Raising questions about the science of evolution, he said, "leads to a certain disdain for American intelligence."

But: Let's not ignore the President's bottom line --- is science going to make me or any of my friends richer?

"the willingness to disregard or suppress scientific findings when they don't confirm to a predetermined political agenda."

Raising questions about the science of evolution, he said, "leads to a certain disdain for American intelligence."

U.S. Experts Bemoan Nation's Loss of Stature in the World of Science

By Keith B. Richburg

Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, May 29, 2008; Page A04

NEW YORK, May 28 --

Some of the nation's leading scientists, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's top science adviser, today sharply criticized the diminished role of science in the United States and the shortage of federal funding for research, even as science becomes increasingly important to combating problems such as climate change and the global food shortage.

Speaking at a science summit that opens this week's first World Science Festival, the expert panel of scientists, and audience members, agreed that the United States is losing stature because of a perceived high-level disdain for science. They cited U.S. officials and others questioning scientific evidence of climate change, the reluctance to federally fund stem cell research, and some U.S. officials casting doubt on evolution as examples that have damaged America's international standing.

"I think there's a loss of American power and prestige that came about as a result of our anti-science policies," said David Baltimore, a biologist and Nobel laureate and board chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Raising questions about the science of evolution, he said, "leads to a certain disdain for American intelligence." He added, "What we need is leadership that respects science."

The panelists also expressed concern that science funding has not been a major issue for any of the presidential candidates. "The campaign so far has given too little attention to what science means for our own economy and our status in the world," said Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate and president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Nina Fedoroff, a plant molecular biologist who is Rice's science and technology adviser, said science in the United States "has really kind of died over a quarter of a century, even as the importance of science has grown."

Although the United States has long been the recognized global leader in science, Fedoroff said, that position is now being challenged by others, specifically China, which is raising its global profile. "They're educating 10 times as many students as we are," she said. "The next generation of scientists in other countries might not speak English."

Speaking about the global food crisis that has sparked unrest in some countries, Fedoroff said that genetically modified crops are one answer to shortages. But she said that "persistent misperceptions," particularly in Europe, about genetically modified foods has led to their underuse and even their prohibition as food aid in needy countries.

She and the other panelists said one impediment to wider use of genetically modified crops is suspicion of American motives. "We're in a delicate position," she said. "If we push biotech too much, it looks like . . . we're trying to protect our own economic interests."

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg opened today's science summit echoing many of the same themes. Bloomberg bemoaned a tendency toward "political science," which he called "the willingness to disregard or suppress scientific findings when they don't confirm to a predetermined political agenda."

Who was the last man to know everything?

Who was the last man to know everything? I wanted to know for a rant I was writing this morning for my radio and tv shows. As I recall, it was a German philosopher, so I Googled to refresh my memory. I turned up this blog posted by Dennis Mangan and pass it along to you. I don't see that philospher's name in there. Was it Kant? Locke? I can't remember. I suppose it is a matter of opinion.

posted on a blog by Dennis Mangan

The Last Man To Know Everything Who was the Last Man To Know Everything? The first time I heard this expression was from a college physics professor, who nominated the English physicist, physician, and Egyptologist Thomas Young (1773-1829). Young made important contributions to the wave theory of light, described the structure of the eye, and helped to decipher the Rosetta Stone, among many other accomplishments. But it is clear that as astounding as Young's breadth of knowledge was, it was limited to broadly scientific subjects. What does it mean to know everything? The idea behind it assumes that at some point in history, human knowledge became so broad that no one person could hope to be an expert in more than a few areas. But when did this happen? In the thirteenth century someone like St. Thomas Aquinas could probably know most of what might be called "elite" knowledge, though plenty of "folk" knowledge, such as that of farming or artisanship or folk culture would have been unknown to him. To "know everything" would seem to exclude folk knowledge; there are just too many different cultures, even within the Western tradition, for anyone to have a good grasp of it. Geoffrey Parker, in his book Europe in Crisis, 1598-1648 writes: "It has been suggested that the last scholar to be acquainted with the whole body of knowledge current in the Europe of his day was Joseph Scaliger, a French luminary of Italian extraction who died in 1609. The scientific discoveries and the general cultural advance of the seventeenth century made it impossible for a single man to keep abreast of all learning after Scaliger's death. Few people tried." Scaliger (1540-1609) was a classical scholar, was learned in mathematics, philosophy, linguistics, and placed the study of calendars and dating on a scientific basis. Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680) has also been suggested as a candidate for this post. Kircher was a German Jesuit priest, and an archaeologist, mathematician, biologist, physicist, vulcanologist, and Egyptologist. He was the first to posit the germ theory of disease and perfected the aeolian harp. See here. Here is a quick list of other men who have been suggested for the title of "last man who knew everything: Erasmus, Da Vinci, Emmanuel Swedenborg, Thorstein Veblen, Aristotle, Alvin Saunders Johnson (1874-1971, American social scientist), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, John Stuart Mill, John Milton, Karl Friedrich Gauss, Diderot, Thomas Jefferson, and William Whewell. Opinions on this topic differ so greatly that it is clear that the category cannot be very meaningful, but is more on the order of a parlor game. My nominee: Archimedes. Suggestions from readers are welcome.

posted by Dennis Mangan @ 7:31 AM