“Will America yield its position as the world’s leader in science and technology?” (Boston Globe) is by Eric Lander, one of MIT’s top biologists:
Finally, are we prepared to expand science and technology opportunities for all Americans? The United States has only 5 percent of the world’s population. To stay ahead, we’ll need to use all our assets. That means leveling the barriers for women in science and engineering, and closing the participation gap for underrepresented minorities.
He complains that Donald Trump doesn’t Tweet about science and technology and isn’t spending 24/7 lobbying Congress to increase funding for folks like Eric Lander. But if there are “barriers” to women and minorities in science and technology, who put them up if not guys like Professor Lander and institutions such as MIT? Isn’t he admitting that America’s science and tech institutions are sexist and racists on a continuing basis (the barriers are still in place and are yet to be leveled, according to the Globe article)? If so, why would taxpayers want to give more money to sexists and racists? Why not fund some sector of the U.S. economy that is already open to women and minorities?
Lander wants US universities to welcome more foreign students. Doing that creates barriers for American women and underrepresented minorities.
Some say that CRISPR was invented by two women. Lander wrote essay giving most of the credit to men instead.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26771483
(He may be right, I don’t know. It is just interesting to contrast his opinions.)
As my Engg Econ prof used to say, “if the govt is going to give money to try and grow the economy, why not give it to winners with a proven track record of success? Ie: the biggest richest corporations should be getting all the govt grants and funding.”
In the biology classes at the local community college, the teachers have been women with PhDs from University of California and University of British Columbia. In both cases, they gave up their research career to raise a family.
They both said that they simply loved their children more than research.
Not sure Trump-tweeting would stimulate science students as much as it does lawyers and journalists (although it keeps philg and his Facebook friends frothing).