America needs a "Million Nerd March" on Washington.

John Kerry is now a victim of an old prejudice that no civil rights organization has ever been willing to address. Kerry was totally unaware of this old prejudice when he arrived at Kennedy Space Center last Monday for a town hall meeting at Kennedy Space Center on Florida’s Space Coast. He got a rude awakening in the wake of that visit.

The image of Presidential candidate Kerry crawling through the Space Shuttle hatch in a NASA clean suit or “bunny suit” has been received with wild laughter by television commentators and some newspapers across the nation. That picture was splattered across many a tabloid front page in juxtaposition with an old image of actor-director Woody Allen wearing a similar suit from one of his old comedy satire films.

I think the real geeks here are the reporters and pundits who associate everything technical or scientific with comical nerdiness. A lot of folks who don't possess a clear grasp of science or technology have a disturbing tendency to ridicule others who work in those areas. When some reporters and editors saw Kerry wearing the uniform of a clean-area worker, they gleefully seized the opportunity to attack Kerry as a geek or nerd. A similarly unfair, but less pervasive response to President Bush wearing a flight suit came when he hopped out of the plane on that aircraft carrier last year. We just aren't used to seeing these drab politicians in the specialty garb of certain professions.

John Kerry is a longtime opponent of the exploration of space exploration by astronauts and onboard scientists. His Senate voting record reflects his desire to reduce America’s human space exploration effort. Regardless of his record, NASA had nothing but good intentions in mind for Senator Kerry during his visit. One of the best ways to win over an opponent to space exploration is to keep the dialog going and inviting that opponent to taste a bit of the experience.

Too many of our fellow human beings go through daily life without ever looking up or forward. Politicians tend to be highly tuned into their immediate surroundings and happenings. An effective space exploration advocate needs to understand how narrow the world of politics is. It is very important to invite people like John Kerry inside places like KSC and to give them an opportunity to both see and share the space vision through real experiences and not just lofty words about the high frontier.

I am appalled by the journalistic response to these images of Kerry. Space exploration advocacy today is not received much better than it was in the 1920s when American rocket pioneer Robert Goddard was ridiculed as the "Moon Man" by the New York Times. Legendary talk show host Johnny Carson got a lot of mileage out of mimicry of the late space scientist and commentator Carl Sagan.

Hollywood is particularly cruel toward scientists and people in lab coats. Scientists and engineers are stereotyped no less than the Mexicans and Black Americans were in old movies and television programs. Movies like THE RIGHT STUFF and MARS ATTACKS! both took deadly aim at "rocket scientists."

There is no National Association for the Advancement of Scientists and Engineers to speak up for the targets of derision and ridicule. Thankfully, the real damage done to the cause of truth and science by these stereotypes may not really be that bad. Opinion polls indicate that the majority of Americans support a robust space program. Many in the general public, including scientists and technologists, also get a kick out of most of these comic stereotypes. The major downside of creating the geek stereotype is that it may discourage some of our brightest and most creative students to avoid studies and careers in science when they see how people of science are portrayed in the news and entertainment productions.

Ultimately, the Kerry photos are fair game for the press and comedians. The "Town Hall" meeting part of the KSC visit was a typically contrived campaign event. I hope that Kerry will return to KSC one day and insist on meeting with the real KSC people--the technicians, the firemen, the welders, the midlevel managers and the working engineers. I would also like to know if there was a single Republican or Green Party supporter allowed to join the "audience."

Bravo, Jim.

The image of Presidential candidate Kerry crawling through the Space Shuttle hatch in a NASA clean suit or “bunny suit” has been received with wild laughter by television commentators and some newspapers across the nation.

And by snide "Dukakis moment" glee from Rand Simberg.

Rand, Thanks for the encouragement. It is nice to be back on Transterrestrial after a long lull. We have been through some challenging times here for a while and some tough times are still ahead.

I have been keeping up with the postings but I have not had enough time to log-in and offer any of my amateur observations. - Jim

What "snide" "glee"?

