While reading the June 2005 issue of Physics Today I was struck by Lee Smolin’s comments, and by a brief news item on page 27, “Scientists Boycott Kansas Anti-evolution Hearings.” I recalled that about 35 years ago, when I was young and idealistic, I applied to several universities for a junior faculty position, going out of my way to point out that I planned to spend a lot of time developing my courses, and that I felt quality teaching needed increased emphasis. I quickly discovered that virtually all science department heads viewed teaching as a necessary encumbrance, and wanted someone who would focus almost solely on research with quick and sure payoffs in terms of funding.
I eventually ended up as a researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory because I reasoned that if I was going to spend my life doing research, I should not plan to make a living at a university where the necessary encumbrance of teaching would detract from department goals. What struck me was that the reasons Smolin gave for no new Einstein were related to the anti-intellectual attitudes these days, especially toward the applied sciences. Those attitudes lead to a public that is unwilling and intellectually unprepared to accept the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution. Basically, the quick dollar-payoff is what has been motivating science departments, to the exclusion of anything “risky” such as hiring the “independent and creative thinkers” Smolin mentions, or such long-term and vague payoffs as educating the next generation. Higher education in the US has “sown the wind” and it may be reaping the whirlwind.
