STEM Education Follow-Up

When I reported yesterday that the U.S. is falling behind a set of goals for education in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields set by a coalition of business groups, I apparently touched on a hot topic. There has been some aggressive discussion in the comments, enough to lead me to do some research of my own into the statistics.

All of the numbers that I'm going to use come from a study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) that tallied bachelor's degrees granted in 2005-2006.

From the numbers, I have broken down the results into the fields that I consider to be directly related to the STEM goals, and from my calculations there were less than a quarter of a million graduates in those fields in 2005-2006, or roughly one-sixth of all graduates from bachelor's degree granting programs.

By far the largest category was business degrees, granted to more than 318,000 students in that time period. That's more than for all STEM fields combined, and could possibly be attributed to people's desire for money or to get ahead in the world. Obviously business is a clearer path than science for financial gain.

But then how do you explain the fact that the second largest category is Social Sciences and History, with 161,485 graduates? And the third highest is Education, with 107,238. You'll never convince me that people are going into those fields for the money. Or the roughly 100,000 people that majored in English Language and Literature/Letters or Liberal Arts, General Studies, and Humanities.

So if it's not for the money, then why are American students going into fields other than science, technology, engineering, and math? I think there are several problems, but the biggest one is one that is endemic to our society. Most Americans want the easy path, and STEM fields are hard. There's no glamour, no glory, no high profile recognition or—as pointed out repeatedly—no massive paychecks. We haven't done enough to entice people to pursue these fields. It's cultural.

Want proof? The numbers are broken down by ethnic groups, and they're pretty telling. Here are the percentages for various ethnic groups in terms of what percentage of graduates in that ethnic group are graduating with degrees in STEM fields:

• Whites - 15.00%
• Blacks - 13.02%
• Hispanices - 13.28%
• Asians - 27.96%
• Native Americans - 14.05%

There is obviously a cultural bias in Asian cultures toward STEM fields that we lack in American culture. You want something else that's telling? There are also numbers for non-resident aliens—students from outside the U.S. who are here just to get their education and then, generally, go home. 25.72% of them are in STEM fields, and more than a third are attending our business schools.

And right now, we're letting them get these degrees that our own citizens apparently have little interest in pursuing, and then we let them go back to their own countries to invent things, start businesses, and grow their local economies. Now, I'm all for growing economies around the world... a rising tide lifts all boats, after all. But the reason the business groups were pushing for increased enrollment and graduation in STEM fields was to keep America competitive in the future. If all of the new ideas and new tech are coming from other countries, then the U.S. may lose one of the few economic strengths we currently have.

One final point I feel that I need to make. In some fields—especially computer technology—college degrees don't mean as much as people, including this coalition of business groups, might think. I know a lot of people who work in Information Technology; I've been in the field for thirteen years myself. And many of those people don't have their degrees in a computer-related field. Heck, I don't have my degree at all (I know, sixteen years of college and 160 credit hours, I should have my MBA or Ph.D. by now), and neither do several of the other people I know. Some have degrees in English literature or psychology. One has a degree in math and two in electrical engineering. One programmer even has his degree in music.

At the same time, I know a woman with a degree in computer and electrical engineering from a prestigious school who currently, I believe, works the phone banks for a policital organization. My point is that just counting degrees granted does not accurately predict how many people are going to be working in what fields. And you might be surprised with the amount of creativity, ingenuity, and industriousness that Americans will continue to display in the future.

But more people studying STEM fields would certainly help.

What Do Your Congressional Reps Think About Science Issues?

The Short Sharp Science blog at New Scientist highlights the work of Scientists and Engineers for America to determine the scientific policies of Congressional contenders. Where do your Senators and Congressional rep stand on the issues?

If they don't have information for your representatives, there's still a way for you to find out. The Scientists and Engineers for America website has a list of seven questions you can ask your representatives, and then provide the answers back to the SEforA website.

Is Science Faith-Based?

Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, has a new post highlighting the differences between science and faith. And he does a much better job, in my opinon, than I did.