I simply pointed it out. I expressed no emotion about it, gleeful or otherwise (other than the fact that many of the captions were pretty damned funny).

The media itself may be a bit out of touch. This is just one incident but...

The other day my wife had a lunch time conversation with several female coworkers, all mothers. They all agreed that the mantra when they were young was "Don't let me be a geek! Don't let me be a geek!", but now it's "Let my kids be geeks! Let my kids be geeks!"

They all agreed that the mantra when they were young was "Don't let me be a geek! Don't let me be a geek!", but now it's "Let my kids be geeks! Let my kids be geeks!"

But this is parents' mantra - and an entirely rational one, when one takes the kids' long-term prospects into account. What is the mantra of the kids themselves?

"But this is parents' mantra - and an entirely rational one, when one takes the kids' long-term prospects into account. What is the mantra of the kids themselves?"

"Our parents are dorks."

Ilya wisely poined out that, "But this is parents' mantra - and an entirely rational one, when one takes the kids' long-term prospects into account."

Jim responds: Nice shot, Ilya! That is precisely the point. Kids, particularly teenagers, are extremely self-conscious, sensitive and image aware. The character portrayals in current science-fiction productions cannot match the magnetic qualities of the contemporary lifestyles of hedonistic lawyers, doctors, politicians, rock stars, and rich people that are found in the prime-time TV lineup. LA LAW and other shows of that sort are great recruiting tools for non-science/engineering professions.

Even "real science" TV fare does some damage to the image of science workers. I appreciate the good intentions of a guy like Bill Nye, but face the facts---> Bill Nye gleefully plays up the classic science nerd stereotype.

We need some attractive and "cool" people to start selling science to the kids who spend too much time watching TV. We do not need yet another STAR TREK style nerd nirvanna on the airwaves. We also don't need more of the sort of the pseudoscience as presented on series such as the X-FILES.

Science can be portrayed as a challenging frontier that is every bit as appealing as the frontier of the old west. The short-lived THE CAPE series that was produced by Mary Tyler Moore Productions in 1996 came very close to making astronauts "cool". It is a shame that the acquisition of MTM halted the production of that show. The "ascan" characters in THE CAPE were just emerging from the typical first season stiffness when Corben Bernsen and THE CAPEcrew were sent packing.

For the curious. Here is the link to info about THE CAPE program.

http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/ShowMainServlet/showid-1343/The_Cape/

Jim - you hit that one out of the park.

btw, the people at the event were vetted beforehand, as is typical of these sorts of events. None of the candidates is willing to take chances this close to the convention.

Problem is when a movie tries to put science out there and try to make it cool reality always sufferes terribly at the hands of ignorant writers and directors who strive to make the sexy storyline. For example just watch the movie Mission to Mars. I think they would have been just fine leaving it as a movie about the possibilities of space travel technology and the wonders of visiting another planet which could have provided all the drama one needs in a movie script. But NOOOOO!! We need ancient aliens on Mars that are responsible for life on Earth and have been hanging out this whole time waiting for us to show up. And, Gary Sinise doesn't have time to simply put his helmet on, he needs to risk his life to flip that switch way over on the other side of the space ship. Jeez just thinking about that movie is giving me a headache.

Seeing as I work for a semi conductor manufacturer I talk to people all day long in the Fab areas wearing the smocks. I can tell you that most of those people are probably some of the most non-geek types of people you can find. The geeks are the development guys sitting in there offices.

You know, a semi-comic drama mini-series based on the life of the late Wally Cox just might work.

Wasn't "Mr. Peepers" a science teacher?

Some real science could be introduced by stealth.

Rich

I tried to make science cool but they wouldn't make another film.

The crime shows focused on the forensics aren't so bad. Well, ok, they're _bad_, but there's a fair number of technicians who aren't following the stereotype.

(I don't think they're really considered scientists or engineers either though.)

