Change in our System of Public Education

I've often heard repeated the following comparison to describe the inertia of our public education system and its resistance to change. And it's probably even true. It's said that business has changed so much in the past 50 years, that if were possible to transplant a business executive, a secretary (what's that?) or an engineer from 1961 to 2011, they would not be productive in a modern corporation or small business for many, many months, if ever. And yet, it is also said, a teacher from 1861 would probably do just fine in a modern classroom.

The Challenge of Science and Civic Engagement

Many of the most complex and serious issues facing society today have significant technical and scientific dimensions: how to manage climate change, public health, loss of biodiversity, and dwindling natural resources, to name a few. These are not just technical or scientific issues, however. These are fundamentally social, political and economic problems with substantial ethical, moral and cultural dimensions.  Answers to these challenges require judgment, values and priorities in addition to empirical observation, experimental evidence, quantitative models and methods.

But no matter how you look at it, despite their utility in policy-making, the "hard sciences" are not always applied.  But why?  Although this is complicated and, for sure, there are many other factors, it's pretty safe to simply observe that, at the moment, scientists and their work are somewhat isolated from popular culture and the domain of policy decision-making.

Warning or Alarm

The debate over global warming is a perfect example of how the integrity of scientific evidence and the credibility of science itself has been compromised in a highly divisive and partisan debate over policy.  The most visible proponents of each side present themselves as experts, present their own facts and ignore or undermine the facts of their adversaries.  Common ground based on accepted scientific evidence and practices disappears along with deliberative, public dialog.  Positions harden.  Real uncertainty and risk remain but disappear from view.  Subtleties are lost.  The public struggles to follow the debate and is mystified, confused.

Small Groups Needed to Solve Problems in Science and Society

Margaret Mead once said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

But where are these small groups of thoughtful, committed citizens confronting the really large problems facing science and society in the 21st Century: climate change, loss of biodiversity, diminished natural resources and the challenges of sustainable development in a shrinking, hungry planet, to name a few?

Although such small groups are constantly forming around us, and many of them are fully engaged on parts of the puzzle, somehow, with respect to these systemic problems as a whole, they fail to coalesce, gain traction and drive change.  Why?

Linnaeus Was a Scientist, not an Activist

On November 18, 2006, Nell Boyce filed a story on the origins of the name ‘mammal’ on NPR. She suggested that Linnaeus may have picked the name to promote or encourage breast-feeding and that although “there were other scientists trying to promote alternative terms”, somehow the male-dominated society of Science adopted the Linnaean term not to further the systematic study, organization and naming of life, but instead to keep women at home, to prevent them from working and voting, repressing women of the 18th Century.

What is a Mammal?

I just heard a piece by Nell Boyce on NPR.  It was great radio and mostly good science. But it wasn’t very good History.  I definitely learned more about mammals.  I was intrigued with the story of the word itself, so interested, in fact, that I listened to the story several times and conducted my own research.  But ultimately, I learned more about how the preeminent naturalist of the 17th Century fails to measure up to 21st Century standards of political correctness than I learned about what science was really like back then or what it is like today.  And in so doing, it probably deceives the reader about what the process of Science is really like more than it enlightens.

Science Communications Services Useful but Not Enough

The two clearinghouses for science news – EurekAlert! in North America and AlphaGalileo in Europe – provide a useful service to the news establishment, science publishers and scientific research institutions. However, adding no additional context to the underlying journal articles they cover, they do little to enhance the quality of the news they report or address the real gap in the public’s understanding of science.

Welcome to 'How Do We Know?'

Hello.  My name is Steve Quatrano.  Welcome to one of my personal websites.  It is an experiment serving several purposes at the same time.  The objectives of this site called "How Do We Know?" include:

1. Exploring the History and Philosophy of Science;
2. Understanding the relationship between Science and Society;
3. Investigating the proposition that stories about scientists, the History and Philosophy of Science can help non-scientists understand Science better;
4. Searching for large problems involving conflict, complex systems and several disciplines at the intersection of Science and Society;
5. Discovering individuals and organizations who are working on these kinds of problems with related strategies;
6. Engaging a community of both scientists and non-scientists in a public conversation on these subjects;
7. Learning I might be able to help, leveraging my own experience as an entrepreneur, management consultant, software engineer and teacher;
8. Documenting my experiences.

Mello and Fire Win the Nobel: But How Do They Know?

Craig Mello and Andrew Fire were awarded the Nobel Prize for their work in Biology on October 3rd, 2006. At first glance, the coverage seemed wonderful.  But as I thought about it in more depth, it seemed symptomatic of the divide between Science and Society on so many levels.