imagine that

Those of you who have a vested interest in the bipartisan efforts to stage a Science Debate 2008 among the presidential hopefuls might also be interested in perusing the new online "Campaign 2008" elections Website at Physics Today. Launched yesterday afternoon, it's described as "a comprehensive source of information about the positions of the presidential candidates on science, technology, and energy issues," and includes not just official position statements, but also news articles, media interviews and other relevant commentary. The plan is to update it continually throughout the year. As I've said before, it matters not whether you're Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, or a member of a special interest group like the Standing in the Back of the Room Dressed Stupidly and Looking Stupid Party (Blackadder fans will grok the reference). What's important is recognizing that it's vital for our next president to recognize the importance of science in shaping national (and international) policy, and to respect scientific expertise. Consider this most recent statement by Republican hopeful Mike Huckabee currently resounding through the blogosphere:

"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabeee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change Gods standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."

Fortunately for the country, Michigan voters didn't buy it -- or rather, only about 31% of them did. ("Thirty-one percent? Who are those people?" Jen-Luc Piquant marvels in disbelief.) Here's a radical thought for Mr. Huckabee: why not respect the American tradition of the separation of church and state and leave the Constitution the hell alone? Render under Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's. The Constitution was never intended as a means of legislating morality or a particular religious credo; anyone who claims otherwise is deluded, misinformed, or deliberately prevaricating. And anyone who thinks Huckabee wouldn't bring this same attitude to science -- "I think we should amend the science so it's in line with God's standards as outlined in the Holy Bible, rather than let science describe how the world actually works" -- isn't thinking very clearly on the matter either.

We've had nearly eight long years of abject contempt for science (and scientists) in the White House; we don't need more of the same. Look at all the altered reports attempting to deny the reality of global warming, in the face of a vast scientific consensus on the issue. Still not entirely convinced? How about the recently approved Omnibus spending bill that so decimates the budget for science in general (and physics in particular) that major physics facilities such as SLAC and Fermilab are cutting short operating runs and planning for massive layoffs? (The Quantum Pontiff urges us to take action on that.)

And then there's yesterday's breaking news that Bush, in his wisdom, has decided he knows better than the US judiciary system what course to take on sonar testing by the US Navy (the link is to my own post last week on this topic; James H. at the Island of Doubt has more). Since the courts were consistently ruling in favor of environmental groups, he simply went outside the courts and decided that the Navy doesn't have to comply with federal environmental regulations. "National security" has become his catch-all excuse for trampling all over the rule of law. No more, people! Let's pay attention to what really matters this election, instead of which candidate has the best hair. Or whatever. We're very much in danger of being left behind by the rest of the developed world in terms of cutting-edge science and technology. 

Okay, I'm off my ranting soapbox now. You can come back. Don't be afraid. Here's some good news. Yesterday the Spousal Unit and I attended a "conversation" with Alan Alda -- actor extraordinaire, and longtime friend of science -- hosted by K.C. Cole in the University of Southern California's Bing Auditorium, as part of the "Visions and Voices" series featured by the Annenberg School for Communication. Alda is a genial, highly intelligent man, the more so because he's smart enough to admit when he doesn't know something. Apparently this is self-knowledge hard-won: he told a very entertaining anecdote of an early taping as host for Scientific American Frontiers. He'd done exhaustive preparation in advance to avoid looking foolish, and after the interview (with Carl Sagan), he was feeling pretty chuffed at how well it had gone. Then the director sat down with him over coffee and asked, "So... why are you trying to act smart?" Alda quickly embraced my own personal motto as a science writer: Dare To Be Stupid! That is, don't be afraid to ask dumb, obvious questions. Let the scientists be smart.

There's a more practical reason for this approach, namely, that you get more accessible, more human answers out of scientists when you focus on the most simple, basic questions. It's so easy for someone with that much expertise to assume a level of background knowledge in his/her listeners that simply isn't there, and asking obvious questions is a useful reminder to keep the level simple enough for non-scientists to grasp the concepts. Another problem we're all too familiar with is the tendency of scientists to lapse into "lecture mode" rather than having an actual conversation with their listeners. It's that tendency that inspired this Walt Whitman poem (which Alda read aloud during the event):

When I heard the learn'd astronomer,

When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,

When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,

When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,

How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,

Till rising and gliding out I wander'd off by myself,

In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,

Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.

A product of his era, Whitman clearly bought into the Romantic notion that scientists made the mysteries of Nature all dry and boring by reducing everything to a stultifying quantification. As Alda phrased it, the Romantics "liked daffodils, but they didn't want to know too much about how those daffodils actually worked." Anyone who's spent significant time around scientists, however, knows that their sense of wonder is very much intact: they're just not always effective at communicating the joy and enthusiasm they find in their work. Like his hero Richard Feynman (and also like me, for that matter), Alda knows that "scientific knowledge only adds to the beauty and mystery of nature." It doesn't lessen it. In fact, as K.C. observed, poetry shares some common ground with science in its emphasis on reductionism: distilling a complex situation (or metaphor) down to only what is most essential. (That said, Alda admitted that he'd rather cross a bridge designed and built by a structural engineer than a poet with a gift for metaphor -- although "an engineer who also had a gift for metaphor would build a really interesting bridge.")

But how to bring out the "true voices" of scientists so that they can "show the love" to a broader audience? Alda adopted a truly innovative approach: the day before yesterday's event, he visited  with the engineering students and had them in engage in various improvisational exercises commonly used in drama classes. The results (as described more fully here): their presentations showed a vast improvement in terms of bringing out their passion for their subjects.  Of course, as I mentioned to the Spousal Unit afterwards, while being open about one's enthusiasm is a terrific start, it's not automatically sufficient. I've heard more than one scientist speak who was clearly thrilled about the research in question, yet as far as the non-scientists listening were concerned, might as well have been speaking in tongues.

