were not avid Star Trek viewers?(*) Do you think there is a shortage of engineers today who were not fans of Star Wars, Blade Runner, Aliens, etc when they were kids?
(*) How many Moto
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but SF-Movies did nothing to encourage kids into pursuing a scientific career.
How many movies/series do you know where scientists are the ACTUAL HEROES? You mentioned the notable exception: Star Trek. The only show where engineers are the guys who save the day in the end. (Even if it's with technobabble and reversing the polarity of something, they're the guys who save the asses of those phaser-wieldind or buthlet-swinging jarheads)
The usual image of scientists is more along the lines of "Q" and "R"
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but SF-Movies did nothing to encourage kids into pursuing a scientific career. How many movies/series do you know where scientists are the ACTUAL HEROES?
It is not the humans themselves that generate the interest, it is the technology and the idea of new lands to explore. The human characters are secondary.
Star Trek and inspiration (Score:2)
We're talking about kids here.What grabs there attention and fires their imagination is different than what we see. Even if you don't think Avatar will inspire future scientists, some other film or program might and probably will. Has Slashdot so soon forgotten that why the Milwaukee School of Engineering awarded an honorary doctorate to James Doohan?
No, stop trying. (Score:2)
The last time something really influenced kids was getting men on the moon. A movie is just generally background noise and cheap entertainment these days. I certainly wasn't motivated to do something based on a movie I've seen in my childhood, but I was motivated by programming in LOGO and discovering how
Why become a scientist? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why become a scientist in the US today? You go to school forever, spend years in a dead-end postdoc, and then can't get a tenured position. You're then 35, a decade behind in starting your career, and overqualified for most jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
You are conflating "Scientist" and "Professor". Aside from the academic track, as a Ph.D. scientist, you can work in industry, especially if you have a background in organic chemistry, biochemistry, physics or materials science. You could also skip to DC and work in public policy and education. Or you could join a law firm as a patent agent, work a few years, and have a J.D. from a top-tier law school paid by your employer while making top dollars as patent attorney. Or maybe you'd like to work VC as a scie
Re: (Score:3)
...for the same reason that people have been becoming scientists since well before the concept of "scientist" was codified. I'll give you a hint, and tell you a few things that it's not about: ...so what's left? Why, everything that truly matters. :-)
- fame
- wealth
- job security
- the "cool factor"
- the sexy colleagues
- the easy job
- the power
- the influence
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like that everywhere and it's too bad that's the way North America has gone with recognition. I've heard (anecdotally) that Nobel Prize winners ( except perhaps for Peace) get rock star treatment in most Asian countries.
Re: (Score:2)
the sexy colleagues
Actually, in the biomedical realm, this is a factor. Seriously. Walk around a med school campus some time and you'll see what I mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, chemistry can work that way too. I taught a section of Intro Organic Chem to a bunch of Nursing majors.
Oh My.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why become a scientist? (Score:4, Insightful)
The main reason to become a scientist is because it is fun. Science includes a wide range of types of work, from purely theoretical to grungy hands-on work with real hardware (my favorite). Not everyone in science needs to go the academic path, some take staff positions after grad school, some work in science related fields after just an undergrad degree.
I think it does help when even vaguely science-related materials appear in the media, but at the same time the almost universal mis-representation of what science is like may cause a lot of people to either not choose it as a career, or to be unhappy after they do.
It takes a certain type of personality to find science fun, but some people have it. Seeing the fuzzy egg-crate pattern on a screen and realizing it is individual atoms. Seeing a faint smudge and realizing that it is a jet of gas millions of light-years long, or a spot on a screen that is a gigawatt X-ray beam, or realizing that a slight offset between the calculated center of mass from gravitational lensing relative to luminous mass means that you may have just spotted the missing 90% of the matter in the universe.
All of the above are very exciting (to the right person), but unfortunately none make good movies.
I've been a working scientist for 20 years, and its a great job. I briefly went to work for industry, but got so tired of the easy work and high pay, that I gave it up.
--- Joe Frisch
Inspire them with science. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about we inspire them with actual science rather than wasting their potential trying to condition them to be passive consumers. The latter is the ultimate goal of popular entertainment. This just sounds like an attempt to use science as a fig leaf.
Foxtrot (Score:2)
Kids get an expectation of "COOL, lets do Science!" and end up with boring, complicated, and badly taught stuff that turns them away instead of getting them interested.
