An interesting statistic that kept being thrown around in class on Tuesday was that something like 70% of Americans want to learn more about science and wish that it was covered more in the media. Taking this statistic at face value, one might argue that the media really does not cover science well, and that the American people are hungry for scientific knowledge. However, while it may be true that the news media does not do the best job covering science, I do not believe you can take this statistic at face value. When asked in a poll if they wanted to know more about science, what American would say no? By saying no, they probably consciously or subconsciously believe that they are admitting that they are stupid and have no desire to know about this great intellectual thing we call science. So then when they are asked if the media does a good job covering science, of course they will say no because they need someone to blame for their lack of science knowledge, and they won’t blame themselves. The media is an easy target because most people are exposed to the media everyday in some shape or form, and therefore it can’t be doing a good job if they see it everyday but still don’t know anything about science. But, really, how many Americans are turning to the science section of the newspaper, or looking up science journals online. Most Americans, myself included, page through the first section and then flip to the sports or the gossip pages. Most people don’t take the time to get to the science section which is usually buried somewhere in the middle of the paper. Therefore, it is no surprise that most Americans have a very limited knowledge of science, which is an extremely important field.
There is no easy solution to this problem. I think that it falls most on the American people to seek out knowledge, but the media can do a better job of making science more accessible to the average Americans. Many newspapers bury the science section in the middle of the paper, or do not even have a science section. Newspapers are businesses that need to sell papers to make money, and especially in this day and age, selling papers is more important than ever to these companies. Therefore, they are focusing on stories that will sell papers, such as the economy, and Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as sports and gossip. The media covers what the people want to see, and the people have clearly not demanded to know about science. It is difficult to change this now, especially as newspapers are clinging to life, but one possible idea is to put one science article on the front page a couple of times a week and see how people react. If Americans truly want to know more about science then they will take advantage of this and continue into the science section. While this would probably not be very effective, it would probably at least pique the interest of some Americans, which would be a step in the right direction. Another problem is that if people go online to seek out science knowledge they are most likely not reading science journals, but rather blogs or other more easily understandable mediums that may not be factually correct. Scientists need to do a better job of communicating with the public and making science more accessible. However, they have to balance making it understandable while not losing the true meaning of the science, which is very difficult. I think that both sides can do more in this effort, with people trying to understand at least parts of real issues in journals, while scientists dumb it down a little more, so that eventually people will understand all of what they are reading.
The issue of American’s lack of knowledge about science is a very difficult one to solve, and to be honest I am not too confident that it will ever be solved. I think the media and scientists can help by devoting more coverage and making it more accessible, but in the end it comes down to the American people. If the people truly want to know more about science, then they need to demand that the media cover it, and educate themselves so that they can understand it. If Americans were to do this, the media would surely do a better job covering it, because they want people to buy newspapers and read their web sites. However, at least at this point in time, Americans are more concerned with the latest sports scores, or celebrity scandals, and therefore the media will continue to cover these things to the detriment of science.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Revolution 2.0
The Arab spring has captured the attention of the world and has probably been the defining story of this year so far. Much has been made about technology and social media and how it has played a big part in these revolutions. This is exemplified by the story of Wael Ghonim, the Google exec who created the facebook page memorializing Khaled Saeed, a young Egyptian man who was beaten to death by Egyptian police. Through this page, Ghonim organized the original Egyptian protest in January, which was the starting point of the revolution. After weeks of protesting and fighting, the Egyptian people were able to throw Mubarak out of power after 30 years of brutal rule. Many have lauded this revolution as an example of what technology can do and even argued that this revolution was driven by technology and social media. While mobile phones, facebook, and twitter were definitely important features of the revolution, it is an overstatement to say that they were the driving forces behind the revolution.
In the years leading up to the revolution, the cost of living in Egypt kept increasing while at the same time unemployment was extremely high. Corruption was rampant in the government, and the people had been subject to violent repression during protests in 2008 and 2009. All of these factors left Egypt at the breaking point of a revolution. The people could not take much more and all of their anger boiled over following the death of Khaled Saeed. Furthermore, the Tunisian people had only weeks before revolted and been successful, which gave people hope that they could do the same. Facebook was used as a conduit for this anger, and helped facilitate the organization of the people, but without all of economic and social woes of the middle class and the many people in poverty, the revolution would never have been on such a large scale or been successful. For example, in 2009 everyone became excited as the Green movement rose up in revolt in Iran and took to Twitter to show the rest of the world. While at first it looked like they may be successful, the government was able to crush the revolt and Iran has been one of the more stable government in the Arab spring this year. Twitter helped spread word, but it was unable to keep people steadfast in the face of repression. The Egyptian people were able to stand up and continue because they felt like they had no other choice. It was either revolt or die in poverty.