Occam's Razor

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

For those of you who don't read Latin, that translates as "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity," and it's one of the most important concepts of logical thinking - Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor (also known as Ockham's Razor, since it was named after William of Ockham, the 14th century Franciscan monk who first postulated it) is more commonly phrased as, "all other things being equal, the simplest answer tends to be the right one." This is usually applied when multiple theories are used to describe a situation; the theory that makes the fewest assumptions and the fewest entities tends to be the most accurate theory.

One of the main reasons we prefer simpler theories (according to philosopher Sir Karl Popper) is because simpler theories apply more broadly than complex theories, and thus they are more easily tested (and refuted). Since valid scientific theories can never be proven, only disproven, a theory that can be more easily tested and refuted is preferable to one that cannot be tested and refuted (in fact, theories that cannot be disproven are not valid scientific theories).

Occam's Razor is not a scientific theory. Rather, it is a heuristic method used for choosing among competing theories. While there is some risk of eliminating valid theories, probability theory and statictics argue in favor of Occam's Razor on the basis that all assumptions introduce possibilities for error. Thus, theories with more assumptions are more likely to be incorrect. Additionally, simpler theories will be easier to test and refute, bringing us back to the more complex theories that we originally bypassed.

If you have trouble remembering Latin (like I do), you can just keep in mind the KISS principle: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

The Scientific Method

You wouldn't think someone would have to define science, but in recent years, we've seen many things that pretend to be science which are not. Case in point: Intelligent Design. Supporters of ID think that ID should be taught in science classrooms alongside (or in place of) evolution. There's only one problem: evolution is science, and Intelligent Design is religion.

My favorite definition of science comes from Merriam-Webster: a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena

The important part of that definition is the words "scientific method." If you're not familiar with the scientific method, it is this:

• Research (or Observation)
• Description of the Problem
• Hypothesis
• Expermintation
• Conclusion

In other words, you observe something about the universe that puzzles you. You review the relevant literature about the subject to determine if the problem has already been described and understood. If not, you establish a testable hypothesis about what you think is going on. Then you conduct an experiment controlled in a careful way as to remove all other influences from the results. After the experiment, you analyze your results to determine whether your hypothesis still holds merit or not.

That, in brief, is science. Science broadens our understanding of the universe by using the scientific method to teach us more about how our universe operates. Through the scientific method, we have advanced modern medicine, television, computer networks, space flight, and more.

In 1999, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated that "intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own. My only real problem with Intelligent Design is that it tries to pass itself off as science and to supplant actual scientific hypotheses and observations. If Intelligent Design's advocates would accept that ID is religion and promote it that way, I would have considerably less trouble with it.

Far worse, in my opinion, are the Young Earth Creationists, who assert that Earth and all life on it were created by God 6000 years ago. I have no objection to religion, and in fact consider myself to be a religious person. But let's talk about faith for a moment. My favorite definition of faith also comes from Merriam-Webster: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

Faith is faith for a reason: God can never be proven to exist (or not). You either choose to believe in God, or you don't. That's faith.

Belief in something in spite of evidence to the contrary is not faith, it's stupidity. And that's the problem with Young Earth Creationism. I understand that there are arguments that fossils with an age of over 6000 years are suggested by YECs to have been placed there by God when He created the Earth, but that implies a God who is intentionally deceptive. Also, based on that argument, why would you believe the Earth is 6000 years old? Why not believe that God created the world twenty minutes ago?

The main argument for Young Earth Creationism is that the Bible basically traces a lineage from Adam and gives dates. The problem with that is that God did not sit down at a typewriter and type out the Bible. People did, and people make mistakes. Mistakes in translation, mistakes in transcription, and mistakes in re-telling of oral traditions that pre-date any written language. I know from experience that you can't pass a phrase around a room, one person at a time, between 30 people and have it come back the same. How much worse over the period of thousands of years and countless people?

Anyone who blindly believes that what is in the Bible is word-for-word correct has some serious flaws in their belief system (especially since it requires a decision about which version of the Bible to believe in, and also a belief that the men who picked which books were right and which were wrong 15-1700 years ago were right). Find your own beliefs, please.