Some of the cable channels are making their own shows that show engineers in a better light at least. Modern Marvels, or Junkyard Wars.... I think even PBS had a 'reality' show about dropping scientists on an island somewhere with a task of some sort (put on a fireworks display, make a radio) where they had to gather the raw materials first.

Not sure there is a clear understanding of economics in these comments. Think this through: if there were an inadequate supply of scientists in this country, then the wages of scientists would be high relative to occupations with similar educational and intelligence pre-requisites. That's not the case, is it? Wages for scientists are typically significantly lower than similar occupations, which tells you that there is, in fact, an oversupply of them. God forbid more young people were enticed to enter the field, this would only push the wages still lower and reduce further the social status of the profession (the form of wage about which you are talking when you talk about, say, media image).

That is, these comments are all the social equivalent of 18th century mercantilism.

If you think the country needs more and better scientific thinking, you need the equivalent of a modern monetarist policy that boosts demand for good science. When good science is demanded, people will strive to be good scientists, that's the way the labor market works, simple as that.

What would that be? Not sure, but by analogy with interest rates we could argue that there would be greater demand for good science if it were more fungible. For example, if there were a way for a small firm to buy just a little bit of decent science when they needed it. As it is, you have to be a pretty big firm before you can afford to hire a scientist and associated support structure. But there are almost certainly a lot of small firms that could use just dabs of good science, here and there, from time to time. If it were easier for them to buy science "a la carte" this would unquestionably boost demand for the product.

In principle the increasing ability of scientists to work a la carte and remotely, via the 'net, is a possible route in this direction. If you wanted to propose social policy that would enhance this development, it might be things like national-level certificates of technical competence (so small firms can vet professionals they don't know cheaply), seed money for enabling high-bandwidth 'net technologies, and national policies decreasing our reliance on employer-paid healthcare benefits (which make it very hard to earn your keep with several part-time gigs instead of one full-time job).

All these things could have a real impact on the market demand for science, and hence on the demand for good scientists, and hence on the fraction of our national economic activity which is informed by professional-level science.

More TV shows from Hollywood in which Dr. Four Eyes gets the girl are, by contrast, the kind of cosmetic fluffy nonsolution that your average populist fool running for the Senate would pander on a 30-second TV spot.

Rotgut, I agree with you that many businesses could benefit if scientific expertise was readily available to companies large and small.

Your point about the "invisible hand" of the market is definitely pertinent. The problem, however, with limiting the focus to supply-demand is to ignore some other facets of the larger challenge of encouraging students to enroll in science classes.

The supply-demand equation does appear to apply in all careers. For example, we have far too large of a supply lawyers in this state, and it is hard to think of a single one who deserves what he earns for exploiting the misery of fellow citizens. (Tongue firmly in cheek) Seriously, the various sectors of the medical profession understand the supply-demand equation and they effectively control the supply side through various mechanisms for restricting inputs to schools. In other words, medical and dental schools, create an artificially determined supply. I can assure you that a lot of well-qualified students fail to make it through the medical school selection process.

The medical professions also carefully protect the supply side by severely and sometimes unjustly, it is claimed, restricting the inflow of medical doctors trained in other nations. These carefully designed supply controls are not as fully applied in the USA PhD science and engineering fields. The influx of Indians, Chinese and other "internationals" does indeed cause a surplus of research scientists in this country. Perhaps the scientific profession will act in self-interest and establish some medical profession-type mechanisms in order to raise compensation levels.

Personally, I think that the current situation may have long-term negative consequences for the United States. I am proud to have some friends who are now proud US citizens years after coming to the USA from India to work as university-based research scientists. Unfortunately, their children do not appear to be very interested in pursuing a science career of their own. I realize that the single case that I cite here cannot be used as a conclusive indicator of what is going on across the nation, but I suspect that it might be a general indicator of the "dumbing-down” of America.

Ultimately, despite what the popular media appears to portray, money is not everything and having lots of it is certainly does not guarantee happiness and feelings of fulfillment. Wealthy people sometimes escape into drug abuse, alcohol, and commit crimes just like some of the very poor do. I am not sure if suicide rates are lower amongst the well-paid than the poor either.

