Science for Dummies

After our lecture on Tuesday night, I logged onto Facebook (typical...) and this little gem was waiting for me on my newsfeed....

See more funny videos and TBT at Todays Big Thing.

So I guess people do care about science? One of my biggest question throughout discussion was about the statistic that 70% of Americans want to read more articles about science and technology. Sounds great, right? I am doubtful on how much of this interest is with respect to the 'science' part of science and technology. As Americans, we are ALL OVER technology. People wait for days for the new gadgets introduced by Apple and we are constantly investing thousands of dollars to have the most up-to-date 'toys'. But, how much of this interest is about the hard sciences, not just about the cool gadgets that let us play games and watch movies on the go?

In class, I was very frustrated with our discussion where we deemed it the responsibility of the scientists to essentially 'dumb down' their research so that the general public could understand. I don't know if we are overestimating the intelligence of the masses or underestimating the work that our scientists do, but either way I'm not sure any scientist could simplify their work in such a way that the girl in the video above could really understand it in a meaningful way. In a perfect world, it really should be the responsibility of the individual to become informed. If he or she really wants to learn about something, he shouldn't expect a journalist to essentially cut his food into little pieces and force feed it to him. No, that's a total cop out. Take the responsibility into your hands; yeah, science can be hard, but so what? Take the time to re-read journals (or to read them to begin with!). I will be the first to admit that the actual procedures of studies can in fact be confusing and convoluted. However, in every journal published there is a Discussion section that summarizes the study and relates its applicability in a more straightforward way. There are ways to understand science, Americans just need to put in the effort to learn about it.

But hey, it's not a perfect world, so something needs to be changed so that Americans are more informed in the field of science, as many advancements are occurring every single day. So how do we make science more 'approachable' to Americans. I think the root of the problem lies in the education system, as President Obama highlighted in his 2011 State of the Union speech. On a national level, the public school system places great emphasis on Math and English while Science is often not addressed until later years. I, personally, did not begin to take science courses until I reached middle school, and that may be part of the reason why I find so little interest in the subject. I believe that science needs to become a vital part of elementary learning, so that a foundation is built at a young age. At this moment, I believe it is essential that an interest in science is re-sparked among the youth of America. By introducing science at a young age, a stronger science foundation can be built and thus the field is no longer this big scary thing that is too difficult to understand. The hard sciences can be cool (apparently?) but as a country we need the teachers and education system to be innovative in their classrooms to once again entrance young kids with basic chemistry and biology to hopefully plant the seed for future interests. I feel like an interest in science often stems from the dreams of becoming a doctor (where potential future salary is often a driving force).The field of science research is essential and often overlooked; at a higher level more incentive needs to be created for science research using money (through scholarships andresearch grants) and beginning research projects that the 'new generation' can relate to, or appears applicable to their lives.

The Dilemma of Journalism

Many people argue that the art of print or ‘traditional’ journalism is dying and apparently the New York Times agrees. Page One: A Year Inside the New York Times premiered at Sundance this year, a documentary that explores the inner workings of the New York Times as it must adapt to the emerging challenges of competing with technology in reporting the news. Interestingly enough, one of the writer’s, David Carr (in parallel with our guest lecturer, David Johnson) publishes material from WikiLeaks and encourages writers to connect more directly with their audience, all while his own paper is struggling and thousands of writers are being laid off. Thus the question arises, how do journalist (a definition that has become blurred with the new technologies) do their jobs now? We see more and more established newspapers going paperless, featuring their archives and current articles online, to merely stay relevant in today’s world. Furthermore, how do we, as an audience, receive reliable news? It is true, with easy access to the Internet we are exposed to more ‘news’ than ever before. However, does this necessarily mean we are more educated? Or do the news we read lack substance, and are we just being bombarded with useless information leaving us less informed than ever before?

