Saving American Science

Good luck. I burned out on this issue years ago when I thought Reagan was the worst science prez ever. But Bush is Tooter Turtle to Reagan's Mr. Wizard.

--Wasn't that "Tutor Turtle?"
M.L.

I'm goin' with "tooter."

--OK, then.
M.L.

once Bill Nye the Science Guy went off the air, it was all over for America. now we're just waiting for some other country to discover the secrets of cold fusion or whatnot, and we'll slowly fade into irrelevance.

Bill Nye, why hast thou forsaken us?

I'm not even sure where to start because I have so many thoughts on this topic. The irony, for me, is that if someone brought up Shakespeare at a party, I would be clueless. Obviously I'm familiar with Shakespeare and did read various works back in the high school days-what I mean is that I wouldn't have much interest or brainpower to contribute anything remotely meaningful to the conversation. I think that for those of us who ARE science geeks, we operate on the opposite principle. I do still see what you're saying in regards to the general public in that the reality indicates a lack of overall interest. You really think this is bizarre though? I don't.

But then, I don't know how one would expect that people will show interest in science when they're busy on a daily basis dealing with more 'immediate' issues such as family, employment (or unemployment/poverty), healthcare, debt..etc. The impact of science and technology just doesn't FEEL immediate for many people when they are struggling with other issues that resonate on a more personal level. In theory, what the Aspen Science Working Group intends to do sounds ace but in reality, I wouldn't be too surprised if Americans just switch of their televisions or take another snack break once the subject switches to science. To create a greater public interest in science and technology, I firmly believe that the issues people see as immediate and dramatically affecting their day-to-day life (i.e. food, shelter, employment, family, health) must successfully be addressed. Sure, we can all say, 'Oh but science and technology impact those immediate areas' but c'mon now-in terms of public interest, it's an indirect impact. People want to just get those immediate issues sorted without hearing about the details of which drug company developed x drug. It's more a case of 'How can I afford x drug?'

As for the U.S. lagging in science and technology-you can, in part, thank Bush for his laws around stem cells (one of the most important and potentially transforming areas for research today, in my opinion). The U.K and other areas in Europe have really bulldozed ahead on stem cell research.

Moving on to the comments about 'bright, young people with science degrees becoming investment bankers'-one of the reasons I think this happens is because the amount of work involved to REALLY get into research (PhD) still leaves scientists working obscene hours and making relatively little. Yes, the scientific field is broad in terms of job options but actually breaking into a decent paying job is not so easy. You can still do countless science-based jobs with simply a BSc but these aren't easy to obtain.

/ramble ;)

-Mina
www.weirdscience.ca

I take back my "Tooter" remark. Even Tooter had the sense to call for expert help and learn from his mistakes.

--Mind explaining what you're talking about? Thanks
M.L.

Reading some of the comments on the other posts, the best thing to do is to scrap science and just go with intelligent design. If we here in the U.S. go back to the Middle Ages, then maybe the rest of the world follows, and then we're not behind anymore. Who's with me?????

Mmm...,pretty impressive contacts...,to get science into the national conversation..., but still not clear how it can be achieved given the fact that Americans are almost proud to be ignorant. Wait, may be you, guys, need to contact celebrities? Yes, contact them and persuade to speak for science! Britney Spears and Paris Hilton alone may bring a conversation about science up to the national level, no doubt. Let them not only speak, but act too. Imagine, if Paris Hilton had been jailed not for DUI, rather for illegal stem cell research. Imagine her explaining to the hoards of reporters how this research is important for the future, why America must not give up its leadership in science, and so on and on. All teens would have immediately learnt that science, in general, and stem cells, in particular, are very, very cool.

--OK, OK. So it won't be easy.
M.L.

I think it's a great idea. I have seen our culture embrace ignorance and it terrifies me. You speak of bringing up Sakespeare and it not phasing anyone and I'm afraid I will have disagree with you. I am someone who enjoys accumulating trivia and knowledge and do not discriminate as to its source. While a chemist by trade and passion, I know Shakspeare and try to be knowedgeable in areas outside my field of expertise. As a recent college graduate (recent as in May of this year) I can assure you it's probably worse than you think. I graduated from a highly respected chemistry program from a school known for its academic rigor. And yet, if at any social gathering or function one were to make a witty comment or perspicacious observation, there was a high chance of being derided as dork/nerd/loser/etc. Even by people who by all rights were high achievers themselves! I am stunned by our culture's total rejection of even the appearance of intelligence. I have can assure you that within my current generation, there is no faster way to kill a conversation with someone that to tell them you work in the sciences. Tell someone that you're a chemist and their eyes glaze over and their brain shuts off, it's really an amazing phenomenon to witness day in and day out.

I'm not trying to sound too pessimistic or cynical because I do not see hopelessness as the current state of affairs. However, with the recent rise of evangelicalism and its accompanying dogmatism and our media (TV, not news so much) upholding morons as heroes (watch any reality TV show if you doubt this), I feel that there really needs to be a massive culture shift to heal the damage this country's intelligentsia is suffering. The recent political interia against scientific discovery, while appalling, is just the tip of the iceberg I believe. Certianly the Bush years has sparked a brain drain in our country, but he won't be president forever and the political atmosphere is already swinging back. What I think is more of an issue is the celebration of ignorance that our society has embraced. Any voice associated with the power of establishment (media, government, etc.) that pushes science and defines intelligence, rather than igorance, as a desirable trait is a good one to have speaking.

--Very thoughtful comment, thanks.
M.L.

Let me give a different point of view here. I am a fifth year Ph.D. student in the sciences so I feel somewhat qualified. All but one of my colleagues, both in this department and in others, want to get out of science (at least academic science) once we finish our degrees. Most of my friends don't even want to post-doc. Given that n here is small and that this is totally unscientific, I think this attitude is more common than not. The simple explanation (I was always a big fan of Ockham's razor) is cost vs. benefit. We see how the faculty live for science and sacrifice a lot of their lives for it, often to the detriment of family, friends, etc. We've been told, quite literally, that "science is a demanding spouse." Right. And for most of us, science isn't worth it. Mina hits the nail on the head with the comment about money. Investment bankers work just as hard as we do, but they get quite a bit more money. But it's more than the money issue. I think I speak for my friends and I when I say we're not willing to make the huge sacrifices required by a career, but most especially an academic career, in science.

