sci.research.careers

ARS started an interesting thread on Dave's forum which, given my
downward income curve, I can totally relate to. Basically his point
is that scientists are not paid particularly well, especially given
years of study and mastery of subjects that baffle most people
and give 90% of the rest headaches if they try to understand it.
Of course, even though economics is largely, IMO, a voodoo
subject, there is some underlying validity to the idea of supply and
demand. There has been a lot of discussion of the oversupply of
scientists, but I think the demand side is also suffering.

I've been wondering about the apparent decline of the place of
science and rationality in general in the public perception. It is
real? I think so, and on that premise I ask why? I put forth the
hypothesis that it is due to the lowering of the signal of science
discussion compared to the noise of everything else. It isn't
that science has ceased to make incredible discoveries, but
these are less and less directly perceptible to the average
person. Mapping the human genome or building a nano structure
out of carbon nanotubes are less perceptible than a rocket to the
moon, an atomic bomb, radio, the electric light, the steam engine,
etc. Meanwhile, more and more mass media fills the attention
span of people with what Paris Hilton is doing, which is often very
perceptible. Granted a lot of people don't seem to be fighting the
idea that they want to know what Paris is doing, but reading old
literature suggests that there was a time when a significant
number of "ordinary" people clamored for new science and
technology because they could directly benefit fom it, interact
with it, even be awed by it. I think lack of perceptibiliy leads to
lack of interest leads to lack of broader public support.

The floor is open for discussion...

Cheers,
Russell