#STEM Why #science and #math training for all is important - The #Vaccine example
We may not need more scientists, but we do need more people to understand how science works
This morning I read an opinion piece by Michael S. Teitelbaum in the LA Times about how we actually have enough scientists and engineers to fill our needs in the US. I agree with some of the points, particularly about how we have likely trained too many for academic careers although some areas of science and engineering still need more trained people. He also is entirely correct that every student needs enough training in science and math to be educated because it is important for their success in other careers. But, I differ in opinion on two issues.
The US is losing the tech raceThe article claims that we are not losing the race because we are filling our needs. This ignores the fact that we have been an exporter of technology and that will diminish as other countries catch up, even if they do not go ahead of us. Training of scientists is one thing, but the diminished support for science by congress threatens our capacity for doing the fundamental work that keeps our industries ahead in the world. That diminished capacity will cause us to lose as other countries promote science and technology advances.
Science and math training are not important just for careersIt is not essential that every student of even more than a small percentage acquire the ability to solve complex problems using the scientific method. On that I agree with Teitelbaum. II also agree with him that such training is important for many other careers besides those in science and engineering. Where I differ is in the primary reason that STEM (Science Technology Engineering Math) training is essential to all is that the public's appreciation of how science works is diminishing. This affects understanding of the technologies around us, but also makes people susceptible to the anti-science rhetoric appearing all over the Internet, some of which is being used to promote legislation to ban new technologies.
The vaccine example
Arguments against advances in technology because they haven't been proven safe are specious. As an example, the anti-vaccination advocates like to state with no evidence (other than a couple of retracted articles) that they are bad because they haven't been proven to be safe. If you understand science however, you would know that while vaccines have been thoroughly tested for safety, the absence of major problems cannot prove safety only accumulate enough evidence showing a lack of adverse reactions and effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing disease to provide a reasonable amount of support for their use. Science works by trying to show hypotheses are wrong. When the evidence shows the hypothesis is wrong, the hypothesis is abandoned. If a large amount of testing fails to demonstrate the negative, then the hypothesis becomes accepted, allowing that there is the possibility that another test will show it to be incorrect. So, for vaccines being used to prevent measles, influenza, and others, there is a lack of evidence showing ill effects except for the potential for allergies for some individuals because of the method of preparation, but not the immunizing agent itself (similar to foods being in contact with nuts as an example). Thus, vaccines are generally safe. What is clearly unsafe is having unvaccinated children. What is unethical is trying to convince others to not have their children vaccinated. It is a lack of understanding STEM that leads to those who advocate this reprehensible position having a chance to convince a significant number of people.
This morning I read an opinion piece by Michael S. Teitelbaum in the LA Times about how we actually have enough scientists and engineers to fill our needs in the US. I agree with some of the points, particularly about how we have likely trained too many for academic careers although some areas of science and engineering still need more trained people. He also is entirely correct that every student needs enough training in science and math to be educated because it is important for their success in other careers. But, I differ in opinion on two issues.
The US is losing the tech raceThe article claims that we are not losing the race because we are filling our needs. This ignores the fact that we have been an exporter of technology and that will diminish as other countries catch up, even if they do not go ahead of us. Training of scientists is one thing, but the diminished support for science by congress threatens our capacity for doing the fundamental work that keeps our industries ahead in the world. That diminished capacity will cause us to lose as other countries promote science and technology advances.
Science and math training are not important just for careersIt is not essential that every student of even more than a small percentage acquire the ability to solve complex problems using the scientific method. On that I agree with Teitelbaum. II also agree with him that such training is important for many other careers besides those in science and engineering. Where I differ is in the primary reason that STEM (Science Technology Engineering Math) training is essential to all is that the public's appreciation of how science works is diminishing. This affects understanding of the technologies around us, but also makes people susceptible to the anti-science rhetoric appearing all over the Internet, some of which is being used to promote legislation to ban new technologies.
The vaccine example
Arguments against advances in technology because they haven't been proven safe are specious. As an example, the anti-vaccination advocates like to state with no evidence (other than a couple of retracted articles) that they are bad because they haven't been proven to be safe. If you understand science however, you would know that while vaccines have been thoroughly tested for safety, the absence of major problems cannot prove safety only accumulate enough evidence showing a lack of adverse reactions and effectiveness of the vaccine in preventing disease to provide a reasonable amount of support for their use. Science works by trying to show hypotheses are wrong. When the evidence shows the hypothesis is wrong, the hypothesis is abandoned. If a large amount of testing fails to demonstrate the negative, then the hypothesis becomes accepted, allowing that there is the possibility that another test will show it to be incorrect. So, for vaccines being used to prevent measles, influenza, and others, there is a lack of evidence showing ill effects except for the potential for allergies for some individuals because of the method of preparation, but not the immunizing agent itself (similar to foods being in contact with nuts as an example). Thus, vaccines are generally safe. What is clearly unsafe is having unvaccinated children. What is unethical is trying to convince others to not have their children vaccinated. It is a lack of understanding STEM that leads to those who advocate this reprehensible position having a chance to convince a significant number of people.
No comments have been added yet.