Perhaps this isn't so much a matter of interest, though I agree that there IS a lack of interest in science in the US, but rather something more broad. Quite frankly a lot of people my age (I'm 25) realize that killing oneself at work is silly....life's too short. And that doesn't really fit well with having a career in this field.

--Totally reasonable nderstood. The question is whether, if science were more highly esteemed in the culture, and better rewarded financially, the cost-benefit analysis might be different.
M.L.

In response to Pat's comment--wanting to "get out of academic science" and not being interested in science are entirely different things. While I agree that the public has recently become largely anti-intellectual and uninterested in science, academics have suffered from a related bias problem--in that they're apt to not see scientists working in industrial research or any of the alternative career paths as "real scientists" (which of course, is hogwash). As there are vastly more graduate students trained than there are available faculty positions (at least in the biological sciences and chemistry, I can't speak for physics or other sciences as I have no experience there), it's a truism that nowadays many graduate students will not wish to overcompete for a small number of demanding, underpaid faculty positions and choose to employ their scientific skills elsewhere.

In fact, I'd argue that one of our biggest problems is the fact that there have traditionally been so few scientifically trained individuals outside the highly insular world of academia. Combined with the old (and still prevalent, but incorrect) sense that the "only" career path (at least, prior to the biotech revolution) for scientists is in academia...it's not surprising that fewer students choose to study the subject in college.

The former president of the National Academy, Bruce Alberts, has been campaigning on this issue for some time, and I agree with his assertion that one of the best ways to increase public interest and understanding in science is to encourage scientists to work outside academia where they will interact more with non-scientifically trained people.

"I take pleasure in the misery of others" seems to be the National motto. How else can you explain the drivel that passes for news nowadays, or better still, the reality television fad? If there was an English word for Schadenfreude we'd have it embroidered on the flag. The only reason I can think of is that it makes our lives seem better.

Why does our country celebrate ignorance? I'd guess it's when the ignorant became the majority in America. Suddenly, the intelligent minority could be dismissed as nerds. Scientists, with their fuzzy math, could no longer be trusted. "Everything I need to know I learned in Kindergarten" posters starting popping up.

At what point did intelligence become such a turn-off? Probably about the same time corporations figured out that stupid people are more susceptible to advertising than smart people. Now that advertising essentially controls the media, content is designed specifically to spoonfeed the stupid masses.

I think if we want to change the direction of science in this country, we need to change the public perception that science is some mystical, unknowable enterprise that shouldn't be trusted. I don't know how that can be accomplished, but if news outlets would ban all pieces on Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole Smith, it'd be a start. Another step would be to end the requirement that there be two sides to each story, and that each side be presented equally. As someone who has followed the evolution/creation debate for several years, it's obvious that there are not two equal sides here. While the evolution side has the support of the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists, based on hard evidence, the creation side has absolutely no hard science, or real scientists to support it. It's ridiculous to see a news program on evolution interviewing a nobel laureate on the cutting edge of scientific research followed by a creationist passing judgement on a field he has no credentials in or published no research on.

Science education needs to be improved. Science is essentially about understanding the natural world, but that doesn't really appeal to most kids. As an enterprise in problem-solving, science could appear more attractive to young minds. How to hone and nuture that is another matter. About the only thing I know about science education is that most lab classes are about 30 years out of date. Updating them would be a start.

The only other way to improve science is to provide more funding for science research. Doubling or tripling the budgets for the NIH (National Institutes of Health) and NSF (National Science Foundation) would be a start. The main reason why Ph.D. scientists are leaving academia for industry is that it's getting so hard to find funding in academia. While the hours are hard, the pay is lousy, and the intellectual rewards are few and far between, most of us love what we do and couldn't imagine doing anything else. We don't need a lot of money, but we do need some.

Sorry for the multiple tangents, but there are many deep-seeded reasons why we're in the mess we're in, and in order to understand why there's no quick fix, it's important to take a step back and see how pervasive ignorance has become in American society.

I'll note that I'm a long-suffering Ph.D student as well...long-suffering in that my research is...I work full time in business (though related to my degree) and barely have time to finish.

Plus...I'm trying to write a novel (my true passion).

However, I love science...I read Science and Nature...

Several of you mentioned this already, but I think that science seems to be more detail oriented than other topics, and progress can seem slow at times. I don't see that many people in my high school willing to carefully check long calculations carefully and many who give up before giving a science problem a proper try. And I've heard quite a few seniors happily declare "I've passed the mind-numbing AP exam, so no more science for me! Yes!" or something like that.

Perhaps some of the unwillingness to even consider science at my school is a side effect of our culture of quick gratification. I admit that some science teachers do present science as an abstract concept, but that shouldn't turn off so many.

If I seem unsophisticated, well, I'm only a high schooler who's brain's relaxing for the summer

I loved this post thanks M.L.

I remember being in my Earth Science class in Middle School and thinking wow this is what I want to do with my life. I told my parents and family that someday I was going to be a scientist. It was Fun and innocent to think that way. In High School took all the sciences that I "needed" Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and Math. I went on to get accepted into a highly regarded College, with a well respected and robust undergrad research program. I was woefully unprepared I was for College level sciences. I had no real lab experience, or experience with scientific observation, experimentation and rigor. I knew very little beyond the basics despite graduating with honors from high school and taking A.P. classes. All because science at the primary education level is so woefully underfunded, politicized, outdated, this makes it feel watered down and worst of all uninteresting. We need to focus on experimentation more in high school and we need to depoliticize sciences (especially biology) and radically update the curricula. I have unfortunately no idea how to accomplish this task but I think that you are moving in the right direction.

Btw the ScienceBlogs is cool thanks again

I just don't see this as a particularly American problem. I have friends who live in the UK and in France, and from what they tell me the citizens of those countries are just as interested in the exploits of Ms. Hilton et al. as Americans seem to be.

What I find really interesting is the attitude of, for example, the Chinese towards those who achieve in academics vs. the American (and, from what I have seen, European) attitude. I saw a piece in 'Time' about Henry Kissinger's recent visit to China, during which he was treated like some rock star. Those who are highly accomplished in other fields, science, economics, whatever, are treated the same way. Here in America we reserve such treatment for Paris Hilton (interesting since she's never really done, well, anything) and Andy Roddick (to whom I'll defer because he's gorgeous). This bias, if that's what it is, won't be changed in the short term. I'm not even sure where one would begin.

And I agree with Brandon that academic scientists have this bias against those who would prefer a non-traditional career in science, though it goes both ways. I certainly have found that to be the case in my department. There is a huge chasm between the faculty (and those who want an academic career) and those of us who have no interest in academic science. They tend to think of us as traitors of a sort, and we certainly don't understand why anyone would want a faculty position (even if they were plentiful).