Tron and dot com boom (Score:2)
"Star Trek" produced a generation of engineers. (Score:2)
Many Slashdotters have admitt
Re: (Score:2)
Many Slashdotters have admitted, in various articles over the years, that Mr. Scot (the chief engineer of the "Enterprise") motivated them to become engineers. He out-engineered all the adversaries (of the Federation) by making the "Enterprise" nearly invincible.
And probably everyone else IN the Federation....
I hope not (Score:2)
The work is not always as great as you first imagine, the reception is unappreciated no matter what you do and the pay is poor.
Let kids become doctors, lawyers, and business people. They will be smart and have lots of
Beats being a *past* scientist (Score:2)
My high school science teachers taught us how to be past, not future, scientists. We badly repeated experiments with known outcomes to confirm models about which we didn't care. I would not say it was very inspirational.
There just might be something to this future scienist idea.
No, because science != sci-fi/fantasy (Score:4, Insightful)
Good *science* movies are much harder to find. There's some vaguely interesting scientific issues raised in films like 2001 - where did life come from and what would extra-terrastrial intelligent life be like? Solaris perhaps? And film's like Lorenzo's Oil show science in a positive role. I did like Apollo 13 though for showing the engineers doing the almost impossible to save the astronauts. Can anyone help me make a list of others?
Re: (Score:2)
I liked Primer [imdb.com]. It's not exactly "science," since it's about time travel, but the portrayal of engineering culture was spot-on, and it demonstrated how smart people live and work and achieve in the real world (rather than some rarefied academic/government fantasy-land where they don't have to worry about anything except how to get the Earth's core spinning again).
And Raiders of the Lost Ark was great for demonstrating how a guy who teaches boring history lectures by day doesn't have to be a boring, do-not
Re: (Score:3)
The Andromeda Strain [imdb.com] is the only movie I can think of which depicts actual bona-fide scientists performing something close to actual bona-fide science - there are a number of experiments (including some not overly humane animal experiments) performed by the main cast in order to ascertain the nature of some deadly space plague. What's more, you can actually tell, more or less, how the experiments work and what they're intended to achieve, unlike most science in 'science fiction' films, which generally invol
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No, because science != sci-fi/fantasy (Score:4, Insightful)
Buckaroo Banzai! You can be into particle physics and still rock out and save the world from the Red Lectroids.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between a special effects movie and a "good science" movie. But, there is also a difference between a "good science" movie and a movie that can potentially get kids interested in science and technology. Movies like War Games, Weird Science and Real Genius were probably a big inspiration for many of us 30-somethings to sit down and dig into technology. Even if the initial lure was to hack into the school computers to change your grades, create a super-model genius girlfriend with a s
worked for me (Score:2)
Well, I'm a scientist now and am so for two reasons:
1. Bill Nye. Because, honestly, who wouldn't want to have your own theme song that repeats your name 'BILL BILL Bill bill bill!' (And, really, the guy was legitimately cool)
2. Weird Science. It was always going to be way easier for me to synthesize the girl of my dreams than win her.
Short answer: No (Score:4, Insightful)
What's nearly as bad is the science career advice children receive at school. Almost no teachers anywhere have ever met a professional scientist. Even the few who might be married to one have no real idea what their partner does on a daily basis and they are in no position to advise on either the suitability of a child to try to become a professional scientist, nor on what that child could expect from a career in a scientific job.
The single biggest failing of science is that it does nothing to prepare the next generation for work in the field. Meaning that those children who leave school to attend a university science course, assuming it will be like the science they did in school, have one hell of a big surprise when it turns out to be completely different from what they expected. The surprise is nearly as big as the one science graduates get when they discover, in turn, that working as a professional scientist is again, nothing like what they thought it was when they were students.
Re: (Score:2)
If movies gave a true depiction of being a scientist, they would be full of people writing submissions for funding, trying to get some budget for new equipment and emailing off papers for publication. There has not, ever, been a real-to-life scientist characterised in any movie - ever. If people see "scientists" in movies and are then inspired to become like those characters they are in for a massive let down if they try to pursue that mythical career. It simply doesn't exist.
That's true of just about every job portrayed in movies, though. FBI agents don't spend most of their time chasing down brilliant serial killers, physicians don't spend most of their time making life-saving diagnoses of mysterious illnesses, etc. The real problem is that movies and TV have given us an unrealistic expectation of everything, and they seem to be about the most pervasive single influence on how we perceive the world. (And no, geeks are not immune to this -- look how often Gattaca and Jurassi
Fighting popular culture (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't win by fighting popular culture. Today science and technology are very, very low on the pop culture totem pole. Drug dealers aren't that great, but they score better than scientists. Hip-hop rappers are way, way up. Rock stars are out. Supermodels aren't cool, but pseudo-idol teens are in.
