Do We Need to Train More Scientists?

Since I already questioned one conclusion of Thomas Friedman in a previous post, this seems like a good place to question another one.

His editorials constantly seem to urge us to increase our output of engineers and scientists. But an article in CNN's Money section suggests why we aren't likely to do that, at least for research scientists.

As the article points out, pay levels for research scientists remain depressed for years after they finish graduate school. On top of that, there are fewer positions than there are candidates.

This isn't a new situation. You'll find a detailed description of the problem in an essay by Jonathan I. Katz, a tenured university professor of physics. His article was written at the peak of the tech industry boom.

I'd suggest that the points raised by these articles tell us why students aren't becoming researchers. Students correctly realize that the opportunities remain very limited after an enormous effort in school. That's a bad combination.

Blogging vs. Demonstrating

I'm wondering how much creative energy for change the blogosphere generates, vs. how much it absorbs. I'm old enough to remember the 1960's. One thing I remember is that if you wanted to make a point, you got out and met with others of similar mind, and you got out in public and demonstrated.

I don't deny that blogging is producing political awareness and organizing now. But I wonder if it isn't also absorbing a lot of energy in which people sit around and file comments all day on other people's posts rather than taking more direct steps.

The amazing thing about Cindy Sheehan is that she has moved from cyberspace to real space in a major way, right out in front of everybody. She's been writing columns on LewRockwell.com for some time, but her direct political action now appears to be many times more effective.

Is that a general lesson? Are blogs overemphasized? Is direct action being neglected?

All Electronic, All the Time

In one of his many editorials on science and technology outside of America, Thomas Friedman sticks to his mantra about how we're falling behind.

I wonder. I was talking to a friend over the weekend about how fruitful my time has been since I first acquired a PC at home in 1993 (I had a PC at work earlier). That very first home PC, a 16 MHz laptop with an 80 MB harddrive, running only MS-DOS most of the time, produced more useful output than any PC since. Indeed, I've noticed an inverse relationship between the power of my PC and speed of Internet access, and my productive output. Why?

To be honest, I noticed a similar correlation at work. The easier Internet access became, the more I and my coworkers seemed to be spending work time browsing through web pages that weren't part of our work. Companies also seem to have noticed this, as they've moved to restrict access at work.

I think Mr. Friedman has caught the dot-com virus. In the late 1990's, any new technology seemed to be embraced for its own sake. Few people were asking how much of it would prove viable, or useful, even as enthusiasm and funding soared. Of course, that bubble burst, at least in America.

Now I'll admit I use the Internet a lot, including for this blog. But I keep hearing this nagging voice tell me that I use it too much, that I've moved well into the zone of diminishing returns. Whatever happened to reading good books, or doing analytical research, or working to help other people, or any number of non-electronic activities? I think those tend to get sucked into this electronic black hole called the Internet.

Maybe high speed wi-fi in subways will help Mr. Friedman write his editorials and transmit them. Maybe it will help businesspeople work even as they commute. But maybe most people will use it simply to browse non-productively to avoid boredom. And maybe even the people who use it productively will lose something by not using that time to unplug, and reflect. At least in my case, I found the most difficult problems required me to get away from the computer and just walk. Then I could often see the solution which eluded me while I was plugged in.

We all managed to survive pretty well before the Internet. In my case, I suspect that maybe I had a better life back then, not a poorer one. I don't think universal high speed Internet access is an unqualified plus.