But in doing so, don't buy into the belief that science is an attack on faith. Faith can guide you as to what to believe in the absence of evidence. Science provides us with the evidence of the wonders of our universe. Whether you attribute those wonders to God (or some other Intelligent Designer) or not is entirely up to you.

Are You Willing to Defend Science?

Over the past several years, scientific progress has been hindered somewhat by a concerted attempt to hide scientific results that don't conform to some person's or group's religious ideology. For example, NASA public affairs official George Deutsch attracted much heat (and eventually lost his job) after ordering that NASA websites be amended to change all references to the Big Bang to include the word "theory". Deutsch's reason for ordering the change was pretty simple: it did not mesh with his religious views of Intelligent Design.

Also notable in this debate was the 1999 vote by the Kansas State Board of Education to remove any mention of "biological macroevolution, the age of the Earth, or the origin and early development of the Universe", so that evolutionary theory no longer appeared in state-wide standardized tests.

Over the past decade, these attempts to force religion on people by attacking science (in clear violation of the First Amendment prohibition against the government establishing a national religion) have increased dramatically. Worse, the perpetrators of these actions have tried to argue that their religious beliefs are science (even though there are no testable hypotheses, and their "science" relies entirely upon faith). They argue that much of established science is only theory that cannot be proven to be true (ignoring the fact that it is virtually impossible to prove that anything is true, but rather easy to prove something false). They make their arguments in the face of (and fully ignoring) and observable evidence that argues in favor of the scientific theories.

If, like me, these kinds of things bother you, good. They should. But, you may be asking yourself, what can I do about it?

I'm glad you asked! (Even if it was only me putting words in your mouths).

You can sign the petition at DefendScience.org or donate money to their cause in order to help make people more aware of the assault on science that is going on in this country every day.

As Brian Granz (one of the petition's signers) wrote: "All people must employ critical thinking, must understand thescientific method, and discern clearly between fact and opinion, between truth andtheory, and between understanding and belief. It is essential for the progress andtruly for the life of humanity that we educate and inspire with science. It is ourresponsibility to do so, as scientific and educated and motivated people. This fireis not a mystical gift we were given, rather it is of our making and in it humanityshould take its greatest pride. The fire of science as a gift will also not be givento others supernaturally, rather we must share the warmth, force, and light of it.When threatened by mass fear of the unknown, we must stand up with courage anddefend the bravery of discovery, the human will to demystify, to know, and tounderstand."

Do your part, please.

Another Way You Can Contribute to Science (Maybe)

I've blogged numerous times her about ways you can personally help advance science and technology, from tracking birds to looking for extra-solar planets to devoting your unused computing power. Those were all amateur opportunities, however.

If you have experience in chemistry and/or the life sciences, you can help advance science and technology (and make a little bit of money) through a website called InnoCentive.

The InnoCentive site allows businesses or non-profit organizations to post research "challenges" with a prize award. Registered users can view the details of the challenges and can attempt to solve them in order to win the offered prize (which, at this time, range from $10,000 to about a million dollars).

Challenges include such things as:

• A method is needed to create a highly energetic crystalline polyethylene surface that has increased wettability properties. ($15,000)
• Identification of a non-animal base water insoluble material for use as a shell, and processes to utilize such a shell to make crushable capsules, are desired. ($50,000)
• A high yield process for the synthesis of 3-alkyl thiophene oligomer with a narrow molecular weight distribution is desired. ($15,000)
• A biomarker for measuring disease progression in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig's Disease/ Motorneuron Disease) is needed. ($1 million)
• Plastic trays must be transferred from ambient conditions into and out of a pressurized, high temperature atmosphere at production speeds. ($20,000)

So if you have experience in any of these areas (and the equipment you'd need to do the work), you can earn some extra money, help a company prosper, and advance the state of science and technology, all at the same time.

Weblog Awards

The 2006 Weblog Awards are open for voting, and it turns out that there's a category for Science Blogs. This blog was created far too late in the year to be nominated for anything (I think I launched the blog after the voting opened), but there are several other worthy blogs on there... you should be reading at least some of those, if you're not already.