Accelerate innovation in Science/Technology & Medicine

[francolettieri]

A few years ago, I picked up copies of Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, and Discover magazine at a Border's bookstore and was amazed at what future technology had to offer...Personalized medicine, man made diamonds, graphene, green renewable energy, nanotechnology, vertical farming..etc... I have since become hooked and have developed a huge fascination with science, technology and all the promise it has to offer. I began thinking to myself, how can we greatly accelerate the pace of its development in this world, and especially in this country. I think of the Democratic party (and possibly Libertarian also) as the offical party of science & Technology wheras Republicans tend to favor/be more interested/obsessed with Religious Ideology/Fundamentalism (as was the case with the idiotic Bush veto of federal stem cell research funding) So besides voting Democrats into office, here are some other ideas I have come up with to accelerate the pace of innovation & discovery of Science, Technology & Medical applications...

We need to start doing a better job of identifying young students who of are gifted and above average intelligence as early as possible and keep them separated from the rest of the students so they are not held back by kids with learning and behavioral difficulties. Schools in more upperclass districs to this somewhat, but probably not enough. Above students in poorer areas with a lot of gang activity need to be moved to better districs. As crazy as it sounds, there are a lot of incidents of them being beat up or killed from excelling in school.

Also, maybe the United States and other developed coutries can start "mining the rest of the planet for intellectual talent" by going abroad to poorer countries, adminstering intelligence tests and identify/ immigrate talented people here. Poorer undevelped 2nd and 3rd world countries often have too much corruption and religious fundamentalism for them too properly educate their citizens and make a contribution to world innovation. It sounds cruel to only rescue people with potential from poor countries, but once they are educated and successful scientists/engineers/researchers here, then they can help solve problems and make life better for the people they left behind in their originating country.

When you think about prestigious universities in this coutry like M.I.T., why can't we have tons more schools that make those huge innovations, why does research for such innovations take so long, why can't science, technology, and medical innovation become more of a powerhouse that fuels United State's Economy. Why can't we have hundreds of thousands more Medical Researchers,Doctors, Surgeons, Engineers, Architects, Computer scientists....

Well maybe if we take the above steps.... we can...

[Cirque du So-What]

1. It begins with pure research

which isn't cheap. That's why government-subsidized research is so important to the advancement of science & technology. Think corporations are going to bankroll research that might end up benefiting a competitor? Think again! I grind my teeth a little whenever some conservatroid specimen takes some research project out of context - say, the sex lives of fruit flies - and uses it as an example of frivolous government waste.

Just another in a long list of why people need to stop grousing and pay their damn taxes. It pays for things that no individual or corporation is capable or willing to undertake on their own. You want the USA to be known for innovation again? Raise hell with the next anti-intellectual conservative dipshit who complains about government-sponsored research!

[patrice]

2. okay, I'm taking that back and I will assume that you offer this in good faith.

You're methods are rather dictatorial.

For starters, separating the "smart" kids from those who "aren't so smart" doesn't necessarily allow the "smart" kids to go any faster AND they miss a very very important aspect of the development of intelligence: learning and BENEFITTING from it's context in a Real World.

[surrealAmerican]

3. I disagree with you about education.

We do need to educate high-achieving students to a better standard, but segregating them from everybody else does them a terrible disservice. Kids who are brilliant at science have much the same social needs as other children. All our schools need to be safe for all our children. It should be possible to educate bright children without removing them from the rest of society.

Cirque du So-What is absolutely right about funding basic research. That will attract the "best and brightest", as it has in the past.

edited to add:
Welcome to DU.

[francolettieri]

4. only segregated during class

They can still hang together during recess, lunch, and afterschool, Just keep them segregated during class so their education can move at the far more accerlated pace they are capable of handling.

[patrice]

5. You are wrong about this.

I taught so-called "gifted" students for 4 years. There's no reason that they can't receive the enrichment and the challenge that they can use within a normal peer group. Highly specialized "needs" could be perhaps tutored in short focused private sessions, but their comprehension of content benefits from having to appropriately relate to and problem solve with various other levels and I think you are making a mistake that I saw frequently: challenge is not necessarily quantity, but, rather, depth and articulate precision.

[francolettieri]

12. reply

I understand where your coming from on your reply. You're more educated than me on the subject and it makes sense what your seeing about gifted students benefiting from having to appropriately relate to and problem solve with students of various other levels. But not kids with learning disabilities, ADHD and other behavioral issues and all too often especially in inner-city schools, they are mixed with those kids. That has to change.

[patrice]

15. One of the biggest needs is to reform the nuts and bolts of how recognized

standards are translated into grades. There is no uniformity in grading methodologies. This is not to say that everyone should grade identically, but that rather that the principles upon which grading formulae are constructed should have some uniformity. Let us agree upon what general characteristics we'd like to see in grading formulae and consider how differences in learning styles should be address equitably, while at the same time challenging students to develop, the the extent possible, whatever learning style(s) in which they are weak.

It always used to bug me to hear, "You can't teach a "visual learner" auditorialy. You can't teach a "tactile learner" visually . . . etc. etc." As though the world would never present tasks outside of their preferred learning style.

[surrealAmerican]

7. That sounds more reasonable.

Just remember, it is important to raise well-rounded people. Intelligent children are not robots, and they will have needs outside of achievement.

Also, it is not always possible to tell at an early age which children will be brilliant scientists. Plenty of kids are "late bloomers". So we need to make sure that average students, and yes, even below average students, have the basics, so that they too might be able to excel at a later age.

[MindPilot]

8. The opportunities have to be there too.

It is certainly possible for schools to produce the next generation of engineers and researchers, but it will all be for naught if they find the real world of work will be devoted entirely to paying off their student loans.

[surrealAmerican]

9. I wish more states would offer the deal that Georgia does.

If your grades are good enough, your tuition is paid (at state universities). It would be a good start for good students.

[Johonny]

13. I disagree

there is nothing wrong with advanced placement classes in schools. Has Carl Sagan said "Not everyone makes the football team". Kids should be allowed to have advanced placement courses. I know in New York they use to until Pataki forced all the students into the classes.

[MindPilot]

6. How old are you? (Welcome to DU, BTW)

That's the way it used to be. I went through the public school system in the sixties, and there was a very strong emphasis on science. We were all destined to be astronauts and engineers.

But somewhere along the way, we lost that. Smart became geek, and dumb turned into the new cool. (personally I blame religion)

There has to be a fundamental change in our culture to make brainy sexy again. The country doesn't even have a celebrity scientist anymore. That magazine was called "Popular Science" because science was popluar.

[francolettieri]

10. 31

I am 31 years old, and I agree with your response that religious ideology and fundamentalism is screwing up our country very bad. We need to go back to being a science and reality base country. All the religious zealots should relocate to the middle east!! : )
I live in Mesa Arizona, one of the most conservative cities in the country : ( I can't even walk to the grocery store without being stopped by bikers with helmets, ties, and name tags, wanting to come over and talk to me about......

[Warren DeMontague]

11. As long as we're letting flat Earth creationists write science textbooks, we're in trouble.

I agree. Education, science, technology. More, more more.

[Johonny]

14. the biggest problem is getting the kids to chose science

over education tracks that pay better. Most people will not spend 5-7 years of graduate school and another 2-4 years post docing to get a job with a pay scale lower than they could get with an MBA or Law degree. Degrees that require much less time to get. Science takes a ton of training but doesn't pay well compared to some of the other advanced degrees that are had in less time. That's always been the main problem with disciplines that require that much training. You're asking people to delay gratification a loooooooong time.