And none of them are getting A's in school.
Avatar is a horrible examine of a pro-science movie. The scientists for the most part got kicked off the planet in the end. The chief scientist for the Navi cause died. No, I don't think it is inspirational to present the idea of dying on a far off planet in a feud with a paramilitary force.
Face it, in the US today isn't respected to be a scientist. It is respected to be a drug-addicted rap singer that can't use the word "woman" but instead says bitch constantly. It hasn't been respected to get good grades in high school and to spend time studying. There are popular songs with phrases like "Should I be a straight A student? If you are then you think too much." This is the culture we have created and what we are going to have to live with for the next 20 or 30 years.
Look at Asian families where if the kid brings home a B they are beaten. The kid knows it, studys and doesn't get the beating so there is no awful social stigma. In the 1950s white middle class families did the same thing which is why we have science and technology companies in the US today. As a society we have lost that motivation and it is going to hurt.
works for me (Score:2)
Only with opportunity and nourishment (Score:2)
I remember after seeing the first Indiana Jones I was interested in archaeology and medieval history. All I could find in my school library about archaeology was a 30 year old book in a discard bin. All my teachers could tell me was something I could study after finishing a college degree. Sure, there was history: timelines and name lists from 1492 onward.
I'll always be left to wonder how my life would have turned out differently if I had someone in my life at that time to help me explore the interests prov
Been going on for years (Score:2)
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs [salon.com]
"President Clinton's drug czar, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, some of America's most popular shows -- including "ER," "Beverly Hills 90210," "Chicago Hope," "The Drew Carey Show" and "7th Heaven" -- have filled their episodes with anti-drug pitches to cash in on a complex government advertising subsidy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/movies/04flyb.html?_r=1 [nytimes.com]
P
Why Not? (Score:2)
It inspired me. (Score:2)
Most kids who watched "Back to the Future" identified with Marty McFly. I did, to, but I also aspired to be Doc Brown. It was a major inspiration in my pursuit of science.
However, it ALSO gave me aspirations of pursuing science even if it's outside of the traditional routes. Thusly I didn't care to put up with academia and only do "garage science", exploring pet crackpot hypotheses in my spare time. So maybe we should take things like that into account.
not sure about being a scientist (Score:2)
but Wargames made me want to be a hacker.
So did Tron.
Is movie inspiration a nerd thing? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have heard many times, for many different nerdy professions stories or surveys that show countless nerds were inspired to their professions by some work of fiction. Yet, I rarely hear that about non-nerdy professions.
I have never heard a police officer point to a cop movie as a source of inspiration, nor a fireman, nor a teacher, nor an athelete, nor a soldier...
OK, I can think of one exception to this, I have heard some pilots point to movies, but other than that it always seems to be nerds. What gives?
I think the question is being asked backwards. Nerds are nerds because they are interested in nerdy things. If a movie presents that proclivity in a positive light, the nerd is pleased and remembers the movie warmly. I don't think scientists were "inspired" by movies - they might have gotten some sort of idea or new image in their minds, but they were always going to be scientists/hackers/whatever. The movies are beloved because they showed something positive coming out of it.
Most people don't identify
Sure, it happened to me (Score:2)
I do neuroscience research for a living, and I can definitely say that I wouldn't be where I am today if it weren't for Hollywood. I remember watching computer-glorifying movies like "Flight of the Navigator", "Tron", and "Star Wars" when I was in first grade in the early '90s. That was an era when we didn't have a VCR at home and going out to the movies was something of a treat. Since today's elementary school kids all have iPods to take to school and DVD players in the family minivan, it's easy to remembe
Science is hard.. (Score:2)
... most people want to work to live, not live to work. And unless you are really good/passionate about science and have the work ethic you're not going to get anyone into science.
The real issue is cost/benefit and status, if you want more scientists you have to pay them like you do doctors or bankers. That's the truth, you have to make science a high status job.
Avatar (Score:2)
So kids want to be eight foot tall and blue?
Twits (Score:2)
Updated Bell Science Series (Score:2)
We need someone to make Science propaganda films for 10 year old students again. The Bell Science series produced by Frank Capra and starring Dr. Bunsen Honeydew (or the prototype of his character) were terrific. If you had any sort of interest in how things work an exposure to these was a huge recruiting tool.
The science in these films was pretty forward thinking too.
Here's a clip from one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7ksqNV1IiE [youtube.com]
Re:The problem in the US... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is that every kid with an IQ of 90 or more is told that they can be a doctor, lawyer, or scientist
Who is telling them that? Last I checked, we were telling our children that they should aspire to be either businessmen or celebrities.