I just don't see this as a particularly American problem. I have friends who live in the UK and in France, and from what they tell me the citizens of those countries are just as interested in the exploits of Ms. Hilton et al. as Americans seem to be.

What I find really interesting is the attitude of, for example, the Chinese towards those who achieve in academics vs. the American (and, from what I have seen, European) attitude. I saw a piece in 'Time' about Henry Kissinger's recent visit to China, during which he was treated like some rock star. Those who are highly accomplished in other fields, science, economics, whatever, are treated the same way. Here in America we reserve such treatment for Paris Hilton (interesting since she's never really done, well, anything) and Andy Roddick (to whom I'll defer because he's gorgeous). This bias, if that's what it is, won't be changed in the short term. I'm not even sure where one would begin.

And I agree with Brandon that academic scientists have this bias against those who would prefer a non-traditional career in science, though it goes both ways. I certainly have found that to be the case in my department. There is a huge chasm between the faculty (and those who want an academic career) and those of us who have no interest in academic science. They tend to think of us as traitors of a sort, and we certainly don't understand why anyone would want a faculty position (even if they were plentiful).

I don't know how representative my experience is, but although I originally intended to be an astronomer, learning that there were only 2000 astronomers in the US (in the early '80s when I was in college) convinced me to become a computer programmer when I graduated, instead of going for an advanced degree. Now, twenty years later and out of work for the Nth time, I wish I'd stuck to science.

it's not a totally hopeless cause, though. I think people have an innate curiosity about science. Wasn't Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of the Universe" a colossal best seller? I don't think scientists were the only ones to buy it. Most people, like me, need this crazy stuff explained to them carefully.

I think the average layman has given up on being able to understand what's going on in the rapid moving world of science, and therefore has developed a dismissive attitude towards it. if it's easier to learn how to operate an iPhone than to learn how it works, why bother?

I think the science community needs to utilize its more famous figures (right now, i think that's mostly Stephen Hawking) to reach out to the layman.

Remember, if they put their minds to it, celebrities can accomplish anything.

ML – Mark me down as one of those science degree turned investment banker individuals. I have a BS in biology and 2 Masters - 1 in psychology and 1 in forensics science, but I currently work in the insurance industry. Its unfortunate, but it does pay better than being a test tube jockey.

Matt's comments about funding reminded me of a time from my grad student days. The psych lab I was in was constantly operating on a shoe-string budget. We did do animal experiments, so we were constantly ordering animal upkeep stuff as well as standard lab supplies. The high point of our funding was the $500,000 2-year grant my professor was awarded. This meant no more TA for me and a microtome & new scope for the lab. Yeah!! At the time it was one of the largest grants for the department. Of course if we had been doing medical research like across campus we could have pulled in $2 million plus grants. They were getting money thrown at them hand over fist. While that still isn't much in terms of private R&D budgets, that's still quite a bit for a university. Not only is the funding for non-corporate science research paltry, unless you are doing the "hot topic" research, you'll never have much money to do it with.

I looked into a Ph.D after getting a BS in molecular biology and realized that the financial risk wasn't worth it. Especially since the about 5 years it would take to get a Ph.D and the 2+ years of a post-doc, could be spent working and building a successful career. Or, you could take that amount of time and become a doctor which pays far better. It comes down to scientists being underpaid for the amount of work that they do.

Science should not be a national issue. Science is for people who have a passion and enthusiasm for science. You cannot force people to be good scientists by campaigning for it. If America lacks scientists, we need to acquire them from other countries. The only problem is that America has an ego problem where America must be the greatest at everything. If another country has a scientific breakthrough, we should collaborate with that country and help the project.

"You cannot force people to be good scientists by campaigning for it."

What in the world are you talking about? Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything? Why try and twist what people say, hmm?

Don't be such a tool.

"The only problem is that America has an ego problem where America must be the greatest at everything."

This is a problem...I see nothing wrong with striving to be the best at everything that we do as Americans. The problem is sitting on our collective laurels and expecting to be the best at everything without investment.

There is a difference between striving to be the best for the SAKE of being the best, and striving to be the best with genuine care for the cause.

The former = ego.

Let me share my perspective. I'm 25, in my 4th year of medical school, going into radiology. I wanted to be a scientist for as long as I can remember, until 2002. It might sound selfish and shallow, but science is not rewarding work. We hear about big discoveries and marvel at technology, but that's not what science is like. Scientists are so focused on one piece of the pie. In medical research, for example, people might dedicate their lives to a single molecule. And that doesn't even guarantee them success. They compete for money in a cutthroat pool of other scientists, and most of their projects fail. It's stressful, the outcomes are a matter of luck, and it doesn't pay well.

Another problem is the public. Nobody wants to pay for pure research. Look at the scoffing at the manned space program and the ISS/shuttle. Bottom line -- necessity is the mother of invention. When the market needs progress, progress will occur. I don't know if a scientist special interest group can steer that ship any differently.

There is something about the word "science" that makes peoples toes curl. The problem is that Science has become known as this giant, lofty job for the super smart to do. The truth is that it is just wondering. Everybody does it. Kids are the worlds best scientists, and this is where my point resides. I co-founded a company for science outreach, and the best way to get people interested in science is to reach them while they're young. Tell them that science is something anyone can do.

You know that stage in a childhood where kids ask question after question until someone finally says "because I said so." Well, if we nurture these questions (like why is the sky blue?) then kids will ask more questions. All science is is wondering. When a child asks "why is the sky blue?" we should answer it truthfully. Tell the kid that the sky is blue because of the way the light travels through/around the air particles. This will cause them to ask more questions. Maybe something like "what kinds of particles?" or "how come its blue and not red?"

Not only are kids naturally scientists (read curious), they can be the answer to getting adults interested in science too. Kids who come home from school excited about what they learned usually tell their mom or dad, "hey! Guess what the sky is blue because the light blah blah blah..."

Everyone, whether she knows it or not, is a scientist. The novelist asks questions about human character and studies how to make it a great story. The dancer studies the body and how it moves. The artist studies color and form. The broker studies the patterns of money and human reaction to those patterns. Even my least favorite subject of politics is a science (maybe one of manipulation, but a science nonetheless).

As a scientist, I must say that this response needs plenty of further research (question asking) and study (testing my answers) before my opinions and conclusions can be taken for absolute truth. But I must say this topic is a great question!

