Me in the Lycan Lab wearing an Archimedes Movement Shirt Photo from a recent article in the LC Chronicle.
Update: After writing this post I contacted the publicity and communications office at Lewis & Clark. They are great and offered to post a version of this argument opposite the article by Julio on the LC web page. The article went up on the front page of the College of Arts and Sciences on November 8th.
This post is a response to the article “Confronting the Science Crisis with Liberal Arts Education.” My argument will make more sense if you read this other article first.
I was taken aback by the article “Confronting the science crisis with Liberal Arts education”; I think it portrays a severely skewed conception of the “science crisis” that liberal arts education at Lewis & Clark is preparing students to confront. I am a biochemistry & molecular biology major, but it is through my (liberal arts enabled) academic work in the social sciences and humanities that I have been able to explore and come to understand something of the truly human crises that the scientists of my generation must confront. As of yet, science has been unable to produce:
- A vaccine for HIV/AIDS
- A vaccine for avian flu
- Sufficiently cost effective production and distribution systems for countless other medicines and necessary material goods that are useful primarily to the world’s poor.
- Sustainable energy alternatives to petrol.
- Lots of other things
This is the science crisis. The article duly calls attention to some of these issues, but the apparent motivation to seek solutions seems to be economic superiority rather than the alleviation of suffering. Science and technology have great potential to alleviate human suffering and should be valued as such, not as tools to perpetuate US global hegemony. Fostering global prosperity is important, but promoting the unequal distribution of scientific knowledge and technology because we know that whoever “wins this race and commands the scientific frontier will control the global economy” is less moral. Scientists should be unwilling to have their work employed for the promotion of global dominance if the nature of our dominance results in populations and entire nations being unable to meet their basic needs, protect their human rights, and live with dignity.
In my experience, science education infused with the liberal arts has been concerned with fostering “a voting public that is informed about science and that can insist on an economic infrastructure that fosters scientific research and technological advancement.” But an economic infrastructure that fosters scientific research and technological advancement should not be tasked with enabling the people of our nation to better serve the economy. Rather, we have a moral imperative to foster an economy, science, and technology that can better serve all of humanity.
Science is about and for humans, not dollars. Knowledge cannot morally be a tool of pernicious economic dominance. If the scientific community in the US finds itself on the wrong side of the constant tide of greater social inclusion and participation, no amount of increased funding for any kind of innovative education will maintain our prestige and success in science.
This article got it right when it said “Scientists trained in the tradition of the liberal arts understand the socioeconomic and political contexts of the problems being tackled and are more likely to find solutions that affirm human rights, protect the environment, and raise standards of living across the globe.” It’s important to make the distinction, however, that we should pursue human ends first rather than pursuing economic ends while also keeping human needs in mind. In my opinion, it’s not a “solution” at all if it doesn’t work towards affirming human rights, protecting the environment, or raising standards of living across the globe.
Perhaps the most important piece of context that the liberal arts can provide scientists is an understanding that scientific knowledge, technological advancement, and the scholarly and practical expertise that make them useful must not be hoarded by competing nations. They should be shared equitably so that they can serve people – of all types and nationalities – first, and serve profits, global economic dominance, and anything else later. This is my conclusion based on partial completion of a rigorous Liberal Arts education.
An important note: I would like to say on the record that I hold Dean Julio De Paula, the author of the article in question, in high regard. This post is not meant as a personal attack. Generally, I have been impressed and pleased with his contributions to our college. I also think that in recent months the Communications group at LC who published this article have made many bold, much need, and very excellent steps in refining Lewis & Clark’s public image and affirming our school’s commitment to fostering an engaged and just citizenry. My critique here deals specifically and exclusively with some of the themes of the article mentioned above.
