The Demand for More Science

A statistic that was thrown around a lot in the most recent class was that 70% of the American population is demanding more coverage on science and technology. Scientists discover new findings every day. It is not as if the information that Americans desire is not there. If the demand of more information is there, then why is it not being fulfilled? This is just an example of simple economics, right? If there is a demand, then why hasn’t there been a supply yet?

Some argue that the scientific community cannot communicate effectively with the rest of the country. They create journals and information not for the average American citizen, but for fellow scientists. This opinion can adequately explain part of the reason why the demand for more information is not being satisfied. Scientists that make new discoveries would rather inform their fellow peers than the press. This can be explained due to several reasons, such as the incentive system for scientists, their desire to gain notoriety with their peers rather than the nation, and, quite honestly, possibly their inability to communicate adequately with the general public. It is this last point that I would like to focus on.

The blame for the communication gap inherent between scientists and the public should not fall solely on the scientists. Scientists are extremely well educated. They prefer to communicate with those in their field, with those who fully understand them. While if one is interested in learning more about science and technology, it should be their responsibility to attempt to comprehend the intricacies of the field. However, this feat will be a difficult, if not impossible endeavor for most people.

An excellent example of this effort can be seen on the show “The Big Bang Theory”. The show focuses on two roommate scientists, Sheldon and Leonard, and their neighbor across the hall, Penny, an attractive blonde waitress who lacks the scientific knowledge of her two neighbors. In the episode, Leonard and Penny have been dating. Interested in learning more about Leonard’s work, Penny confronts Sheldon, asking him to teach her. At first Sheldon is hesitant, but he eventually accepts “one of the great challenges of my scientific career,” teaching an average person what he considers to be the basics of physics. The clip, as seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIn3T6nDAo, shows the difficulty of explaining the rigors of science to an average person who, while interested, cannot seem to understand the complexities of the field, assuming that 2600 years of scientific knowledge can be explained and understood in a matter of minutes.

In order to help quell the demand for scientific and technological knowledge, Americans need to focus on the young. According to rankings presented by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), in the 2009 survey, the United States ranked 23^rd amongst the international rankings for science. This is extremely problematic for a country that supposedly the majority of its citizens are interesting in learning more on science and technology. In order to resolve this dilemma, the education system needs to focus more on science. Once the background knowledge is there for young students, as they get older, they will have the potential to understand further research.

In the beginning of this blog, I questioned why, if there was a demand for more information, then why has not there not been a supply. The answer, sadly, is that if the current findings of scientists was to be presented to the public, most of the population would be unable to appreciate the meaningfulness of the information.

The Juxtaposition of Journalism and Technology

For our second lecture, the class was introduced to another guest lecturer, David Johnson. He is an Assistant Professor at American University, where he teaches a course in digital journalism, interactive storytelling and convergence media. He appropriately came to speak to us on digital journalism and the effects new technology has had on the media.

A self-proclaimed hard-ass, Professor Johnson gave his opinion on how to improve journalism. Firstly, in order to save journalism, there need to be more journalists. The basis of journalism is you are supposed to summarize information for other people when they cannot be at the event to receive the information themselves. In short, since journalists are at a specific event and others are not, it is the journalists’ job to report what happened at the event. The second aspect in order to save journalism is to that journalists have to act less like story-tellers and more like social scientists. The example Professor Johnson kept referring to was that of a report on Snooki. Professor Johnson argued that a story on Snookie was not a news-worthy event, but rather be kept in entertainment areas, such as People magazine. Professor Johnson contended that news journalists need to stop focusing on entertaining their constituents and concentrate on informing people more significant news.

While these are all valid points, there is a bigger problem facing journalism. That problem has to do with the American public. As television has gotten more channels, many people base what they watch not on what is of the most value but rather on what is the most entertaining. This has meant that many people choose to watch other programming over the news. According to a report from the Pew Center for the People and the Press, only 57% of Americans watch TV news on a typical day, while only 40% read a newspaper, and 36% listen to the news on the radio. On an average day, only 81% of Americans access news. This number is down almost 10% from 1994, even though there is more access to news.

In order to implement Professor Johnson’s ideas on improving journalism, there has to be an effort made to fix the trend of less news viewing. Some believe that Americans have become overwhelmed by the amount of news and information out there, so much so that they choose to ignore it rather than try to go through all the material.

One possible solution to this problem is to utilize social media sites and blogs to expose the news to people. At this moment there are over 156 million blogs on the internet. Additionally, there are over 500 million users on the social media site, Facebook. With that kind of populace, if journalists found a way to effectively reach them, the news would reach a vast majority of Americans.

In this day and age, with so many resources available, there is no valid reason as to why 19% of Americans do not have access to news. It is up to this next generation to encourage interest in the news and in journalism.

Class One

My name is Alex Lanes, and I would like to welcome you to my first blog ever. These series of blogs will be about my experience in America’s Changing Faces, a class I am taking during the summer session of Cornell in Washington.

During the first lecture of class, we were introduced to our professor, Raul Roman and our TA, Sudeshna Mitra. We were also introduced to our first guest lecturer of the course, Dr. Royal Colle, a former professor at Cornell.

The first lecture of the class was meant to focus on how new communication technologies are shaping life in America and the world. However, after getting an introduction from our new professor and his guest lecturer, they focus was slightly altered. Rather than concentrate on how new technology affects America, we centered on how technology, specifically computers and cell phones, influence developing countries such as India and Thailand. Dr. Colle explained to us the process of setting up information and communication technologies (ICTs) throughout these developing countries and the larger affect they had on the economics, social life, and culture of the areas. Dr. Colle went on to give us several concrete examples of how ICTs affect the lives of those around them.

Technology has had an incredible impact on the efficiency of workers in developing countries. An example I remember from the readings was on fishermen and the inclusion of mobile devices. “It reports that fishermen in Kerala who owned mobile phones found their profits to increase by an average of about US$4.5 per day, sufficient to justify phone ownership in cost-benefit terms... The revenue gains by all fishermen arose because they wasted less (i.e. sold more) of the fish they caught” (Heeks, 632-633). The reading goes on to discuss how since the fishermen able to catch more fish, the price of fish were lowered, which made more fish available to more consumers. The increase in efficiency from mobile phones, in the end, improved the overall market for fish, allowing fishermen to increase their income and their effectiveness.

Additionally, technology has had an impact in making markets fairer for farmers. An example of this would be Chinese farmers we discussed in class. These farmers would be able to go on computers and see the market price of the crop they were attempting to sell. Previously, the buyers of their crop had offered below the fair market price. Now that they had this information, they were able to get a proper price for their product. In this way, technology has aided the lives of some farmers.

In the end, the lectures and the readings gave concrete examples on how information and communication technologies increased the livelihood of those in developing countries. ICTs did this in several ways; two examples are by increasing efficiency and the fairness of markets.

Overall, this class was not exactly what I was expecting, as I was anticipating the topics to be related more to America than to developing countries. However, Dr. Colle was a good lecturer and a very enthusiastic speaker regarding the topic. So, that is it. I just wrote my first blog. Sadly, there are only about six weeks left in Cornell in Washington. Until next time.