I totally agree with Intrepyd. I was a medical student for one year and then left to do a Ph.D. Biggest, and dumbest, mistake of my life. The outcomes are, indeed, a matter of luck and most of what we do seems like voodoo anyway. At least having a Ph.D. will make it easier to become a patent lawyer. I think the biggest thing that my classmates and I are taking away from grad school is the idea that we want to be nothing like these people once we finish.

We do not want to pay for what is important.Whether it be teachers or scientists.The two are intertwined by not paying enough to draw the most motivated into teaching you do not motivate students to pursue the more difficult endeavors like science.Further complicating the problem is the image of the scientist working for little money for the good of mankind.Their kids do not go to college?Pablo Picasso loved what he did and was well compensated for it.There is nothing like more money to motivate someone to work harder and longer.For these great discoveries that scientists are making they are required to work harder and longer. Why not be compensated for it.In the long run we will not be judged by the amount of money people made we will be judged by how far we pushed the ball in science and culture.

As a researcher I can honestly say that the biggest thrill for me is to discover the driving force behind a system or mechanism. I also know that the harder it is to "crack this nut" just means that the joy at finally achieving it is greater.

Money is not my main motivater. If I have enough to pay my bills, save a little and drink a little ripple once in a while at my local speak easy I'm happy. Science alone is not dictated by money, engineering is dictated by money (i.e. efficiency). Science is dictated by the pursuit of knowledge and that so, so sweet moment of "Ah-hah"!

T.B. Picasso was well paid because he was a "rock star artist" or possibly lovably eccentric. Van Gogh could never have made it without his brother, and he still loved what he did.

Dear Ben how many Van Goghs who would not cut off their ears were dissuaded from going into the arts because of economic reasons.We must make it easier for great artists and scientists to function not depend on the insane to move us forward.

The theme of lagging U.S. innovation in science and technology has been rising as a concern for several years now. Congressman Frank Wolf provided some of the background in an editorial for the American Physical Society, “Competing in th 21st Century”. The concerns expressed by Wolf and others led to the National Summit on Competitiveness in December 2005 and to the formation of The Task Force on the Future of American Innovation. Concerns for U.S. Science, however, happen within the paradox of the U.S. as a country that has been highly successful in science and technology, but, with that success as a relatively thin veneer over a deeper thread of anti-intellectualism. This is the jump off point for:

Can we “save” science in a culture of anti-intellectualism?

--Nice blog entry yourself. Everyone: follow this link.
M.L.

The problem is that we live in a society were people are very curious (that’s good) but they want easy and fast answers (that’s bad). We need to think regarding those major questions that we may not have developed the tools, the knowledge, and the intellectual capacity to get the answers for questions such as: “ what existed before the big bang?”.
I think is asking too much for a society where 99% of the people do not know why the sky is blue?!! ….as ours grand-grandfathers did not knew that genes existed, we may be ignorant of thinks that exist but we cannot reach or understand. Have patient and leave some questions for our future generations to solve.
Cheers

The interesting links concerning anti-intellectualism are very worrisome because this type of thinking(?)can push us into tyrannical and fascist politics,which have painfully happened before in history,when ideas and critical thinking were repressed and portaryed as sacrilege,subversive or unpatriotic.

It is ironic that these insufferable demogogues and sanctimonious conservative types,(like Bill O'Reilly)who claim that colleges need to stop teaching philosophy and ideas in college; conveniently forget(or perhaps deceitfully omit) that it was the erudite visionaries of the past, who were the intellectual thinkers,the lovers of deep ideas and philosophy,who inspired and help frame our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If it was not for these people who were passionately interested in the pursuits of the higher ideals of human knowledege,governance and freedom,we might still be living in servitude to the whims of capricious kings or the irrational commands of delusional religious dogmatists.

THOMAS, sorry for not responding earlier had to enjoy my weekend as far away from a computer as possible.

Both the arts and science have been furthered the most by those we would label as "a bit off" if not insane. How could you deny the obsessive compulsive attitude of Buffon with his wood test? The many idiosyncrasies of Newton? Of Hooke? Of Galileo? The history of science is filled with colorful characters that focused their energies whole heartedly on their art, even while struggling financially. We all can be thankful for these selfless suffrages but they won't care. They were doing what they loved and were willing to make the sacrifice.

I hate it when people make excuses for people who embrace ignorance.

I find it depressing when people say that people have more important things to worry about than knowing what the hell is going on in the world. Willfull ignorance should not be condoned. Those who practice it should be shunned.

A girl once said to me, during an argument about religion, "Not everyone has the ability to think, but everyone can believe." Bleck.

Same principle.

"Not everyone has the ability to think, but everyone can make sweeping generalizations about groups they don't like."

I raised my eyebrow when I read Sonny's response. You find it ignorant if someone is more concerned about immediate healthcare and poverty issues as opposed to the newest scientific development as related via the radio/tv news?

I agree when you say it's depressing. I'd even say that your response is similarly depressing.

The onus is on -everyone- to address issues that override science for many people, whether that's through our election of politicians who accurately represent collective values or through our own personal endeavors.

I'd also wager you're a lonely man if you follow the principle of 'shunning' those who feel they have more important things to worry about than science. You've just eliminated a good chunk of the population. The science of generalizations? ;)

Yet at the same time, I appreciate that you do value science-if only it wasn't to such an extent that you dismiss those who don't share that interest.

I'm currently a student in engineering. I had to choose between chemistry and chemical engineering. I chose the engineer because I don't have to go to school for 8 years to start earning a meagar sallary. Yeah, I wouldn't have to worry about if I'd eat either way. But as an engineer, I'll be able to make around 70k annually at 22 years old with prospects of easily breaking 100k before I turn 30. And that's assuming I stay on the technical side of things.

Just saying most students when faced with the choice of 8 years of school for less money won't take it.

I definitely see your point Mina (and Levenson) and I even concede. As 'm sure you can tell, that was typed without much thought - nearly on complete impulse, born from frustration.

Thanks for holding the mirror.

People still shouldn't be so dismissive, though. I just don't understand what's wrong with people.

Intellectualism has never been a trendy or popular thing unless money is involved. The only reason that computer geeks are becoming famous is because they start companies and become billionaires overnight through an IPO or a sale to a bigger company. Money is the motivating factor behind science, not the science itself.

