Appelquist replies: I am sympathetic to the concerns that V. Raman and J. Martinez have expressed. However, I first want to take issue with Raman’s claim that the recommendations of the National Research Council Physics Overview consisted of “generalities and platitudes.” In fact, the report identified six particular areas of great physics potential and made several specific recommendations. For example, our principal recommendation—that the level of federal funding relative to the GDP be returned to that of the early 1980s—is quite specific and based on extensive research and detailed arguments. This recommendation and the arguments that supported it are very much in accord with the current move in Congress to generally increase support for the physical sciences. Our recommendations on physics education focused largely on the undergraduate curriculum, but also stressed that general scientific literacy is crucial.
Both Raman and Martinez discuss scientific literacy and emphasize that much of the burden for it must be borne by the physics community. I strongly agree. The NRC committee has done some work in that area. In June 2001, the committee organized a press conference that was attended by both science and general reporters and, in July 2001, held a small symposium on Capitol Hill for members of Congress and their staff members. During the work on the Physics Overview, several committee members spoke often to both scientific and general audiences throughout the country.
Such outreach work must be an ongoing process. The American Physical Society already plays a leading role in this effort, and has many resources available. University departments, too, should do more to provide scientific outreach in their local areas. The health of the physics enterprise and the well-being of an increasingly technological society depend critically on the understanding and support of science by the general public.
