 |
|
 |
Home
Page
Background
& Affiliations
Guiding
Questions
Publications
Social
Causes
Research
& Teaching
Other
Activities
Current
Projects
General Views of Social Change and Public Policy
"No experiment can be more interesting than that we are now trying, and which we trust will end in establishing the fact, that [people] may be governed by reason and truth. Our first object should therefore be, to leave open ... all avenues to truth." - Thomas Jefferson
In my experience, valuable insights and solutions to problems emerge best from open debate and discussion allowing a variety of ideas and perspectives to be filtered through trial and error. This helps us to see what works best in different circumstances, and keeps many options alive, recognizing that there is usually no one best way to do things (and that circumstances change with time). So to me, the most important feature of an effective public policy and social system is the removal of physical and emotional coercion from the picture as much as possible, leaving an open playing field for ideas to interact and grow. I'm concerned about any element of our social system that makes it more difficult for people to express how they actually see things, because of physical or emotional intimidation. We each need to feel free to articulate our perspective at the moment, as nearly as we can understand it. This allows us the best chance to learn and grow and refine our understanding. It is important that people not be prevented from exploring what works best for them, as long as they don't directly harm others in the process.
Some of the organizations and related resources that encourage social growth from this sort of perspective include the following:
- Cascade Policy Institute
- Libertarian Party
- Council for Secular Humanism
- ACLU
- Institute for 21st Century Relationships
- Peter McWilliams' books
- Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom. Perhaps the most important book I've ever read. Valuable insights into the nature of social systems and how central planning can produce consequences that are just the opposite of the objectives of planners.
- Essay illustrating the problem with thinking you can control and plan everything in society
Below are a few of the causes I'm currently most concerned about and actively involved in:
Science Education
I think widespread science literacy is vitally important to the long-term health of society. By science literacy I mean a basic understanding of how science works as a way to learn about the world, and an overview of the key insights it has revealed. This understanding is important, I think, because of the impact it has on our sense of being part of a bigger system that supports our existence. Most of my professional work is in this area, mainly through 2 organizations:
De-centralized Science Funding
I think it's very important that we maintain a wide base of funding to encourage exploration of the universe. The commentary piece below is one example of the sort of system that might help encourage this process.
Funding for Basic Research: Creating Alternatives to Government Grants
Todd Duncan, Science Integration Institute and Portland State University (1999)
It is a wide-spread belief among academic scientists that federal government funding for basic science research is essential to the health of science and of our society. Without federal funding, it is assumed, basic research would not be supported at a level which maximizes its overall benefit to society. In the post World War II era, this belief has developed into a system of support for scientific research at universities in Oregon, and throughout the country, which relies heavily on federal grants to researchers. Though successful in some respects, this system sets up a specific incentive structure which may actually be harmful to the overall health of science and its service of society. Some of the problems stem from the fact that this system supports research by taking resources (in the form of taxes) from people, without persuading them directly of the importance of the research which they are supporting. Other problems result from the inefficiencies and incentives inherent in any program run through a large government bureaucracy. An in-depth discussion and analysis of the problems associated with federal funding of science, and their increasing seriousness, is given by Martino.
The challenge, given the problems with federal funding, is this: “Ultimately, of course, tax-supported research is paid for by the general public. However, the taxpayers have no choice in the matter. Obtaining voluntary research support from the general public means getting people to make a conscious choice in favor of scientific research and against whatever alternatives they have for spending or investing their money. The problem is to find ways to allow the public to become involved in supporting science.” (Martino, p. 382) There is a long and complicated history behind the assumption that people would not, if left to their own devices, support science at a level high enough to maximize society’s benefit. (References below provide further background on this history).
Whatever the potential merits of this assumption, I suggest that it has now become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Federal funding has crowded out direct funding from the public, so that it is no longer possible to tell whether people would pay for science voluntarily if given the chance. For the individual science faculty member in an Oregon university, the federal grant system is so embedded and taken for granted that it is difficult, as a practical matter, to explore alternatives. The pressure to obtain “outside” funding for one’s research is high, there is a clear infrastructure in place to pursue such funding through federal programs, and a clear reward system is in place for successfully obtaining this funding.