Most people do not want to devote a good portion of their lives to their careers because they have other interests outside of their careers. Science can be very demanding. Furthermore, science does not offer a lot of room for career advancement. Many scientists toil at their field of study but miss out on career growth. If the U.S. is serious about finding more scientists, the career opportunities and economic advancement have to be there for students once they earn their doctorates degrees.

thats true

and if I also might add "Job Security"
the only real security I'm seeing as a college student lies with the government. I know theres more but it seems like alot of companies are getting aquanted with the phrase "job cuts"

Its our religion - and the country becoming more fundamentalist. Didn't they just open a museum where Adam and Eve (very white and of modern hight) roam with the dinasours?

Sorry Americans don't believe in evolution, (hey its just a theory - yeah like gravity is just a theory). Americans don't like science when it shows up their religious beliefs. Which science does without any effort or even trying - and hey who wants to teach religous kids critical thinking skills? And it is the parents fighting the school boards to keep science out of the schools.

The reason Americans are no longer number one in science, is because of RELIGION .... the religions of Europe don't stop stem cells, or keep evolution from being taught in the schools. Or faith based sex ed being brought in...

Last time I checked in was the Texas school districted that decided what was in all elementary and high school text books, because Texas is the largest buyer, if they won't buy it, the publishers don't print it. And the rest of the country no matter how liberal, gets the dumbed down text books, remember the scandal where the Texas board wanted history books to explain that we'd helped the American Indians by civializing them and making them Christian, because they objected to being made villians in history by critizing the US treatment of Indians - these people control your kids science text books.

yeah, some fundie wackjobs are trying to rewrite the textbooks, but i think the problem is that most kids don't give a damn what's in their books, religious bias or not. the school system doesn't engage students, it teaches them how to work the system to get by with the least amount of work. we learn enough to pass the tests, then out the brain it goes. All Info Left Behind.

so is the science-lag a problem in and of itself, or merely one symptom of a broader epidemic of American academia?

Over a 45 year working career I've swung both ways: 10 years in the aerospace & defense industry, 20 years as a professor, and most recently 15 years modeling market systems for hedge funds (though I still teach a course in evolutionary modeling). My experience with the Ph.D.s in investment banking and trading is that they are as bright and aware as those in academia, the problems are no less absorbing (though less 'basic'), and the pay is a helluva lot better.

I suspect that there is a large enough mass of scientifically informed people in the country, academic and non-academic, that if more of us made a point of making science a part of our normal conversation it would have some positive effect on the cultural valuing of science. That's a long haul project, of course -- there ain't no quick fixes. But as one small example, at the volunteer fire department of which I'm a member one tries to introduce basic scientific concepts and notions of critical thinking into post-mortems of fire and squad runs, into the evaluation of protocols, and into the pre-planning of responses. Doing it in applied contexts, not merely talking about it, raises its salience. And people can do the same thing, if they're thoughtful, in a variety of everyday contexts.

I just discovered this blog - it's wonderful. After reading these many thoughtful comments, I am feeling incredibly fortunate to have lucked into a job in ecological consulting, specializing in endangered species and wetlands. Every year I do a Career Day presentation at my son's elementary school. I find that most of the kids are extremely interested in the natural world, in endangered species, in aquifer protection, in wetlands, in global warming--all of it. I get so many questions we always run out of time to answer them all. Our school has some really great science teachers, but not all elementary teachers are going to be interested in science, or very comfortable teaching it. And if you think academia is poorly paid, how about elementary education? Just a couple of the many, many pieces of this puzzle are what we put into educating and supporting our science teachers, and how our public education system manages to kill a lot of kids' natural interest in science.

Whatever the cause is, science is never going to be popular. It is mentally consuming work. Most people, although intelligent, do not have the mental capacity to become scientists. A Ph.D scientist could spend his/her entire career working on a project that has no practical benefits. It may lead to a breakthrough after the person passes away, but the scientist ends up frustrated because of the time he/she devoted without tangible results.

Why become a scientist and end up making $100,000 at the height of my career? I can get an MBA or become an MD or lawyer and make $250,000+ a year.

As climate change continues and the noticable decrease of basic resources such as water, marine life and the destruction of viable ecosystems becomes painfully more apparent to the self-absorbed,non-curious, mentally lazy masses,then even if science is not "popular" to them,they will hopefully have to turn to science for real answers.

Maybe as the masses are forced to wake up and see that our infantile magical thinking and unsustainable consumerism (a mindless race to zero)are not going to "save" us, perhaps our species will be ready to mature into responsible and rational stewards of this planet. Knowledge of science and rationality is the foundation of that maturity.

When it comes down to the very basics,we and all other life exist because of physics,chemistry and biology,not economics or religious belief.

[[The reason Americans are no longer number one in science, is because of RELIGION .... ]]

No, Miss, it's because of the crummy support for higher education under Republican administrations and the willingness of the GOP to pander to pseudoscience. Get it right. America is not MORE religious than it was in 1960 when we led the world in science. By polls it's LESS religious than then. You can't explain decreasing education by increasing religion when religion isn't increasing.

Barton, wonderfully put. Its sad when one has to play the "earmark the bill thats gonna pass" game to obtain funding. And the only way to obtain a material research earmark currently is to show how it will immediately make a profitable result.

jl, how can you call our consumerism a "mindless race to zero" when such a simple thing as recycling can be done? As long as our trash doesn't leave our little rock than we can reuse it. If we reuse it we save nearly 2/3 (on average for thermoplastics and most metals) of the energy required to originally make that part. Then sell said part for the original amount, or even slightly less to undercut the market, make disgusting amounts of money and use your massive profits to fund your favorite charities. To turn your words against you I RELIGIOUSly recycle because I see the ECONOMIC benefit from it. Of course I might not be quite right in the head because I would love to buy the mineral rights to a landfill.

M.L. I'm glad to hear you were so inspired by your meeting, and I'm enjoying all the thoughtful posts. I work in a Higher Ed Association in DC and I wanted to add something to the list of issues we need to address - undergraduate science pedagogy.

In almost all of the science disciplines, there are mandatory classes at universities that are essentially designed to 'weed out' 50% of the aspiring scientists. A very large portion of students enter college aspiring to major in science/engineering and then switch because of Thermal Dynamics or Physical Chemistry or some equally difficult course that is designed explicitly to fail people. Why does no one see this as insane? Imagine if a student struggled in an english course and was told "perhaps you are not smart enough to read or write. Try something else."

I believe scientists and disciplines are at least partially to blame for the current situation. Faculty treat teaching as if it were a terrible burden that is only endured so that they can do research. If we worked harder at keeping the undergraduate science majors we start with, we'd be well on our way to a more science literate culture.