With new technologies such as Facebook and Twitter many Americans and individuals around the world get the ‘big news’ via status updates, groups and shared links. From recent memory, I remember that I first learned of Osama bin Laden’s death through the constant stream of Facebook statuses relating to the topic. Only after seeing this did I Google the news article, and then proceeded to briefly skim the first couple of paragraphs reporting the details; I knew the most important part of the story, the fact that Bin Laden was dead. Now it was my turn to make a witty America pun and, like my friends, update my Facebook status. We live in a fast world, and technology has only allowed it to become faster. At first, it began with the television; CNN revolutionized the world of news. CNN habituated us to getting news the second we want it; the American people no longer had to wait for the 6 o’clock news or for the newspaper the following day to get the news. We simply have to turn on the television and CNN is giving us live visuals from the ‘breaking story’. However, with the luxury of immediacy we have sacrificed analysis. With daily news there is focus on the immediacy and the bigger picture and in-depth analysis of world events are lost. Similarly, online newspapers appear to be writing shorter and shorter articles, simply providing the facts, rather than providing reflection on what this event means with respect ‘big picture'. 
Facebook, Twitter and blogging take immediacy to a whole new level. And since each of these mediums is more personalized, we also get thousands of different people’s analysis and opinions on everything from current events to those silly Asians in the library (shout out to http://asianssleepinginthelibrary.tumblr.com/). David Johnson, in his lecture encouraged that each of us take the challenge of reporting the news into our own hands; each of us are technically journalist as we write our blogs and analyze how technology is affecting and changing our world. However, the fear of the Founding Fathers, is once again echoed; should we give such power to the (potentially) uneducated masses? Should there exist a criterion that is used to deem ‘news’ found on the Internet reliable? The Internet provides great opportunity to learn and has made finding information literally as easy as a click away. With this power however comes great responsibility (shout out #2 to Spiderman) to the individual. I believe the current state of journalism leads to two potential routes; the individual is able to provide his or her OWN analysis to news events, leading to more innovative thinking and reflection on the events of today’s world. However, at the same time, the lack of newspaper analysis (in attempt to keep up with the immediacy of today’s world) could hurt a large portion of the population who now have very shallow understandings of today’s events.

Week 1: How New Technologies are Shaping Life in America and the World

This week begun our 8-week long venture in exploring how the rapid increase of accessible technology is shaping our lives both here in America as well as on a global level. As a supplement to our weekly lecture and discussion we were asked to read Donner's, Blurring Livelihoods and Lives: The Social Uses of Mobile Phones and Socioeconomic Development. Throughout, Donner explores the notion that the increase use of technology has led to a blurring of livelihoods and lives; for example, we use our cell phones for personal calls during work. Even further, it is also now difficult to differentiate an economic call from a personal one, as close clients often delve into discussing personal matters, which help build relationships that could later lead to better economic transactions.

In America, the ever-evolving and adaptability of technology is apparent. In the last week, missing Indiana University student, Lauren Spierer has been making headlines across the nation: both in newspapers, news broadcasts, and now on Facebook and Twitter. Friends and strangers alike have been creating Facebook events, changing their profile pictures and updating their Twitters in honor of Lauren in an attempt to try to spread the word about her disappearance, and due to such passionate efforts the news of Spierer's disappearance has become global. With a few clicks of a button, technology allows an individual to connect and share with hundreds (sometimes even thousands) of other people and in essence "makes the world smaller." This appears to be one of the first time where these social media networks have been used in such large numbers to help spread attention about a missing person and portrays the plethora of possibility and power that social media (an extension of technology) sites can offer.

Today, Mobiles for Development continues to face numerous challenges one of which is assessing the impact of mobile phones in advancing countries economically. Part of this challenge lies in the fact that the program remains in it's early stages, and there continues to be work done on collecting research on how mobile phones impact economic ventures. However, mobile phones allow micro-coordination which allows consumers and producers to interact more productively and quickly; the issue of distance and location is diminished. There continues to be a concern that mobile phones may lead to inefficient use of time as phones are used for social calls and other activities not directly related with economic activity. Thus, the question of quality of life emerges; is it really possible to measure quality of life of an individual merely by economic activity or can mobile phones increase quality of life in other manners? The adaptability of technology should never be underestimated. As in the example of spreading the word of Lauren Spierer's disappearance, technology can be used in many different ways. By expanding the mobile market to developing parts of the world, these phones could not only assist in economically improving the lives of these individuals, but also could potentially extend to improving social and family relationships, increased safety and security.