Science Optimized?

The conclusion of my last post is that the society that optimizes science the most optimizes the prospects of humankind.

I am therefore a great fan of the USA. Christer Fuglesang is coming back to Sweden today and he said in a recent interview that "we" did not go to the moon, the Americans did. It is very important to remember. We did pay a little for his space travel though but could have participated more. Gunnar Hökmark's book Världen väntar inte discloses deficits in the will of EU to promote science and the potential risks of this mistake. Both India and China are now in space and have embraced science as important. China is already spending as much as EU on science and education. Mankind will soon double its effort in science.

One question is if there is a firm correlation between the greatest political power and the greatest science program. A good political system acts like a magnet for individuals engaged in science. Using the criteria that science is top priority, Europe ought to emulate the American system. Post Lisbon Treaty politics might be geared in this direction. Is it for example possible to excel in science without a top position in world power? Scientist personality in general is not geared towards power but the generation of funds and the important relationship to industry, which is power related, perhaps makes science dependent on power anyhow?

It would of course be interesting if other ways of political back-up of science would turn out to be better than that of the US. The American researcher writes his grants with lots of detail and has to justify most of what he does diligently whereas the European researcher can depend more on his record and writes shorter and more general grants. Are these the only two ways of funding research? China has a lot of extra cash these days. Will it be possible for them to lure researchers over to their society or will they have to create research villages with different political rules? Part of America's success in science is that people move there from all over the world.

Why would smart people from India and China move to Europe rather than to the US? People in their career get very good social benefits in the US so the welfare states does not have much more to offer in this department. My medical and dental coverage was better in Philadelphia than in Sweden when I worked at the Wistar Institute as a scientist. At that age in life I must admit, however, that I did not pay much attention to these matters. Then there is language barriers in Europe and not such a good overall program and density of scientists. There might just be salary left to use as a competitive edge. A firm use of English as second language in all EU states would be good for the future recruitment of foreign scientists. EU has also introduced a blue card immigration pathway to match the green card path in the US.

Good schools for the children of scientists can be a positive stimulus in crime free neighborhoods. Therefore the prestige of the teacher profession must be raised and Jan Björklund is working well on this here in Sweden and he recently chaired an informal meeting for EU ministers in Göteborg to discuss this matter. Its the science teacher in early years that can catch the attention of gifted students and keep them warm. There must also be a feeling in the air that a student becomes part of something greater. A quest for mankind of sorts. That is why EU, if it can replace the US, is so important for smaller countries.

America, defender of the free world. How important is this for furthering science? The political context. Freedom of thought? Team spirit versus individualism? I started up in a team spirit laboratory but I became a firm believer in the individualist approach in science. Team spirit translates to biotech company work. Is collectivism in science in Europe lowering the quality?
The post doc system in the US is probably very good. The PhD graduate leaves the group for another laboratory. For new influence and cross fertilization. In Europe people tended to hang on to their group longer with less freedom and independence as a result.

What can politicians do in science? What can they do in the arts? There has been a debate recently in the Swedish press of how the Universities should break free from the state. I believe this is very important. Especially so due to the internationalist character of science. Running the Swedish state is very different from participating in international science. Hökmark writes about growing networking of European universities in his book. There is also a debate about how to fund science. How much political steering is appropriate? That depends in my mind on how much basic science character and how much research&development character there is in the science performed. Less steering if basic science.

Why is science the most important? We need to organize ourselves on Earth. This means peace and prosperity. Then there is the question of who we ultimately are. Curing diseases. But perhaps the most important front is where we are in the universe and what we will find out there. The more we will learn the closer we will get. This year we celebrate the 200 year separation of Sweden and Finland. I would love to know how things would look 200 years from now. People got caught up in all kinds of silly things during this time but science just skyrocketed. One thing that could make things move even faster is if computers, when they reach a certain size, start to be creative like humans and produce Nobel Prize worth discoveries. Ray Kurzweil is a proponent for this hypothesis. I'm not so optimistic on this notion. We don't know yet why we get new ideas.