2 Additional notes - 1) Physics folks have really started to work on this and 2) to an earlier poster...MD's are scientists.

I'm seeing a lot of interesting comments regarding encouragement (or lack thereof) in terms of students investing in science courses AND sticking with them. Without pulling the 'feminist card' here, I also want to add that the stereotypes around women in science are pretty darn atrocious and DO affect whether women will choose to study scientific areas and continue on in scientific careers. I'm only a twenty-something and thus, can't comment on how things have changed in this aspect, but I can say it's pretty horrendous right now. The one-liners I would get from guys as I trotted about in my lab coat were crude and cheeky (Are you a nurse? Can you -censored-?) or the comments one professor made, 'You won't make it in this field if you plan to have kids,' aren't exactly encouraging. I think that given the current state, more has to be invested to encourage women to pursue careers in the sciences.

MIna some of my best role models had kids and still made me earn what I do. A good techinical paper doesn't care how you look like in a lab coat, it only can show how well you put your findings/views from a problem across to your readers. And when you present your findings at a conference your peers won't care about your "lab coat qualifications" either. If you can't defend your work on your ability you will drown.

To your masogenistic lab crew I say to he11 with'em. Destroy them in your ability which is not that hard to do to the infantile of your "peers".

Mina I have to add, please if you work around hydroflouric in your lab never wear sandals. That is a HUGE pet peeve of mine.

Ben: I appreciate your comments. I have always been confident that a person -can- have a family and still be involved in research. There are many women and men I admire who have done just that. It's more of a frustration to hear that from a professor. As to the lab, I'm no longer in the lab because I work as a science writer/editor. For many reasons, I gravitated away from the lab and into the writing side of the field. :)

Sandals? Worry not-I always did go barefoot. Well, that or my stilettos, of course. I mean, 'duh.' :p

You're joking, right?

Our family has two serious scientists. It's a cut-throat business with massive competition from foreign students, few job prospects, no employment until aged 35 or so, etc, etc.

People do it because they're partly in love, partly crazy, partly naive, and partly because of sunk costs.

America's only conceivable science strategy is to encourage immigration from scientists that are unhappy elsewhere, but, ironically, that source is drying up. Scientists aren't unhappy enough in China, Russia, Hungary, etc.

We had our day in science, but all things must end. We're going to, at best, revert to the mean.

You want to bring back science and math in America bring back JFK or someone like him who has an enthusiasm for science and math.I do not have the figures in front of me but in the early sixties with Kennedy extolling the virtues of going to moon and excitiong the kids the number of students studying science and math jumped.I am sure with the moron we have now the readership of "My Pet Goat" has probably skyrocketed.He enjoyed so much he could not put it down for seven minutes knowing the United States was under attack.I digress my point was it starts at the top.

Here is a group which is acting rather then just talking:

http://www.cipce.rpi.edu/pages/about.htm

I should know, I worked with them for three years.

As one of the ones who got away - I'm a science geek in law school - I think there are really two components to the problem.

The first is the practicality point that's been made before. I won't belabor this, because frankly, it didn't really play into my decision to pursue law over bio, so I don't have much experience, other than to say that top 25 law schools have a lot of ace undergrad science majors who prefer the "demanding spouse" that starts in six figures.

The pay issue you can't fix all that easily unless you increase government grant aid or Big Pharma decides to cooperate on basic-type research that isn't immediately profitable.

But a lot of people don't make it that far. To me, the primary problem has deeper roots. At least in my experience, we make math and science unpalatable in youth, and this scares off a lot of people who would go into it.

Science and math teachers throughout school were hit or miss. You'd be amazed at how many people from my high school avoided anything requiring chemistry or calculus because of how bad or scary the teachers were - some because they were boring, some because they were ineffective (nothing quite like being taught rote methods of math without knowing how or why you're doing it)and some because they felt the need to show students their place, often all three.

The calculus professor was known for having 3.7 students thanking God for a 60% - he curved up to a C+ in a course only above average students could get to. College Calc had no problems like that. I had no problem in physics or bio, but the chemistry teacher was awful.

Good students taking those classes felt inadequate and great students avoided them to protect their GPA. harm their college chances. [While we had a couple great science teachers, sections were chosen by lottery, so you couldn't bank on getting them.]

Science also has the peculiar reputation of being inaccessible to people who don't have a substantial background before college. While more myth than reality, when I worked in College Orientation, I found it to be quite true in Computer Science, where you were expected to enter with substantial programming and calculus knowledge.

I think we can improve this if we're willing to put the investment into better science and math teachers and curricula. But it would take effort and time.

Actually its Mrs - with a Masters in Engineering. So put your snide insult back in the box it came from.

And yes it is the religion. Fewer Americans may identify themselves religious, but the few left are more fanatical, and behind the Republican grassroots efforts that started in PTA boards, and small local government offices. And the difference is like many mideastern religious types, they want to change the law of the land to legistlate morality as they understand it.

They want to control your access to birthcontrol, sex, anything else strange you do in your bedroom, how you raise your kids and yes science education. And they want it in law, and enforced by government. That is the difference, and that is what we are seeing, everytime they put stickers on a text book, or a pharmacist refuses a woman birthcontrol because of her married status. It is the religion. That is the problem.
And they hate science that disagrees with their believes about gays (its a choice vs genetics), if abortions harm women (claiming it makes them mental), evolution, role of women vs men, birthcontrol harms women.... I could go on, but everytime science challanges one of these believes they go on about, they get pissed off - and say the science is wrong, because it couldn't be right - its not God's way. And then they pass their believes into law.

Wow! Corinthia is so far out of touch with reality.

Religious zealots play a very small part into the decline of American science. Religious zealots argue about gays, abortion, birth control, and evolution from a political and moral standpoint, not a scientific one. Those people try to turn these issues into something they are not. Their influence is not very great on the whole.

American science is declining because of a growing trend of anti-intellectualism. Religious zealotry plays a small part in anti-intellectualism today. Religion was a big factor in the past, but not so much anymore.

Economic gains play a greater role in anti-intellectualism today. Research costs a great deal of money. Companies want a return on their investment. They want quick answers and profitable products to sell to the public. But science does not work at the speed of light. Much of the scientific knowledge studied in school today was formulated over centuries of hard work and frustration. Today's economy does not want to wait centuries for discoveries. They want answers fast so they can make money fast.