I have worked with a lot of well-compensated scientists and have had the opportunity to pair high school students with a researched for a day or two mentoring in the "lab". I hope that we do not abandon hope of attracting students to science just because we think that all students want to become rich lawyers or doctors. We may have hell to pay if we totally abandon our children to the superficiality of a life of pursuing bling-bling. The majority of kids will probably always respond to the pursuit of big dollars, but not all will find ultimate happiness in a big home and expensive cars. We need to encourage those kids that it is OK to pursue their own kind of happiness. - Jim

Jim, I sorta get the feeling you believe in economics in the way John Kerry believes life begins at conception, that is, you subscribe to the tenets but not the sequellae.

There can't be an oversupply of lawyers if their wages are high and rising. If you want fewer lawyers, you need to figure out why people want so much lawyering done and address that. And if people don't want to go into science, it's because there isn't enough demand for doing science to make it a sufficiently rewarding career, and you'd need, again, to ask why that is.

Parenthetically let me suggest the picture also looks very different depending on what kind of science and engineering you're familiar with. In the physical sciences (e.g. physics and chemistry) the demand is soft and the supply shrinking. But in the life sciences (biology, biochem, biotech) the demand is robust and the supply growing. Bioscience programs are booming, the job market is great, and young people are jumping into the field with both feet. (Without anyone bothering to encourage them, too.)

That is, it must be borne in mind that social need for subdisciplines in science and engineering wax and wane over time, just as they do for all other occupations. No doubt the community of ostlers and stablehands felt the world was coming to an end in the early 20th century as the need for horse specialists declined rapidly with the efforts of Mr. Ford and company.

I don't agree the country or planet is dumbing down, but I agree nearly everyone comes to think so after a decade or so of adulthood. I attribute it to the fact that when you're young you think the world is smarting up (in part because you don't appreciate how smart your parents were), and then you learn different. The world is just about as smart now as it ever was, or ever will be.

I mean, try out the idea with some other species. Do you think the world community of horses or rats is getting smarter or dumber? Nah. They're at the same level, with minor fluctuations, as they have been for the last 10 million years. Same with homo sapiens. We've got better technology than the Romans, but we're not one inch smarter in how we use it, talk about it, or plan for our future with it.

Rotgut, Horses or rats? As the Great White North philosopher Joseph Walsh once said, "We're livin' a life illusion."

I appreciate your illusion and you are quite welcome to reject mine. I still feel dumber that I did 20 years ago. Especially after watching the Democrat Convention in Boston.

I sure miss the good-old 1968 Democratic convention. In '68, the Democrats wanted to implement income redistribution in order to guarantee a "minumum personal income" for every adult in the country. Pure, unadulterated socialism.

I remember sitting on the floor in front of the TV while my Archie Bunker-clone stepfather cheered the Chicago cops from his easy chair
as they clubbed yippies and hippies into yuppiedom. That was the Chicago night that random convention week events died. The whole
presentation is so phony these days.

Political conventions today remind me of those old WWII era films that portrayed the Japanese as subhuman. Conventions are just meaningless, contrived, propaganda rallies designed to sway the
typical weak-minded prime-time TV viewer and provide pep talks to clone-like straight ticket voters.

Perhaps people were smarter back in 1968. Hubert Humphrey got clobbered on Election Day. Kerry just might win this one.

- Jim

To me it is one of the few things positive I've seen in Kerry, that he was interested and curious enough to put on the bunny suit and go inside a shuttle. Has any president or nominee done this before? It does seem to stand in sharp contrast with his voting record, what I know of it.

The application of supply and demand here is flawed. It is not that we have a shortage of people to do pure science research, but that we have a shortage of people with a science education. If more of our managers, educators and decision makers had such an education it would bring a range of assorted benefits.

The Weekly World News announced a Million-Nerd March a few months ago.

Sometimes I want to move to the world-line it's written in.