Re: (Score:2)
Those kids must be going to the school designated for the second arc. With the hairdressers.
Re: (Score:3)
Who is telling them that? Last I checked, we were telling our children that they should aspire to be either businessmen or celebrities.
Or a basketball/football/baseball player. Or a rock star, or supermodel, or simply a celebrity, which is even better since you don't have to have any appreciable talent. (Snooki, Paris, Charro, etc.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My bad, one too many r's: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charo [wikipedia.org]
I just wanted to include someone not very current.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, if you mean Charo, she is actually an amazingly talented flamenco guitarist.
Re:The problem in the US... (Score:4, Interesting)
Um, if you mean Charo, she is actually an amazingly talented flamenco guitarist.
While you are completely correct in this, however, it is not why she is a celebrity nor what she is primarily known for. I hesitated before including here, but decided she belonged solely because the vast majority of her public appearances have nothing to do with guitar, and many people who know who she is don't even know that she is a very good guitarist. To quote wikipedia: best known for her flamboyant stage presence, her provocative outfits, and her trademark phrase ("cuchi-cuchi").
I knew she played and have heard her many times, it was a judgement call. Basically, if she didn't have a giant rack and yell "cuchi cuchi", you likely would never had heard her play guitar, as she is pretty good, but not good enough to obtain celebrity for that alone. But technically, she *does* have an worthwhile talent, granted.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd wouldn't put Charo anywhere near that group. She was an outstanding flamenco guitarist and was headlining Vegas shows by her early 20s. She was known for her little catchphrase, but she was hardly like the talentless boobs were saddled with today. I think she still tours today.
Re: (Score:3)
It is that every kid with an IQ of 90 or more is told that they can be a doctor, lawyer, or scientist
Who is telling them that? Last I checked, we were telling our children that they should aspire to be either businessmen or celebrities.
Guidance counselors are telling them that from Junior High. They're telling them to go to college. Then when they get to college and want to study 'underwater basket weaving', the colleges aren't kicking them out, they're actually offering PhD's in it.
Re: (Score:2)
It is that every kid with an IQ of 90 or more is told that they can be a doctor, lawyer, or scientist
Who is telling them that? Last I checked, we were telling our children that they should aspire to be either businessmen or celebrities.
Guidance counselors are telling them that from Junior High. They're telling them to go to college. Then when they get to college and want to study 'underwater basket weaving', the colleges aren't kicking them out, they're actually offering PhD's in it.
And when we've reached the destination at the end of that path, we will have made a college degree (i.e. K-12 + college) into a much more time-consuming, much more expensive equivalent of what a high school diploma is today.
I wish that about three quarters of the energy, effort, and attention we pour into "inspiring kids" were instead put towards teenagers and young adults. You can have the most inspired children in the world; it won't matter much by the time peer pressure, celebrity worship, and your a
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The problem in the US... (Score:4, Insightful)
Intelligence is not fixed at birth. The brain is a muscle that can - and must - be exercised to fulfil its owner's potential.
And only the top percentile of humanity gets to have a job in the medicine/science professions? What sort of Gattaca-fueled world do you live in?
Re: (Score:3)
Furthermore, being smart isn't everything in the sciences or the professional world. Being knowledgeable and creative will take you just as far, if not farther. I think that anyone with a passion for science could do very well in it, even if they're IQ is ranked fairly low during grade school.
What I see, is that people who seem dim are the ones who lack passion for any form of knowledge. Simply being interested in things makes the difference between being suited for working at Wal-Mart and being a doctor, a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is about "producing future scientists."
It is not about the fact that someone with a 150 IQ might be "unmotivated." That has nothing to do with it.
I'm sorry, if you need to master multivariate calculus, or regression analysis, or any of 100 other skills where IQ is a strong predictor of ability and performance, then IQ does matter a lot, and hard work, dedication and the like don't mean that much.
If your IQ is 100, for many of these tasks, you'll be able to solve them but it will take 2, 5,
Re: (Score:2)
A doctor is like a mechanic? Do you have any idea of the body of technical knowledge a surgeon has to keep current on? Any idea?
(Stops to laugh).
I can certainly see why a doctor rushes you out of the office.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ever read the Bell Curve?
Sure, it "is not fixed." Perhaps you can train your brain to perform a half of a standard deviation above your average. But that's about it. It's reality. It's fixed.
You may not like that reality, but the kind of thinking you seem to be espousing, is that which makes my niece with a 19 ACT think she can get into a good college and get a scholarship, without work. She thinks she's entitled to it. And that's about all she thinks.
