[MUSIC PLAYING]
PROFESSOR: Well hello, students.
As we said in the first video,
the purpose of this course
is to give you an overview
of science in our lives
and the role of
science in society.
The intention is not--
I stress-- is not
to convert you to
being a scientist,
but to enable you to have a
greater understanding of how
science is done,
an understanding
of some of the more
important discoveries
and understandings
achieved through science,
have a better appreciation of
the physical and biological
world around you,
and to understand
the fundamentals of how
our bodies work, et cetera.
At the beginning of the
accompanying course level 150,
we talked about how
science is done.
That is, we talked
about measurements,
and precision and accuracy,
the scientific method,
which involves making
observations, coming up
with hypotheses about how
some phenomena might work,
designing and carrying out
tests of our hypotheses,
analyzing the
results, and modifying
our hypotheses if
necessary, and then
carry out this process
in an iterative way
until we achieve
an understanding
of the phenomenon.
And if the phenomenon is
very important in nature,
this understanding might then
be called a capital "T" Theory,
like the theory of gravity or
atomic theory or the big bang
theory.
Or, in the semester, we'll talk
about plate tectonic theory
and cell theory.
But most scientists
will carry out studies
throughout their careers and
make incremental improvements
in our understanding
of some phenomenon
without having a
capital "T" Theory
to be put on their resume.
Now advances in
scientific understanding
are closely aligned with
improvements in technology.
That is, developments
of something
new that improves our lives.
For example, improvements
in modes of transportation,
improvements in the
efficiency of the generation
of electricity, new and
better modes of communication,
new drugs or medical
procedures that
help cure diseases or
improve our health ways
to produce higher yielding
and more nutritious
crops, better ways
to protect ourselves,
whether this be weapons used
by the military or new ways
to identify criminals via DNA
fingerprinting for example.
So science and technology are
closely related with technology
often following on the heels
of some scientific discovery.
Now how are
scientific discoveries
through the research
of scientists
done throughout the ages?
In the accompanying
course we began
by talking about some
early astronomers.
Remember them?
Copernicus, Kepler,
Galileo, and others.
And how their observations
led to our understanding
that the earth revolves
around the sun.
That the earth is not the
center of the solar system,
but is one of the planets
of the solar system.
And these discoveries
then also led
to our understanding of
galaxies and the universe.
We also then talked
about Newton and others
who studied the force of gravity
and other forces in the field
of physics called
classical mechanics, which
help us understand the basics
of motion of objects, things
like momentum and velocity.
Then we talked
about scientists who
studied steam engines
and the phenomenon heat,
people like Joule and Celsius
an Lord Kelvin and James Watt.
And scientists who discovered
electromagnetism-- Maxwell
and Faraday and Volta, and yes,
even our own Benjamin Franklin.
The point is that science that
was done prior to about 1900
was carried out primarily
by a few brilliant and brave
individuals.
Consider Alexander Graham Bell
who developed the telephone,
or Thomas Edison who
developed the light bulb,
or the Wright brothers who
developed motorized flight.
But each of these individuals
had limited sponsorship
especially very limited, if any,
from the federal government.
Mostly they were doing their
research on the own dime
and on their own time.
True discoverers.
But then World War II
happened and things
changed dramatically.
During World War II, both in
the United States and England
and Canada and other countries,
scientists and engineers
became much more important
in the development
of the tools of war--
including the atomic bomb.
The Manhattan Project
in the United States
and what was called
the Tube Alloy Project
in England and Canada
led to our understanding
of nuclear fission
reactions, unlocking
the secrets of the atom, and
to the ultimate development
of the most powerful weapon--
the atomic bomb, which
then was used by the US to
hasten the end of World War II.
Following World War II, science
then was very highly regarded
in the United States.
This led to the creation of
such federally funded agencies
as the National Science
Foundation, NSF, DARPA,
the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, NASA,
the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration,
the National
Institutes of Health,
NIH, the Centers for
Disease Control or CDC,
the Environmental Protection
Agency, et cetera.
We also saw the beginning
of the great partnership
between the federal government
and research laboratories
at universities.
Presidents from Truman on
have had a science adviser,
though Nixon fired his
and then Congress then
established the Office
of Science and Technology
in 1976 to reestablish
a science adviser.
Vannevar Bush,
shown in this slide,
was the first science
director under FDR and Truman.
And he was very
influential in influencing
the federal government to invest
in science and engineering
through these agencies,
particularly the National
Science Foundation.
