Mr. Gingrich has made some telling points.

My favorites:

Scientists need to get out more. All techies do, and to talk in terms that their neighbors understand. I wish that every single science and tech major in the country would be required to take at least two communications courses, one in persuasive writing, and one in public speaking or -- even better -- a year or more with the Toastmasters. Present company excepted, I can't even begin to tell you how ineffective many otherwise vibrant people in technical fields are when they try to explain their fields to insurance agents and English teachers. Of course, the company here is already interested, meaning that our interest in science has not been killed, which leads to...

Education of the young. Will some of you people puleeze consider writing reviews of science books written for the young? I wrote a report on developing a library core collection on space science and technology for youth and those who work with youth. Indulge me while I quote myself: "One unique problem with developing a collection on a technological subject is the problem of currency. Technological advances tend to be rapid and cumulative, thus dating a collection quite suddenly. To stay on top of this situation, the collection developer needs to consult technical sources frequently for new developments in the areas of concentration. Anyone developing a technical collection would also be wise to consult scientifically oriented periodicals for reviews of materials. While traditional library sources will review tech, the reviews are sparse compared to other areas, and often will dwell on format and indexing, sometimes missing points of inaccuracy in the body of the material itself." Need I point out that reviews of the literature intended for children and teenagers one can find in professional science and tech publications are as rare as hen's teeth? The scariest part about this, for me, is that my director takes tech things to me, because I have at least the interest to evaluate them, even knowing the depth of my understanding wouldn't impress an amoeba. HELP.

I like the interdisciplinary aspect of his approach, too, even though he apparently means "different branches of science" whereas my understanding is "different disciplines of study". Science is bedrock in our culture. It also has connections with artistic activities. The sooner all these disciplines are connected in our heads, the sooner a broader range of people will have some cognative hook with which to grasp science.

One point Mr. Gingrich could have expanded upon, but I understand why he didn't (time: this was a speech, not a treatise), is the importance of educating the adult public in scientific subjects so we may, as a democracy, be able to understand the crucial issues about which we will need to decide. It's my belief that most, though not all, of the important issues in the next 50 years will require some understanding of science to make intelligent choices. The other two alternatives are both appalling: decisions based on who can produce the splashiest, most sensationalist TV specials; or abdication of the decision-making power by the people, who, like Barbie, will conclude that science is hard, too hard to understand, to hard to work at.

There's a big difference between understanding and mastery or proficiency. I can understand the bare mechanics of heart surgery without having mastered the details. We can all be scientifically aware. I would even go so far as to say that everyone who can bake a cake from scratch can grasp basic scientific concepts. If sciences are explained in cake-like terms, we can understand well enough to support science's continued growth and to conduct a worthwhile debate on our nation's and the world's future. We can't support what we don't understand.

Regards--
Mary Anne