To go back to the example of Wael Ghonim, some may argue that he led the revolt through social media like facebook and that this was the driving force behind the revolt. However, the real defining moment of the revolution was when Ghonim went on television after being imprisoned for 11 days and gave a moving interview that was watched by all of Egypt. At this point it looked like the revolt might be waning and that people might not continue to stand up to brutal repression. But, during the interview, Ghonim broke down a number of times and delivered a powerful message to the Egyptian people, which kept people strong in the face of the police. It was Ghonim’s face and words that made him the spiritual leader of the revolt, not facebook or twitter. In the end, the Egyptian people were able to defeat Mubarak because they believed it was the only option. Death was better than continuing to lead the terrible lives they had because of Mubarak’s corrupt regime. While social media and technology made the revolution easier to organize and more accessible to the rest of the world, it was not the driving force in the revolution. The horrendous conditions that people lived in and their connections to each other forced them into action and allowed them to stay strong in the face of brutal repression.
In the years leading up to the revolution, the cost of living in Egypt kept increasing while at the same time unemployment was extremely high. Corruption was rampant in the government, and the people had been subject to violent repression during protests in 2008 and 2009. All of these factors left Egypt at the breaking point of a revolution. The people could not take much more and all of their anger boiled over following the death of Khaled Saeed. Furthermore, the Tunisian people had only weeks before revolted and been successful, which gave people hope that they could do the same. Facebook was used as a conduit for this anger, and helped facilitate the organization of the people, but without all of economic and social woes of the middle class and the many people in poverty, the revolution would never have been on such a large scale or been successful. For example, in 2009 everyone became excited as the Green movement rose up in revolt in Iran and took to Twitter to show the rest of the world. While at first it looked like they may be successful, the government was able to crush the revolt and Iran has been one of the more stable government in the Arab spring this year. Twitter helped spread word, but it was unable to keep people steadfast in the face of repression. The Egyptian people were able to stand up and continue because they felt like they had no other choice. It was either revolt or die in poverty.
To go back to the example of Wael Ghonim, some may argue that he led the revolt through social media like facebook and that this was the driving force behind the revolt. However, the real defining moment of the revolution was when Ghonim went on television after being imprisoned for 11 days and gave a moving interview that was watched by all of Egypt. At this point it looked like the revolt might be waning and that people might not continue to stand up to brutal repression. But, during the interview, Ghonim broke down a number of times and delivered a powerful message to the Egyptian people, which kept people strong in the face of the police. It was Ghonim’s face and words that made him the spiritual leader of the revolt, not facebook or twitter. In the end, the Egyptian people were able to defeat Mubarak because they believed it was the only option. Death was better than continuing to lead the terrible lives they had because of Mubarak’s corrupt regime. While social media and technology made the revolution easier to organize and more accessible to the rest of the world, it was not the driving force in the revolution. The horrendous conditions that people lived in and their connections to each other forced them into action and allowed them to stay strong in the face of brutal repression.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Mobile Phones: The Future Is Now
When mobile phones first came into existence, they were huge brick monstrosities, impractical for any purpose other than having the cool new technology. However, over the years mobile phones have gotten smaller and smaller while still doing more things. It is now impossible to walk around and not see someone talking, texting, browsing, or gaming on their mobile device. In fact, over 90% of Americans now own cell phones. While this number is not as high in developing countries, it is growing quickly and it is no longer strange to see someone in a place India walking around with a bluetooth headset or on an iPhone. By proliferating the use of mobile phones in developing countries, we can help give people a multitude of opportunities such as connecting through talk and text and browsing the internet all in one extremely portable place. While mobile phones do not have the same power as a desktop or laptop, they are much more cost effective and give you more necessary functions than a computer does. Basically, mobile phones would eliminate the need for computers for people who can not afford it, while still allowing them to connect through the internet and other means.
There are already programs in place that utilize mobile phones in this manner, such as the M-PESA system in Kenya, which is basically like a mobile bank that allows you to save money, send it to family and friends who may not live with you, or even invest. Programs like this help families stay connected even when separated by the need to find work, and allow people to support their families. It clearly is a very popular program in Kenya, as over four million accounts were opened in its first two years almost as many as in regular banks. It allows you to control your account at the touch of a finger rather than walking to the nearest bank, which could be miles away. These programs can be extremely effective, but people need mobile phones to access them, and there a still a large number of people in developing countries who do not have them. I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on providing cheap, simple mobile phones to the developing world. These people do not need the latest technology, but just having the ability to talk, text, and browse the internet will allow them to connect with people they could not before and become more educated about the world. Mobile phones will probably come to be the defining technology of our generation, as they continue to do more and more things, while still remaining portable, and it is imperative that we do our best to help people in developing countries get them.
There are already programs in place that utilize mobile phones in this manner, such as the M-PESA system in Kenya, which is basically like a mobile bank that allows you to save money, send it to family and friends who may not live with you, or even invest. Programs like this help families stay connected even when separated by the need to find work, and allow people to support their families. It clearly is a very popular program in Kenya, as over four million accounts were opened in its first two years almost as many as in regular banks. It allows you to control your account at the touch of a finger rather than walking to the nearest bank, which could be miles away. These programs can be extremely effective, but people need mobile phones to access them, and there a still a large number of people in developing countries who do not have them. I think there needs to be a greater emphasis on providing cheap, simple mobile phones to the developing world. These people do not need the latest technology, but just having the ability to talk, text, and browse the internet will allow them to connect with people they could not before and become more educated about the world. Mobile phones will probably come to be the defining technology of our generation, as they continue to do more and more things, while still remaining portable, and it is imperative that we do our best to help people in developing countries get them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)