Corinthia, you seem scorned. I hope whatever personal struggles you are going through help you to become a better person. Anger is not the answer.

[[And they hate science that disagrees with their believes about gays (its a choice vs genetics), ]]

I'm a thorough supporter of gay rights, being bisexual in orientation myself. But the argument that it's genetic is extremely weak. We do have free will. The human evolutionary specialization is flexibility of behavior, so "my genes made me do it!" is not really an excuse.

Let me give an example. Suppose sociobiologists find that committing arson is genetic. Would we not still arrest arsonists? I trust you see the application. If homosexual sex is immoral -- I don't think it is, but I'm posing a contrary-to-fact supposition here -- then it is still immoral even if the mindset behind it is genetic.

[[if abortions harm women (claiming it makes them mental), evolution, role of women vs men, birthcontrol harms women.... I could go on, but everytime science challanges one of these believes they go on about, they get pissed off - and say the science is wrong, because it couldn't be right - its not God's way. And then they pass their believes into law. ]]

It's true that the religious right in this country has these stances, certainly. But what this doesn't prove is that religion is increasing or that this religiosity has led to the decline in American science.

You have a thesis -- increasing religion causes worse science performance. Why don't you find ways to measure both and then do a time series analysis? You might find poll numbers on church attendance and graph them against number of science graduates, for instance. Maybe you'll discover something. But your theory won't convince anybody until it has some empirical evidence to back it up.

Actually Texas just passed a bunch of anti-abortian laws - based on testamony from religous groups that it causes all kinds of illnesses in women (NPR story). They had women who'd had abortions come in an tell stories of their life is a mess and it is all because of abortions, the NPR story noted that both major medical associations have studied this scientifically and there was no evidance that abortions made women mental. Texas passed the laws anyway, and the person they interviewed (hey, your elected officials) said the science was wrong - because could not possiblely be right.

And yes that is how we pass social issue laws in this country, we do the opposite of what the sciencetific studies say, and do what the religious lobbiest want.

http://www.pbs.org/now/ - in the this weeks column - its a pod cast you can listen to it yourself.

These laws are not rare, the social issue laws, if you paid attention to your local state - you'd notice they are trying to put through dozens of these laws every year, which no one seems to notice until it affects them.

Science has little bearing on how we pass laws on social issues, and it has little issue on how we decide on school agenda's - religion plays a far bigger role in both.

Go and watch your state leg - its open to the public, they will mention god 100X more than they will mention science on any issue. They even open the sessions with a prayer. Usually you can subscribe to a service (free) that list every bill coming up before your state, or it maybe listed on the state website. True few bills become laws, but the volume would surprise you, and after reading what they propose, probably upset you. And they have little to with science, and awhole lot about pandering to the religious folks, they may be few, but they vote.

"I'm a thorough supporter of gay rights, being bisexual in orientation myself."

Now I get it, Barton.

I became interested in the proposition that increased religiosity has led to less science in the US, so I did a bit of time series analysis. I obtained a church-going time series from Adherents.com (fraction of the population in polls answering "Yes" to "Did you attend church during the previous week?"). I obtained a time series for the number of graduate degrees awarded in physics from the National Science Foundation. Data was missing for some years, but here's what I got (copy and paste into a word processing program and change to a non-proportional font like Courier New to see it in all its columnar glory):

Year Yes Phys
1966 44 995
1967 45 1248
1968 43 1338
1969 40 1349
1970 42 1544
1971 40 1625
1972 40 1505
1973 40 1458
1974 40 1206
1975 40 1169
1976 42 1087
1977 41 1030
1978 41 929
1979 40 993
1980 40 862
1981 41 906
1982 41 912
1983 41 928
1984 41 982
1985 42 980
1988 33 1172
1989 43 1161
1990 40 1265
1991 42 1286
1992 40 1403
1993 40 1399
1994 40 1548
1995 43 1479
1996 40 1485
1997 44 1401
1998 40 1378
2000 40 1204

The first thing that's obvious from the second column is that churchgoing is declining with time, not increasing. Physics grads are actually up a bit overall, but the series is highly variable and the trend isn't significant.

I then regressed the number of physics grads on the proportion of people going to church. I got:

Np = 1389 - 3.997 Ch (N = 32)

with R^2 = 0.0013 and adjusted R^2 = -0.0320 (that's "no variance accounted for whatsoever," folks). The P-value was a pathetic p = 0.84, and the 95% confidence limits for the coefficient of the churchgoing term ranged from -45.310 to +37.316 -- i.e., statistically indistinguishable from zero. So, in short, there would seem to be no connection whatever between churchgoing and the number of physics graduates, or, generalizing shamefully, from religiosity to interest or attainment in science.

God, I love Excel.

How many of those physics grads are US citizens?
My experiance of grad school - was the majority were foriegn born. That might change your spreadsheet!

Then the other issue, is what percentage of the population votes? If the percentage of actual voters identifying themselves as fundamental/evangical religious folks increases, even if they are not increasing in the general population - they have a bigger impact.

So just who do you think are Bush's core voters, who still support him? Have you heard the Republican canidates talking about social issues, they are not cattering to the center, or the right but to a group of extremist religious folks, who make up a solid and reliable voting block. The fact that they are a small minority, doesn't change the size of their impact on public policy. What matters is can you get elected without this voter block?

Corinthia, I don't think there's any evidence for my position, or lack of evidence for your position, that could change your mind. But until you come up with some evidence for your position -- evidence of increasing religiosity, or evidence of a negative effect thereof on science -- then I'm afraid I have no reason to take your position seriously. You can have the last word if you like; I don't intend to post any more on this topic.

Here are a few suggestions from a humble Canuck workin on her MSc in Chem and for a company currently commercializing the research. Just as a side note, Canada is in a similar situation as the US on the issue of popular perception of science.
Some ideas to ponder:
Start a campaign to motivate more science-related people to vote/start lobbying.

Make education funding a much larger issue. If funding was closer in scale to the war on terror you guys would be way ahead of the game. (However, war has been known to propel science and R&D)

As silly as it sounds, celebrity endorsements aren’t a bad idea! Think of all the attention CSI has given to forensics. (Although their depiction of mass spec/HPLC is a just a little inaccurate!) Video games are another approach that might be fun. Imagine doing your lab course on a Wii!haha

Also, more required courses in undergrad and grad school for writing scientific publications and commercial development of research (marketing etc.)and intellectual property issues.

I guess it comes down to influencing politics and media in the end. I liked the suggestion of getting Steven Hawking to do PR!