It’s as if a solid and highly visible “pipeline” runs from Washington D.C. to university science departments. When a scientist has an idea for a research project, by far the most convenient option is to tap into this federal pipeline for funding; the faucet is visible and within easy reach. Universities typically have extensive support structure in place to help faculty apply for federal grants: training workshops, services to notify faculty of grants related to their research interests, etc. In many cases, nothing comes out when the faucet is turned on, but at least there is a faucet there to try. By comparison, in this analogy, if a scientist wanted to pursue direct funding from the public, (s)he would have to dig the well and lay the pipeline from scratch. From a practical standpoint, that’s really no option at all.
The discussion and debate over the merits and problems with federal funding will surely continue for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, I suggest that we set up a pilot program in the Oregon state university system to at least provide a clear alternative, on a small scale. Such a program could provide valuable information on how direct public support of research might work. This information might be valuable in the debate, and could suggest avenues to ultimately phase out reliance on federal funding for research universities in Oregon and the rest of the country.
I suggest that we set up a rudimentary“pipeline” which goes directly from university researchers to the public, bypassing the government (or other granting agencies). The existence of a pipeline would obviously not guarantee that any funding would actually become available, but it would be the first step in setting up a channel to make it realistic for science faculty to begin trying out ideas. Development offices at Oregon universities could set up a database to which faculty could submit ideas for research. On the other side of the equation, individuals who are interested in supporting university research in various areas could submit their interests to the database, and be notified when research ideas come in that fall within their interests. To keep costs low for an initial trial, this could all be done electronically through a web-based system. Just as university research and development offices now help with grant writing, a small fraction of staff time in these offices could be allocated to recruiting potential donors to the database, and perhaps a science writer or someone with similar training could be employed to help researchers convey their proposals in a form that is understandable and interesting to the target audience. Then people could sign up to support a project they found interesting. In return, they would receive regular communications that put them inside the project, allowing them to participate in the development and scientific excitement of the work. For example, they would receive updates on the progress of the work, perhaps a newsletter discussing and interpreting implications from all projects in the program, etc. Given the chance, I think, many people are interested in scientific research, and would support it in return for the opportunity to be a part of the process. A program like this could pave the way for a better channel of communication between scientists and the public who support their work.
Would it work? Would people actually fund scientific research in this way, if they were not forced to support it through their taxes? Or will it always be necessary to mandate some level of support for science, for everyone’s “own good?” I honestly don’t know. But then, that’s the point, isn’t it? We don’t know because we haven’t really tried it. We need to set up the framework, so that the opportunity will be in place for researchers to try it out, to make the arguments with some chance for success. Once the infrastructure is in place, we open the way for innovative solutions we might never have dreamed of without the opportunity to try them. I think we’ll find that federal funding isn’t so essential after all.
References:
• Joseph P. Martino, Science Funding: Politics and Porkbarrel. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 1992.
• Aaron Steelman, “Does the federal government have a monopoly on science?” CATO Institute report, (http://www.cato.org/dailys/1-14-98.html)
•Daniel Kevles, The Physicists
•Roland W. Schmitt, “Public Support of Science: Searching for Harmony” (Physics Today, Jan. 1994, p. 29)
• Terence Kealey, The Economic Laws of Scientific Research.
Personal Relationships
"We have for millennia structured our social institutions and our systems of values precisely in ways that serve to block, distort, and pervert our enormous human yearning for loving connections." - Riane Eisler
Relationships with other people play a major role in the search for meaning and significance in our lives. So it seems important to ask the question, "What guiding principles or rules for personal relationships are most supportive of the search to find meaning and make deep connections to the universe and our role in it?"
My basic answer to this question is that we should be guided by understanding, compassion, and clear communication that will let us adapt to the wide variety of needs and circumstances among different people.
I think this is an area where there is much room for improvement. More than in perhaps any other area of society, the arena of intimate relationships (those involving close emotional and/or physical intimacy) is dominated by rigid rules invented for reasons we have forgotten and that no longer apply in many cases. These outdated rules severely inhibit our ability to follow our hearts where they would naturally lead to provide supportive, loving, stable relationships, and they interfere with the more basic and important values of helping people grow to their full potential and minimizing hurt feelings. We are still far from the coercion-free environment that would allow people to explore the variety of arrangements that could best provide the emotional support and sense of connection they seek.
