Meeting the Nation's Needs for Biomedical and Behavioral Scientists: Summary of the 1993 Public Hearings (1994)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

APPENDIX D 94 teaching science: in retrospect I can only assume that their teachers were much like mine. An increase in the science education budget of public schools, with funds earmarked for experimental supplies and field trips, would help to spark children’s interest in science. Students in metropolitan areas who show an early interest in science should have access to magnet schools which emphasize scientific training. These schools should have well-equipped laboratories, and classes should be taught by teachers who like science. Such schools would undoubtedly provide a healthy return on their investment. Furthermore, bowing to the irrevocable fact that children today are hooked on television, a children’s television show focused on science (with a racially balanced cast) might also help interest youngsters in science. This brings me to the second question: what can the NRSA do to help? The NRSA arrives too late to play a critical role in influencing children directly. However, the NRSA program could sponsor short-term fellowships for science teachers to spend semesters or summers doing research in a laboratory. Equally effective, NRSA fellowships could sponsor scienceoriented undergraduate or graduate students who wish to teach elementary or high school students. Similar types of programs are already being administered by some private scientific organizations. All of these functions should fall under the stated goal of the NRSA Program, which is to “increase the capability of the …NIH…to carry out their responsibility of maintaining a superior national program of research....” The NRSA program could encourage women and minorities interested in science by providing well-paid summer research fellowships for undergraduates. These should include salary, traveling expenses, and a small stipend. In addition, the NRSA might sponsor fellowships in areas peripheral to science, such as science writing and reporting. Recruitment of talented women and minorities to serve as role models in these areas may eventually help to stimulate public interest in science and enhance its status as a profession. Finally, I would like to address a more general issue that the NRSA should tackle. This is the lack of funding for postdocs beyond their third year. It is not unusual now to do a second postdoc before looking for permanent employment. While one could argue that these researchers no longer need funds for “training”, the loss of independence that comes with the termination of an NRSA is demoralizing. An NRSA program to fund senior postdocs would reinforce the government’s commitment to support new recruits and would be much welcomed by those of us who have already chosen basic research as a profession. STATEMENT BY MIYUKI YAMAGUCHI I am a graduate student in biochemistry. Despite many obstacles, I have chosen science as a career and as of yet, I do not regret this decision. But unlike myself, I have seen many of my fellow students not only shun this career path, but science in general. Their perception of science is often limited to poorly taught high school level courses and the images portrayed by the media. When I talk of science to friends and family, I often observe blank stares, wandering eyes, and an abrupt change of conversation to sports or the weather. My friends outside of science not only have no understanding of what I do, but often refuse to listen, claiming to have no interest in science. Their lack of background is understandable, but their adamant refusal of and complete mental block to science comes as a shock. This perception continues and pervades the decision of many college students to not pursue a science career, with the end result being an overall decrease of well-qualified candidates applying to graduate schools. The few who do choose science as a career often pursue this as a path by default, being left with no alternative after medical school rejections or for lack of any other potential career. This underappreciation and misunderstanding of science in general is beginning to hinder not only the research in this country, but also major issues outside of science, such as health care and the environment. I fear that this trend generated by my peers may vastly affect the quality of research in this country and, furthermore, deepen the general public’s ignorance of science. I feel that it is our responsibility as researchers today to reverse this direction so that the scientific potential of this country is neither wasted nor ignored. From my own observations, I believe that there are four basic reasons why bright young people are discouraged from science today: (i) inadequate early education in science (ii) limited financial reward from a career in science (iii) lack of research funding (iv) the image of science as being boring, incomprehensible and/or “not cool” 