You'll notice that many
of these federal agencies
were created between
about 1950 and 1970.
And I just give
the dates of these
because I think it's kind
of interesting that it's
hard to imagine that we would
have the political agreement
in Congress to form
some of these agencies
at this point in time.
But during this
period of time, there
was a consensus that we
need to invest federal funds
in these agencies that
supported developments
in science and technology.
And then Sputnik happened.
This Russian satellite
that orbited the earth
in 1957, which then
shocked and surprised
the leaders in the
United States and led
us to invest even further
through the creation of NASA
and DARPA and also the
National Defense Education Act.
And to then set a goal
which ultimately led
to landing a man on the moon.
And this shows, for
those of you who have not
seen-- if there's
anyone who has not
seen-- the photos of
the Neil Armstrong
first stepping on the moon. "One
small step for man, one giant
leap for mankind." and
it was interesting,
Neil Armstrong at
the time, he also
was going to say he was probably
the only person in the United
States that was not watching
television at that point.
So during this
period of time, there
was a great investment
of federal resources
in science and technology.
And science and engineering
was held in very high regard.
Here's a quote from CP Snow, a
British scientist and novelist,
who stated in an article in
something called the American
Association for Advancement
in the Sciences in 1960.
That "Scientists are the most
important occupational group
in the world today.
What they do is of
passionate concern
to the whole human society."
So this is like in 1960 that
scientists and engineers
were considered the most
important occupational group.
Also during this
time, science was
popularized through magazines.
You've probably heard of
Scientific American, which
is one of the oldest,
if not the oldest,
continuously published monthly
magazine in the United States.
And also Popular
Science and Discover.
These enjoyed very
large circulations
in the 1960s and 1970s.
And on TV a very popular
PBS series Cosmos
starring Carl Sagan, the
astronomer, cosmologist,
astrophysicist, astrobiologist,
author, and science
popularizer.
And shows like Cosmos brought
science to the masses.
Also there was Walter Cronkite's
Universe, Omni, Discovery,
and Science 80.
And more recently,
a resurrection
of the Cosmos series
has been aired
starring Neil deGrasse Tyson.
And you've probably
recognized Dr. Tyson.
So the '60s and '70s
were essentially
the zenith of science
and technology
in terms of its
influence on society.
But over time, public
support for science
has ebbed due to a combination
of regulatory pressures
by the EPA and other
federal agencies,
environmental and
consumer activism
which some people think is
going a little bit overboard,
and there has been a
politicization of science.
There have been
scares such as DDT,
Alar, thalidomide, fears over
nuclear radiation and damage
to nuclear power plants,
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl,
concern or fears about
biological weapons,
dirty weapons, depletion
of the ozone layer,
acid rain, AIDS, and more
recently the Ebola virus.
There have also been
controversies related
to advances in biomedicine,
that is research on stem cells
and cloning.
There's been a loss of
excitement over NASA's space
travels as these have
become somewhat routine.
And there have been
questions or concerns
over fracking and vaccinations
and do they call Autism.
Fact check at this
point, there is
no linkage between
vaccinations and Autism.
That's just way blown
out of proportion.
Also controversies about
genetically modified foods.
And I give as an example here
the question of red wine.
Good or bad?
An example of many
things that we
hear about where we
hear-- one side we
hear that all this
is good for us.
And then we'll hear a story
about how it's bad for us.
Red wine, good or bad?
And also as science
has developed,
it has become more
and more specialized.
And this has made
it more and more
impenetrable to
the common citizen.
As we've learned more
and more about science,
it becomes harder and harder
for the average person
to understand even at a minimal
level some of the topics.
And there has been a push back
by certain parts of society
against science.
Let's be honest.
For example, the
religious right has
pressured against teaching
evolution and the age
of the Earth in schools
and certain types
of biomedical research.
Industrial leaders, including
those in the oil and automobile
industries, have pushed back
against federal regulations
regarding pollution for example.
On the left extreme,
over-zealous environmentalists
and animal rights
activists have also
made it difficult for
scientists and have
drawn the ire of the public.
And so the average citizen is
left to wonder who do I trust?
Who do I believe?
Consider an example.
The Snail Darter versus the
Tennessee Valley Authority.
Back in 1978, a law was passed,
the Endangered Species Act.
At the same time the
Tennessee Valley Authority
was building a dam in one of
the rivers in east Tennessee.
But lo and behold, there was
a small fish just a couple
of inches along,
the Snail Darter,
found in one of these rivers.