And I didn't say "a job in the science profess
Re: (Score:3)
Hogwash, economic starting points are a bigger indicator of success than raw brains - when you're poor and smart, getting ahead is HARD. When you're rich, you don't have to worry about paying for college, summer jobs, or much of that - you have a lot of free time for sports and networking, which helps you get ahead later on.
Re: (Score:3)
No, actually, when you're poor and smart in the US, you apply to the Golden Dozen of colleges and universities, and get a full ride -- all elite universities currently essentially provide full rides for admits with familial incomes less than $75,000/yr, which isn't exactly "poor." When you're a little less smart, you go to the next tier and get a "merit scholarship" and actually get PAID to attend. When you're rich-- well, the money can help a little, and that upsets the meritocracy a bit.\
The pro
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're seriously underestimating what it is to be poor in the US.
When you're the oldest child of a junky single mother, living in a neighbourhood where you're either in a gang or you get beaten up every day, go to the kind of inner-city school nobody goes to unless they have no other chance and in the evenings when you get home have to do some kind of work and help take
Re: (Score:2)
"Intelligence is not fixed at birth."
No but a large degree of one's potential is, there are low energy / "lazy" people with high IQ, there are also very hardworking and dedicated average people.
But lets not think that outcomes have nothing to do with genetics. Who is energetic and/or determined and who isn't is largely determined by genetic potential.
Re: (Score:3)
And only the top percentile of humanity gets to have a job in the medicine/science professions? What sort of Gattaca-fueled world do you live in?
Ok, top 2 or 3 [census.gov]. This has little to do with IQ (although you need that). It's more about willingness to work.
Re: (Score:2)
Crap. One ./er actually bothered to look at data. I am astounded and amazed.
Seriously, however, while hard work (and being willing to be an hours slave to the establishment) is a part of it, all of these positions remain significant indexed by IQ.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The problem in the US... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not just about inspiring kids to grow up and become scientists. It's also about how much the next generation will care about investment in a new fancy science fiction future. There are plenty of reason to want to cut government spending. And if you care nothing about space exploration and travel, you could easily see the budget of a government organization like NASA or the National Science Foundation as completely superfluous.
Pure science needs pure funding. If your lab is forced to spend more time worried about how to monetize an idea than to explore it's scientific ramifications, you end up in compromising positions of wanting to cut corners and fudge the numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem in the US... is not to inspire future scientists. It is that every kid with an IQ of 90 or more is told that they can be a doctor, lawyer, or scientist, and allocated resources as if they could, when only the 1st percentile or less can actually fill these positions.
Oh please. I didn't realize Charles Davenport was still alive, let alone had a Slashdot account.
Someone doesn't need to be a member of the Master Race to make a valuable contribution to society, and there are plenty of people with hig
Re: (Score:2)
Oh come on. We've reached the point where everyone has to feel good about themselves, and be told that they can make a meaningful contribution to society blah blah blah. What a load of crap.
If your school didn't shout this mantra, then congratulations. You went to P.S. NoWhere, along with the rest of America's nobodies. You are effectively (though not exclusively) tracked out of being part of the economic elite.
This changes nothing about the situation. No one with an "aptitude for science" is less
Re: (Score:2)
Is not to inspire future scientists. It is that every kid with an IQ of 90 or more is told that they can be a doctor, lawyer, or scientist, and allocated resources as if they could, when only the 1st percentile or less can actually fill these positions.
I don't see how 'movies' solves this problem: instead, it makes people with Wal-Mart skills, think that they *should* have a better lot in life, and resent that something is wrong if they don't, and spend money trying to get degrees that are meaningless, and so forth ad infinitum.
Seriously? You think lawyers are in the top 1%?
I'm sure there are some lawyers in the top 1%, but it isn't exactly a requirement...
Likewise, although to a lesser extent, it is quite possible to be a good scientist without being one of the intellectual elites - you may not be at the forefront of your field, but you can be quite successful. Ask any scientists; 99% of discovery and advancement is really just drudgery in the lab/field. In most cases it is more about attention to detail, dedication, and rigor th
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine what it would do it if WAS a requirement :)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... ):
Excuse me while I go suck-start my rifle.
Re: (Score:2)
And look where those admissions slots go-- people who are largely in the top percentile as measured by grades, test scores or any other standard measure. (Sure, you're right, the US needs more of them, has a deficit of doctors, but getting admitted is a factor, largely, of demonstrated intelligence).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing. It's part of the "if you want to know something, build an experiment to find it out!"-approach that's the core of science too.
Re: (Score:2)