Sometimes it seems like Utah state legislators are in a competition to see who can pass the stupidest bill. Chris Herrod, R-Provo, recently threw his hat into the ring with a call to eliminate tenure for Utah professors.
There's a reason professors get tenure. Academics need to be free to pursue their research without fear of being fired for political reasons. In a state whose legislature frequently passes bills to make political statements on scientific issues, such as formally questioning global warming, this is absolutely essential for unbiased research to be carried out.
The optimist in me thinks this bill will find little support. Should it pass, it is going to be a huge blow to Utah higher education. Current tenured and tenure-track professors would not be affected, but Utah's two research institutions, University of Utah and Utah State University, would have a tough time recruiting new talent. Why would a professor choose a non-tenure track position in Utah when there are 49 states that are willing to offer tenure?
The bill is Utah House Bill 485, and its status can be tracked here.
2/24/11 update: the bill officially died in committee, though it was not without support; the House Education committee vote was 9-3 against, with 3 abstaining.
Herrod: "I don't understand the controversy."
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Science's Worst Nightmare
Science's worst nightmare: being regulated by Joe Citizen.
Watch this video by Republican House whip Eric Cantor, and tell me if you're as terrified for the future of science in America as I am.
Cantor is on a personal mission to eliminate "wasteful spending" in government. To that end, he's encouraging "citizen review" of government agencies - starting with the NSF. Specifically, funded research projects that Cantor doesn't agree are useful. Cantor names the "hard sciences" as a worthy recipient of funding - according to him, this means physics, chemistry, and medicine - only fields in which a Nobel prize could be earned. I guess everything from ecology to psychology, sociology, linguistics... are just wasteful spending. He also encourages vigilant citizens to turn in individual award numbers of awards he feels are wasteful, as if he's building a case against the NSF.
The reason this worries me is, frankly, that the American public shows itself time and time again to be, on average, quite stupid and ignorant. There's a reason that NSF panels of actual scientists decide on the merit of awards, not Joe Citizen. When you consider the fact that 50% of Americans don't believe in evolution or the big bang, 20% (one in five) don't believe that the earth orbits the sun, and 10% don't believe in continental drift (source), this is probably not the place for the unschooled masses to dictate policy. Your average citizen is not in a position to judge science based on its merits.
Can you just see it? "This research is about some kind of fish or something! What do I care about fish? This is a waste of my tax money!" Glenn Beck then picks up the fish research story - what an absurd example of government waste! Downvoted.
I think Biology, because of the political nature it has somehow acquired, is in serious jeopardy because of proposals like this. I also wonder where Cantor thinks Computer Science falls on the usefulness scale. In the video, he specifically derides a project involving the development of a computer program, and the way he says those words doesn't give me a lot of hope on that front either.
Coincidentally, I made a comment about this a month ago in regard to a vote taken about whether or not the public wanted a county library system in Cache County, Utah -
Watch this video by Republican House whip Eric Cantor, and tell me if you're as terrified for the future of science in America as I am.
Cantor is on a personal mission to eliminate "wasteful spending" in government. To that end, he's encouraging "citizen review" of government agencies - starting with the NSF. Specifically, funded research projects that Cantor doesn't agree are useful. Cantor names the "hard sciences" as a worthy recipient of funding - according to him, this means physics, chemistry, and medicine - only fields in which a Nobel prize could be earned. I guess everything from ecology to psychology, sociology, linguistics... are just wasteful spending. He also encourages vigilant citizens to turn in individual award numbers of awards he feels are wasteful, as if he's building a case against the NSF.
The reason this worries me is, frankly, that the American public shows itself time and time again to be, on average, quite stupid and ignorant. There's a reason that NSF panels of actual scientists decide on the merit of awards, not Joe Citizen. When you consider the fact that 50% of Americans don't believe in evolution or the big bang, 20% (one in five) don't believe that the earth orbits the sun, and 10% don't believe in continental drift (source), this is probably not the place for the unschooled masses to dictate policy. Your average citizen is not in a position to judge science based on its merits.
Can you just see it? "This research is about some kind of fish or something! What do I care about fish? This is a waste of my tax money!" Glenn Beck then picks up the fish research story - what an absurd example of government waste! Downvoted.
I think Biology, because of the political nature it has somehow acquired, is in serious jeopardy because of proposals like this. I also wonder where Cantor thinks Computer Science falls on the usefulness scale. In the video, he specifically derides a project involving the development of a computer program, and the way he says those words doesn't give me a lot of hope on that front either.
Coincidentally, I made a comment about this a month ago in regard to a vote taken about whether or not the public wanted a county library system in Cache County, Utah -
In a republic, the idea stands on its own merits, not based on what people think of it, and I'm very glad for that - I shudder to think what would happen if the general public voted every publicly funded project up or down. If the political situation in Utah is any indicator of the rest of the country, I'm sure research in "liberal" fields such as ecology would be one of the first things to go.Looks like I spoke too soon. It might be time to start looking at grad programs at Cambridge...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)