I wanted to write a bit about something very important to me, as a computer scientist and as a person interested in politics. This issue is about government's involvement in science and research, and more specifically, about government understanding stuff about science and research.
I write this as I was reminded about the issue last week from a tech talk given by Larry Page, founder of Google, who was discussing a wide variety of subjects, ranging from energy to the economy, and everything in between. This was similar to the talk he gave at the AAAS conference a few weeks ago. Since the whole talk is over an hour (but if you're interested in science and technology, it is a good watch), I'll summarize the part that I wanted to emphasize (he went into more detail in the talk given to us, but the basic point was at about the 9-14 minute mark).
So he was talking about how much government understands science, since it would seem logical that if more members of the government understood about research and technology, they would be better equipped to deal with it. ed. note: It only makes sense - I mean, there's a reason why we appoint people who speak French as ministers for la Francophonie, and why we appoint people from rural ridings as ministers of in charge of agriculture. So, logically, it would make sense that if more government officials used to be involved in science and engineering, then we would much easier be able to tackle the challenges posed by technology that will come in the next few years, ranging from legislation about the internets to funding for research. ed: he didn't explicitly mention the internets, but I think made a few comments about evolution instead. Something like, "the fact that we even have a debate about whether to teach evolution in schools is crazy."
And the key point was that in all the main public offices in the US, from Governors to Senators to Congressmen (note: since I don't remember all the details fully, I may be including too many or too few groups in this, and my numbers may be off by a couple), but in all those people, there are only about 6 of them who have formal training in science and engineering. ed: And I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't find too many more in Canadian politics either. And even when you have someone who knows about engineering physics, like, say, a former astronaut, they often have trouble winning.
And to add on to that, when you include members of the press, who are the ones most willing to talk about these issues, you add on a total of 0 more people who have training in engineering. Yep, that's right, nobody in the main press has an undergrad degree in a science or engineering field. So since none of them are used to it, they don't feel the need to mention about it as much. ed: and I do find that true. I mean, when stupid bills come up to vote, you get stories about it, but any press conferences dealing with more funding for research are brushed aside and hardly reported on, usually as a sidebar to an education announcement.
That was the main information from that part of the speech that he touched on. He went on to other points as well, but this was the stuff I wanted to comment on.
There are lots of reasons I've heard why people in engineering fields don't want to get involved with politics, ranging from a lack of interest in politics, to not wanting to give up their current job to go to a government job, to arguments about people in engineering being maybe more socially inept or just a general lack of political talents. While there may be some valid points in some of these, I don't see anything more than your basic stereotypes coming into effect here. Sure, there are lots of people in science and engineering who would make terrible politicians, but there are still lots who could do well.
And even in a place where math and engineering rule the day like at the University of Waterloo, from the impressions I've gotten, our executive has an uncharacteristically high amount of our executive in math and eng fields, with 2 out of 5 (me and our VP Policy, who happens to be an engineer). Just about every political event I go to, the general response to me mentioning that I'm a computer science student is that I'm like the "special child" at the event. And even thinking the other way around, I know I get my share of ribbing when I talk about politics with my techie friends.
And I do think that moving forward we need to find a way to make it so that it's not a surprise for anyone to be interested in politics, and so that we do have representation evenly not just among genders, but among professional experiences. I've talked with some people who believe that using some form of proportional representation could solve it, since then you could appoint some scientists to the top of the regional list to be elected, but I do also think we need to go further. Just like with the talks about new ways to make parliament and politics more friendly towards women, I think we need to look more into detail about under-representation of engineers going forward.
Since really, moving forward, funding for science and technology research should be one of our higher priorities. While I know it will never get the attention that files like the environment, education, and health care will get, and I don't even believe it should be up to their levels, it still should be something we strive towards. As mentioned in Page's talk, the whole Silicon Valley industry was started by a 1000$ grant to Hewlett and Packard in the 1930s. And moving forward, the technology industry will be one of the most crucial industries. I'd be willing to bet that a large number of people in Angus-Reid's Green Survey will say they're counting on a scientific breakthrough to stop Global Warming. Most people acknowledge that we've got to move on from gas-powered engines and onto some sort of fuel cell one.
But without the investment in the industry, this sort of stuff won't just happen. Larry Page was complaining about American funding, but the Canadian model is even worse. We need to push this issue, and the best way to do it is to get more people in engineering fields to step up to the plate and run for office.