Cheers!

Ah so apparently the problem with American science is religious Republicans. Typical response from academics. I wish you all would come up with something more original.

Let's try something different. Part of the problem with American science is the tenure system. I realize that post-docs and then new faculty work extremely hard for five or six years in order to get tenure. But once that happens many of them become lazy. They aren't interested in attracting undergrads to science and they're not even that interested in grad students. Again, the experience that my colleagues and I have had with faculty have convinced us that a career in science is a dead end. I would suggest that we do away with the tenure system as it currently exists. Perhaps getting tenure would mean being reviewed for productivity every five or so years. It would certainly cut out a lot of the dead weight. Of course maybe then there wouldn't be many faculty members left...

--Your analysis would be more convincing if American science hadn't been the best and strongest in the world for the second half of the 20th century--with the tenure system firmly in place the whole time.
M.L.

ML:

I believe the tenure system, in its current form, has outlived its usefulness. Just because American science thrived while the tenure system was in place does not mean it is working well now. The American auto industry was doing very well with a massive pension and healthcare plan for retirees was firmly in place. I doubt you'd find many people who would argue that reform in that area is not needed.

I understand that tenure was, at one time, necessary. Not all research is "cool" and much of it is high-risk. Those who engaged in research that could be seen as unpopular should be protected against being capriciously fired. The same goes for those whose research does not lend itself to many quick results and pubs.

That having been said, my colleagues and I have had far too many experiences where tenure seems to be abused. One example would be faculty members going on a diatribe against President Bush during the middle of an allegedly academic seminar with the remark, "and I can't be fired for saying this because I'm tenured." And of course all of us have multiple examples of faculty who haven't published in 10 years or more and who seem to do nothing other than collect a check every month.

Certainly the tenure system should not be abolished. I of all people understand that research takes a long time and that not all basic research, which is very important, is going to be seen as "sexy" and worthy of being funded. And certainly we are not in a field where one receives instant gratification. Still, tenure should not mean a job for life regardless of performance. Unfortunately it seems to have become just that. Perhaps if the NIH budget were cut by 25% and funding became even more competitive faculty would step up to the plate again. One would have reviews of tenured faculty ever five or six years. Those who were not productive (and one would have to evaluate this in the context of the type of research being performed since it's easier to publish in some areas than others...it couldn't just be a number of pubs game) would be let go. Or maybe that's not the way to go. Regardless, the system is broken and it is not serving American science well.

--None of which explains why American science did so remarkably well with the tenure system in place for so long. What do you think changed? Could it be that the system's inefficiencies are a necessary part of its creativity? Could it be that companies' decisions to forego basic research to shore up short-term profits, and government's decisions to cut back on many areas of research so that policitians could (falsely) claim to be acting responsibly with the taxpayers' money could have had a teeny tiny bit to do with it too?

I think that faculty have gotten so infatuated with themselves that inefficiency has lead to laziness and a sense of entitlement. I'm sorry, but compaines have to worry about the bottom line and the government has to worry about the taxpayer's money (though the idiots haven't exhibited such concern in a while). Perhaps in the past scientists were at least as concerned with the utility of their work rather than thought for thought's sake alone. I am certainly not suggesting the latter is a bad thing. Just don't expect the taxpayers to pay for it. Perhaps the Prius-driving hippies in our dept can put the money they've allegedly saved in gas towards their pie-in-the-sky ideas rather than wasting taxpayer and other's funds.

Science in the media is not dead. KOA radio in Denver has a program "Stump the Professor" in which a physics department head from a Jesuit University talks science for 2 hours on Sunday mornings to an interested audience. Dr. Ebert is fun to listen to and incorporates current themes into his programs. The programs are podcast: Highly recommended. Incidentally, the commercials are stripped out of the podcast.
http://www.850koa.com/pages/fredebert.html

تامر حسني-برامج-1-a1-19-b2-78-71-18-21-59-60-58-61-22-42-9-a9-b9-b3-bb-77-65-53-73-56-49-5-84-ss-دردشة-شات-دردشه-دردشات-دردشه
كتابيه-دردشة كتابية-شات
كتابيدردشه صوتيه-دردشة
صوتية-صوتيه-صوتي-شات
صوتي57-63-62-67-6-b6-b7-ab-6-29-75-4-8-82-83-15-16-17-11-12-55-13-72-80-79-25-64-24-51-26-tt-برامج
جوال-مقاطع بلوتوث-مسجات-نغمات-ثيمات-العاب
جوال-تصاميم-هكر-صور-صور
انمي-صور فنانين-ماسنجر-افلام-افلام
اجنبيه-منتدى للتعارف-منتديات
ادبية-منتدى للبنات فقط-العاب-العاب
بنات-سكساناشيد-صور
سيارات-رياضة-تحميل
اهداف-محمد-سياحة
وسفر-منتديات عامة-منتديات
اسلامية-منتديات سياسيه-تعليم
لغات اجنبيه-تعليم اللغه الانجليزيةنكت-خواطر-شعر-قصص-اساطير-روايات-حكم
وامثال-ازياء-منتدى
العروس-طبخ-طب-علم
النفس-برق-موقع
اغاني-مركز تحميلمنتديات-شات-دردشة-دليل
مواقع-مسجات--ثيمات-صور بنات-صور
حب-1-2-3-4-5
6-7-8-9-10-دردشة
بنت الدلع-دردشة بنات-شات
بنات-شات الحب-دردشة
الحب-منتديات بنات-شات
الغلا-صور رومانسيه-صور
رومنسيه-صور فناين-صور
سيارات-افلام-خواطر-ازياء-صور
حلوه-روايات-كويت
25-هيفاء وهبي-بنات
السعودية-موقع عمرو خالد-ناصر
الفراعنة-نانسي عجرم-ياسر
القحطاني-شات-نغمات
نوكيا-قصص وروايات-مسجات حب-مسجات
عتاب-مسجات شوق-
مسجات مقالب-مسجات
نكت-مسجات حلوة-بلياردو-شعر
حامد زيد-ازياء اطفال-ازياء
خليجية-فساتين سهرة-فساتين
افراح-مركز تحميل صور مقاطع فيديو مركز تحميل الصور تحميل صور صور رومانسية رسائل حب موقع باربي صور عيون منتديات صور بنات تحميل الماسنجر مسجات حب مسجات ثيمات العاب للبنات فقط mobile9 برامج الماسنجر مكياج خلفيات تحميل العاب صور أنمي ترجمة نصوص صور حب