APPENDIX D 95 Unfortunately, I alone cannot reform an entire national education system or provide the financial resources for salaries and funding in research. Yet I, as an individual, am willing and capable of sharing my experiences with others, with the message that science can be interesting, challenging, and just plain “fun”, in hopes of altering the future perception of science and expanding science education beyond the classroom. But addressing this problem at the college and graduate school level is futile, for the mindsets and perceptions of most students are firmly set at this age. The problems are deep-rooted and stem from early in the education process. Thus the main focus of our attention should be towards the education of the children, for they are a huge undeveloped intellectual resource, which has continually been ignored in this country. From my experience, education in science has often been limited by outdated textbooks and poorly informed teachers. As a result, early in the classroom experience, the perception of science as being incomprehensible and dull is born and is further perpetuated by the media later in adulthood. As we all know, science is not the memorization of random facts, but an approach to solving problems. It is this active participation in science along with an appreciation of the subject and its impact on life that makes science truly fascinating. Unfortunately, many young people today never connect their studies in the classroom to application in the real world. I am a perfect example of this. Pursuing a Ph.D. never crossed my mind until my first biochemistry class where I learned that a disease can be linked to a non-functioning enzyme. This was a turning point in my life, giving me future direction for my career, but unfortunately that moment was late in my education. In my opinion, the understanding of science and its relevance to the natural world about us is the major link absent in the education of our children. I believe that students like myself are able to bridge this gap between theory and application, and present it at a level which a young student can appreciate. I propose that graduate students and fellows be granted the opportunity to supplement early science education, by sharing their knowledge, experience, and activities with young students. Most children have the natural intuition and curiosity required for science. In order for these traits to surface, they need to be stimulated and motivated by interesting information from the viewpoint of a child, presented by enthusiastic teachers who can adequately show them how this information can be used in the world around them. This presentation of information should be at various levels from basic theory to application to career opportunities, so in the end children can eventually realize what types of academic courses are required for pursuing a particular career. In order for this to be successful, a coordinated effort among the local education systems, academia, and industry is necessary. The teachers should lay the initial foundation of information for the children. The graduate student or fellow can then further develop that information, such that the child can learn to apply or relate the ideas of his/her own environment. Industry and academia should provide interesting careers in the real world. Thus, the main role of the graduate student/postdoctoral fellow would be: (i) to bring new information typically unavailable to young students and present it at a level that the child can understand and appreciate (ii) demonstrate the application and relevance of this new information to the child’s environment (iii) show the potential and power of science, and its past and possible future impacts on society (iv) update the teachers’ education of science, so that they have a thorough understanding of the basics and an awareness of recent relevant findings Unfortunately, no matter how interesting the topic, a one-day presentation of science is not sufficient in developing the potential of young students. Two other factors are equally, if not more, important: (i) an active participation in science, where the learned information is applied (ii) the intellectual activity and active participation must develop over time, such that the self-esteem and self- confidence of the child in science is nurtured There are various methods of incorporating these factors into early education. One is through the formation of science clubs, with the help and guidance of not only graduate students and post-doctoral fellows, but the scientists and researchers in industry. Another is through summer science programs, where kids can actively participate without the burden of other school 

APPENDIX D 96 activities. Many programs have already been created, echoing the problems and potential solutions presented here. I believe that these programs can greatly benefit from the experience, knowledge, and enthusiasm of graduate students and fellows. This type of effort requires very little financial support and may be as simple as directing attention to opportunities in these types of programs on the first day of a graduate student’s career. With more effort and energy, new programs can be created through the graduate student community to generate interest in and awareness of science among young people. These factors mentioned above are especially crucial to those of disadvantaged and/or minority backgrounds. Recruitment of minorities should not necessarily be at the graduate school level, where larger stipends are often used as a tool to attract candidates to a very small minority applicant pool. Throwing money at a fully-developed problem is not always the best solution. Considering the above factors, along with encouragement and guidance in early education, should allow students of all backgrounds to realize their own potential for science and later for becoming qualified researchers. Programs targeted and designed for particular backgrounds and/or disadvantages would more effectively attack the root of the problem involving recruitment of minorities and women. The observations and advice I have offered here are based on my own limited perceptions of my environment. I have no statistics to verify my observations. But I have noted too many instances where my peers have displayed a lack of appreciation of science and research, such that it has instilled a growing fear in me that the future research potential may be at stake in this country. This ignorance of science cannot be tolerated if it interferes with a child’s desire to learn. Along these terms, improving education is crucial, but as a graduate student, I have limited power in influencing the policy of science education in this country. I would like to take action on this problem, for I strongly support science and research, not because it is my future career, but because I believe it is the backbone for the advancement of a society. This fear and ignorance of science should be eradicated for it is equivalent to the fear of understanding our natural world. There is too much this world offers to teach us to allow this fear to inhibit the future directions of our society.