I especially liked Alda's description of science as a form of "play" -- not in the sense of not taking one's research seriously, but a sort of looseness in one's approach that enables the scientist to think outside the box, outside rigid boundaries, explore avenues that might seem silly or unpromising -- all part of the creative process of imagination that informs both brilliant scientists and brilliant artists, poets, actors, etc. By letting the avenues of inquiry unfold non-linearly (so to speak), you can find yourself discovering unexpected breakthrough insights. Everyone can benefit from a fresh perspective on an intractable problem. That's what writing this blog does for me: it enables me to "play" with scientific ideas, make odd connections, try out new analogies or metaphors or approaches for making science accessible, and also to sift through my own attitudes and opinions on various issues. Some of the posts might seem silly, many are overlong, and more than a little rambling, but it's all part of my process. And hopefully my readers get some benefits, too.

Feynman was the epitome of a physicist with a strong sense of play -- one of the reasons Alda admires him so much, and why Feynman remains one of the most-loved physicists in history. How could you not be just a little charmed by a guy who taught himself safe-cracking and picked the locks of top-security vaults while at Los Alamos in the 1940s, who dabbled in painting, nudism, and playing the bongo drums, and who sometimes worked on equations in strip clubs?

One of Alda's favorite stories is the anecdote of the plate. Feynman went through a period of depression after the successful Trinity Test and the death of his first wife, Arlene -- so much so that it affected his research as a young professor at Cornell. One day, he was in the Cornell cafeteria when a student prankishly tossed a plate in the air -- one decorated with the university's signature red medallion seal on the rim. As the plate went up, Feynman saw it wobble. He saw the red medallion spinning around. The wobble was faster than the spin! Intrigued, Feynman went home and calculated the exact ratio between the two, and found that when the plate is angled very slightly, its wobble will be twice as fast as its spin. He shared this "discovery" with one of his stuffier colleagues who asked what the point of the exercise had been. "It has no importance -- it's just for fun!' Feynman exclaimed. And much like writing the odd blog post or free write unclogs my writer's block, he found himself tackling his bona fide research with renewed enthusiasm and vigor.

We don't need more clones of Feynman, but we certainly need more physicists who openly embrace their sense of play. While I was writing The Physics of the Buffyverse, I benefited greatly from a handful of physicists who weren't too embarrassed to apply their expertise to the occasional silly premise from a TV show about vampires. For instance, I'd ask a pal to crunch some numbers to figure out how hard Angel would hit the pavement after being thrown out the window of an office high rise, or how many kilowatt hours of energy you'd need to create sufficient mass to turn Mayor Wilkins into a giant snake-demon. One materials scientist (and fellow Buffy fan) spent part of his Thanksgiving weekend determining whether the piezoelectric properties of certain varieties of wood might be sufficient to spark-cut a hole in an uber-vampire's breastplate armor, as well as investigating the viscoelastic properties of raw cookie dough with his wife's assistance. Silly? Yes. But also fun. Sometimes it helps to lighten up a little. We're very fortunate to have people like Alda working tirelessly to bridge the communication gap between scientists and the general public.

Comments

[Martin]

You mention Richard Feynman's ancedote about the plate and have him telling his result to a stuffier colleague and, when asked the significance, saying it was just for fun.

I don't have the book with the story in front of me (presumably one of Feynman's anecdote collections, Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman or What do You Care What People Think)in front of me, but my recollection is that the senior (but apparently not stuffy) colleague was Hans Bethe, who had recruited Feynman to Cornell. More importantly, my recollection is that when Feynman said the plate spinning result was of no significance, Bethe said something like, "Good, keep on working like that" thereby helping Feynman get over his depression and block.

[Gordon Wilson]

I was about to post the same--I wouldnt exactly call Bethe "stuffy". He and Feynman seemed to
bounce stuff off of each other.

[chimpanzee]

The interaction between H. Bethe & R. Feynman goes back to Los Alamos/Manhattan Project. RPF was the "mosquito boat" ("that can't be right!?"..devils advocate) & HB was the "battleship" (calming force). It's productive in research situations to have a "point" VS "counter-point" interaction (as per the old 60 Minutes CBS show). My HS classmate (Stanford Geophysics PhD) told me of a similar 2-man team @Stanford Geophysics dept: one was the "idea guy" & the other was the "do-er".

Later on @Caltech, of course RPF & M. Gell-Mann had famous "battles". "Explosions were heard from xxth floor of physics bldg", according to 1 of the books. An inside source (Caltech physics prof) told me MGM left Caltech at the urging of his wife because of "being overshadowed by RPF".

[Axiom]

"Since the courts were consistently ruling in favor of environmental groups, he simply went outside the courts and decided that the Navy doesn't have to comply with federal environmental regulations. "National security" has become his catch-all excuse for trampling all over the rule of law.

...

We're very much in danger of being left behind by the rest of the developed world in terms of cutting-edge science and technology."

While I tend to agree with the risk mentioned in the last sentence, it's worth pointing out that the main body of the Department of the Navy isn't as fickle as the head of the Executive Branch. The science continues regardless of the latest press release.

If you're actively interested in finding out more about what the Navy is doing and why, I suggest that you contact the Principle Investigators mentioned at the bottom of this website summarizing the M3R program.

http://seagrant.mit.edu/cfer/acoustics/exsum/jarvis/program.html

[icemonkey]

my very most favoritest thing about people who think they want 'church' cleft unto 'state', is that they seem to assume that their church will 'win'. hee heeeee!!! how amusing are the zany antics of those who fail to reflect...