Science and Engineering Indicators in America (2014)
From the front matter:
Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) is first and foremost a volume of record comprising the major high-quality quantitative data on the U.S. and international science and engineering enterprise. SEI is factual and policy neutral. It does not offer policy options, and it does not make policy recommendations. SEI employs a variety of presentation styles—tables, figures, narrative text, bulleted text, Web-based links, highlights, introductions, conclusions, reference lists—to make the data accessible to readers with different information needs and different information-processing preferences.
The data are “indicators.” Indicators are quantitative representations that might reasonably be thought to provide summary information bearing on the scope, quality, and vitality of the science and engineering enterprise."
From Chapter 7 about the general public:
"Overall, Americans remain strong believers in the benefits of S&T even while seeing potential risks. Surveys since at least 1979 show that roughly 7 in 10 Americans see the effects of scientific research as more positive than negative for society. In 2012, this included 50% who said they believed the benefits “strongly” outweigh the negatives and 22% who said the benefits slightly outweigh the potential harms (appendix table 7-16). About 7% said science creates more harms than benefits. These numbers are generally consistent with earlier surveys; Americans saying the benefits strongly or slightly outweigh the harmful results have ranged from 68% to 80% since this question was initially asked in the 1970s (figure 7-10).
Americans with more education, income, and scientific knowledge hold a stronger belief in the benefits of science than others. For example, 55% of those who had not completed high school said they believe science does more good than harm, but 89% of those with bachelor’s degrees and 92% of those with graduate degrees expressed this view.
Similarly, 86% of those in the top income quartile saw more benefits than harms from science, whereas 60% of those in the lowest bracket expressed this view. Almost all (87%) of those in the top knowledge quartile said they saw more benefits than harms, but just half (50%) of those in the lowest knowledge quartile gave this response (appendix table 7-16).22
Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) is first and foremost a volume of record comprising the major high-quality quantitative data on the U.S. and international science and engineering enterprise. SEI is factual and policy neutral. It does not offer policy options, and it does not make policy recommendations. SEI employs a variety of presentation styles—tables, figures, narrative text, bulleted text, Web-based links, highlights, introductions, conclusions, reference lists—to make the data accessible to readers with different information needs and different information-processing preferences.
The data are “indicators.” Indicators are quantitative representations that might reasonably be thought to provide summary information bearing on the scope, quality, and vitality of the science and engineering enterprise."
From Chapter 7 about the general public:
"Overall, Americans remain strong believers in the benefits of S&T even while seeing potential risks. Surveys since at least 1979 show that roughly 7 in 10 Americans see the effects of scientific research as more positive than negative for society. In 2012, this included 50% who said they believed the benefits “strongly” outweigh the negatives and 22% who said the benefits slightly outweigh the potential harms (appendix table 7-16). About 7% said science creates more harms than benefits. These numbers are generally consistent with earlier surveys; Americans saying the benefits strongly or slightly outweigh the harmful results have ranged from 68% to 80% since this question was initially asked in the 1970s (figure 7-10).
Americans with more education, income, and scientific knowledge hold a stronger belief in the benefits of science than others. For example, 55% of those who had not completed high school said they believe science does more good than harm, but 89% of those with bachelor’s degrees and 92% of those with graduate degrees expressed this view.
Similarly, 86% of those in the top income quartile saw more benefits than harms from science, whereas 60% of those in the lowest bracket expressed this view. Almost all (87%) of those in the top knowledge quartile said they saw more benefits than harms, but just half (50%) of those in the lowest knowledge quartile gave this response (appendix table 7-16).22
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
"Baccalaureate colleges were the source of relatively few S&E bachelor’s degrees (12%) (appendix table 2-1), but they produce a larger proportion of future S&E doctorate recipients (15%) (NSF/NCSES 2013b). When adjusted by the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded in all fields, baccalaureate colleges as a group yield more future S&E doctorates per 100 bachelor’s degrees awarded than all other types of institutions except research universities. " (page 2-8 col. 1)
"Conclusion. The conclusion summarizes important findings. It offers a perspective on important trends but stops short of definitive pronouncements about either likely futures or policy implications. Conclusions tend to avoid factual syntheses that suggest distinctive or controversial viewpoints." page xiii col. 2 top.
In what can be perceived as a wry understatement, they say:
"Changes in the major institutions that engage in S&E R&D and help prepare the workforce of the future usually occur gradually, typically over a longer time scale than changes in economic markets." (page O-13 col. 1.)
Generally, the problem with the future is not what we can predict, but we could not have foreseen. That is what makes entrepreneurship profitable. Everyone tries to plan for the future. Some people are better at it than others. Some people create the future.
Back in the 60s and 70s "futurism" was a fad, even with college courses in it. That sort of exercise can be beneficial to the individual, but, largely, everyone was wrong about everything. ... And it s good that they were. Perhaps the hallmark of totalitarianism is the over-arching goal to create a predictable future.
I prefer a "Wide Scope Accountable" approach myself. Although we don't see much of that these days.
The old axiom applies here. Just cause you can do a thing does not mean one should do that thing.
The other problem I see often is there seems to be a reluctance to adapt to knew knowledge.
This just might be a problem with the system that unfortunately involves the government and unqualified bureaucratic hierarchy.
To rephase your question, "What if all of the humdrum tasks were taken over by computers and everyone had enough to eat, a good place to live, and primo healthcare? What if all that humans had to do with their time is be creative and push forward the frontiers of knowledge in both science and art?"
By the way, there is no such thing as an outsiders view from someone who has studied as much as they can abut quantum physics. Science is a mindset, not a degree.
Jan, sci-chick
these days, education works. -- j
.
As computers keep getting more sophisticated they take over much of the work once attributed to mankind. Isn't it true that eventually computers and their offspring robotics will eventually reach a singularity and make humans obsolete? At present, hand-held devices are distracting people to the exclusion of most everything else and to the point where reality takes 2nd place to imaginary. Can it be that too much of a good thing, even science, can be bad for you? Watcha say, SciBoysandGirls?
I recall back in the 90s having my mind blown by a fellow corrections officer who numbered among many Birmingham area laid off for forever steel workers and one who also happened to be a Baptist preacher with a small church out in the Bama boonies somewhere.
I recall responding to one of his comments by saying "No, the sun doesn't go around the earth" to which he said, "It doesn't?"
I gave him a fthree minute crash course about how the earth is one of nine planets (this is before Pluto got dissed) and they all orbited the sun. I added there were planets with more than one moon that orbited them.
"Preacher" as we called him said, "I must have missed school that day."
I told him he must have missed at least a whole week and a test at the end of it.
He changed the subject.
You had to have at least a high school education to start a prison guard career by being trained for eight weeks at the Alabama DOC Academy.
You have to prove you have a brain along with specialized training before they let you near inmates.
Oh, well, I do not recall ever discussing astronomy with an inmate.
"Gresham's Conjecture" on my blog here: http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/20...
Interpreting the results is up to you.
For one thing, I point out that people with less education tend to be poorer. Coupled to that is the fact that poor people tend to be conservative. That is, they fear change. It is not surprising that they do. In fact, it is the intelligent choice. In other words, we all generally focus on bad news because that is protective, risk-averse behavior. Poor people have relative more to lose because they have relatively less to begin with. Therefore, they are more risk-averse, more conservative, less trusting of the unknown.
Another point is that education alone correlates with both a grasp of basic knowledge and cultural or social support for science. It does not matter if the subjects "learned anything" or not in school: completion of the diploma or degree is all that matters. That speaks not so much to special insight from valuable education, as it does to acculturation and identification.