So there was a case
brought all the way
to the Supreme Court, Tennessee
Valley Authority v. Hill, that
ruled that the
building of this dam
had to be stopped even
though it was about 90%
complete because the Snail
Darter was on the endangered
species list.
Now, to most people
in the public
this seemed a little
bit overboard.
And some confusion as to
what aspects of science
are most important, protecting
an endangered species
versus developing of
hydroelectric power.
The impasse was
eventually solved
by relocating the Snail Darter
and the dam was completed.
Yet we all like to consume
the products of science.
What we do without?
And here's a long list-- motor
powered flight, airplanes,
the Model T automobile and all
the automobiles since then,
broadcast radio,
penicillin, antibiotics,
the first electronic
computer, kidney transplants,
a high yield disease
resistant strains of grain,
polio vaccines,
heart transplants,
CT scans, the
linking of computers
to communicate with
each other, which
is the basis for the
internet, discovery
of HIV virus as a cause of
AIDS, DNA fingerprinting, Prozac
as a therapy for depression,
and just in the last 10 years,
The Human Genome
Project, hybrid cars.
How many of you
have a hybrid car?
You'll have a hybrid
car before long.
YouTube, iPhone and the iPad.
So these are some of the
things that have been products
of science and technology.
So these are some of
the products of science
and technology which we no
doubt cannot do without.
But yet over time,
the last 20-30 years,
there has been a split between
science and government.
The Snail Darter versus
the TVA is one example.
Another example
is the following.
President Reagan proposed
something called the Strategic
defense initiative
Project, which is also
called Star Wars, SDI, which
proposed that there will
be a network of satellites
orbiting the earth equipped
with x-ray lasers that will then
shoot down any missiles that
were launched towards
the United States.
A grand idea.
Now, the scientists who
examined the plan concluded
that it was essentially bunk.
Letter to the President
from the Union
of Concerned
Scientists that said
that the x-ray laser
offers no prospect of being
a useful component in a system
for ballistic missile defense.
Yet, billions of
dollars were then
invested in the Strategic
Defense Initiative.
At about the same time,
there was another conflict
between the scientific community
and the federal government.
That is, a group of
scientists wanted
to develop what's called a
Superconducting Supercollider,
that is a large racetrack,
an atom smasher,
proposed to be built in
Texas south of Dallas.
You can see the map.
They proposed to build
a large Superconducting
Supercollider of a circumference
of about 40 or 50 miles.
And about $2 billion had
already been invested
and construction was
under way and then
the Congress essentially
canceled the construction
about halfway through.
So the point is that science
and technology which had once
been so important to society
and to the federal government
now was being squeezed
out with budget cuts.
But yet, progress
was still being
made in science and
technology in other areas.
And one was the development of
the internet, where we can now
get information at a keystroke.
Now this information
is usually unfiltered.
It's not necessarily
placed in context.
It may be misinterpreted by
those who have an agenda.
There are a lot of
science blogs that
can be more about
entertainment than actual
explaining scientific concepts.
And over the years,
there have been
a group of scientists
who have attempted
to champion science and to
be science communicators.
And I show a set of these--
Stephen Hawking, Stephen Jay
Gould, one of my
favorite authors,
Richard Feynman, EO Wilson,
and of course, Carl Sagan.
And more recently we have
Bill Nye the Science Guy
and Neil deGrasse Tyson.
And I show this slide in the
upper left in black and white.
An image of Don Herbert
called Mr. Wizard
who had a TV show
between 1951 and 1965.
And I remember spending a
lot of Saturday mornings
watching Mr. Wizard.
It was either that or Popeye.
Now these individuals
have attempted
over the last several
decades to make
science more relatable
to a broader audience.
They've tried to counter
the trend of science
becoming more and more
specialized and impenetrable
to the public by making
it understandable,
explaining it in various ways.
Has this been effective?
It's hard to say of course.
The public wants to be consumers
of science and technology,
which is perfectly fine.
And the public
oftentimes sees we
scientists as being a little
bit on the nerdy side.
OK.
So even though we may be
considered a little bit nerdy,
it is the contention of
many of we scientists
that all members of
society, that is you,
can benefit by having some
fundamental understanding
of scientific principles in
order to be a better consumer
and to be a more
informed citizen.
In the next video
lesson, we will
compare the worldview
of science versus
other sectors of society.
We will now pause for
a quiz in which you
will be asked a few questions
over the material we've
covered for when you can
view the next video lesson.
See you then.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