I think the most significant step for improvement that we can all take as individuals right now is simply to be accepting and supportive of people's needs and their choices for how to meet them. At a time when love and human community are so needed, I'm often horrified at the instances I see of healthy, nurturing relationships whose only real difficulty is the harsh treatment they receive from others - because the relationship involves people of the same gender, or of different races, or of opposite genders who choose not to be married in the religious tradition preferred by the observer, or involves a number of people that isn't two, or whatever. It's important that we remember the core value of providing healthy, positive relationships, and let people decide for themselves what does that for them, without fear of coercion or stigma.
One important formal step in this direction is to implement a more general civil contract (including heterosexual marriage as a subset) to legally recognize committed emotional bonds of support and love among any group of people who choose to enter such a contract, of any number and any combination of genders. (See for example Relationship Limited Liability Companies ). This would not interfere with the needs of those who want to also have a religious marriage of whatever sort they prefer. It would only serve to more clearly separate the universal civil function from the various religious functions of such contracts. (A separation, it seems to me, that is in fact required in the U.S. by the First Amendment).
I also believe new thinking in this arena is needed as part of a much bigger movement toward a more partnership-oriented culture, where human interactions are not based on ideas of property, possessiveness and jealousy. An excellent treatment of this general idea is Riane Eisler's The Sacred Pleasure and the related Center for Partnership Studies.
In addition to our social activism work, my life partner Amanda and I try to make our own partnership an example of what we mean. We find that possessiveness and jealousy and excluding love for others are not a good basis for a deep relationship. Instead, our vows to each other are based on love and support and seeking meaning together:
"The mission of our partnership is to help each other contemplate and experience life in ways that bring greater meaning to the world. We promise to share our thoughts, our fears, and our dreams, to communicate so well that there is nothing our partner would do that we could not understand and accept. We agree to trust that our partner is trying to help us lead a meaningful life and to be worthy of our partner's trust that we will do the same. We vow to support and love each other and experience the adventure of life together."
References on relationships:
- Susan Campbell, Getting Real
- What is Marriage For?
- Privatize Marriage - A great article by David Boaz, arguing that government should not be in the business of sanctioning any particular type of marriage contract. Rather, it should only enforce whatever type of contract participants choose for themselves.
- Riane Eisler, Sacred Pleasure
- Institute for 21st Century Relationships
- Relationship Limited Liability Companies
- Article providing a good overview of non-exclusive intimate relationships
- Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness
Intentional Communities
Need for college-like atmosphere for adults - sense of community and purpose, sharing, connections across different ages and generations, feeling of belonging, reinforcing the way you'd like to live and common values and purposes, etc.
links...
Fundamental Human Rights
Freedom to pursue dreams and realize full human potential as much as possible - for everyone - all races, genders, etc.
UN declaration of human rights
Health Care
I'm concerned about maintaining affordable healthcare services in a way that leaves decision-making control in the hands of patients.An excellent overview of the situation is: First, Do No Harm: Why American Health Care Policy is Failing, and How to Fix It
I'm encouraged by the emergence of more patient centered healthcare plans such as Lumenos and Simplecare, and by the recent expansion of Health Savings Accounts.
Preserving the Health of Our Environment and Ecosystem
I think it's important that we appreciate our interdependent relationship with the rest of the universe. We have emerged from processes that extend far beyond our immediate awareness, and our actions have impacts that affect this much wider context.
I'm also concerned to maintain a balanced perspective - with real concern for the environment and our future, but also remaining skeptical of extremism and doomsday proclamations that my do more harm than good.
Alternative energy, summary of key bits of information about energy resources, etc. (global annual human energy use, solar energy received, etc.)
Transit Issues - link to NSI web sites showing reports and resources from some of my PSU students. Add link to my commentary on light rail.
Bicycling links
Community Cycling Center
Bicycle Transportation Alliance
Metro information on less toxic household cleaning solutions
Peer review site for info on cleaners
Bjorn Lomberg, The Skeptical Environmentalist
Julian Simon, The Ultimate Resource 2
Partnership culture (connect relationship ideas to sustainability issues)
The New Road Map Foundation
Eric Chaisson - Cosmic Evolution (free energy rate density, etc.); also newer book, The Epic of Evolution
