Plebe

I know I would ask what has probably already been asked and addressed here! We must not let ourselves slip back into the "Dark Ages" and be at the forefront of discovery, how can we perpetuate research without inhibition?
..."The panel concluded it is incumbent upon scientists to lead the charge in all of these areas. As one person wrote, the country needs "regiments of geeks" and "pocket-protector brigades."
Posted on Fri, Sep. 20, 2002
<a href="http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/4113434.htm" target="_blank">http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/local/4113434.htm</a>
Science, security keys for 50 years
Officials say answers to many issues depend on larger social and historical questions still unresolved
By Andrea Widener
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

LIVERMORE - If you had the nation's top scientific minds in a room, what one question would you ask?

Over the past year, a Lawrence Livermore Laboratory research center has questioned more than 100 scientists and policymakers for their insight into the future of science and technology in an increasingly interconnected world.

They suggest the world will be, in many ways, completely unrecognizable. It will undoubtedly have more and varied migration patterns, increasingly integrated religion, language and culture and more dispersed commerce.

But the Center for Global Security Research panel, presenting the results Thursday to lab employees and its contributors, said that by creating an agile, worldwide research infrastructure, science can deal with the impacts of globalization and a changing national security needs.

"We will continue to be both ahead and at risk," said Patricia Falcone, a panelist from Sandia-California Laboratory.

"We assert that science and technology is our lever."

The importance of these issues became clear halfway through the discussions when the six speakers were asked whether a nuclear weapon would be used in anger during the next 50 years, as no weapon has been used in the past -- and, even among experts that included former leaders of the departments of Defense and Energy, two high-level lab directors and a famous futurist, there was no consensus.

The first four panelists answered yes, with no hesitation. Two thought it would be within 10 years or sooner. The fifth said there would not be a nuclear strike, citing renewed interest in preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The final panelist was hopeful there would be no attack, but was not certain.

Even great brains from government, universities and research labs have trouble envisioning 50 years in the future of science and technology.

That's because fundamentally, research depends on answers to much larger questions: Will countries exist? Will nonprofit organizations usurp the role of government? Will what we call a military still exist?

Science itself will undoubtedly have a rich future. Biology, genetics and other life sciences will lead the way, but chemistry, materials science, climate change and other cutting-edge research areas also will grow. Social sciences, like psychology and sociology, will become increasingly important, the results showed.

"It is incumbent upon us to broaden what we mean by science," said Eileen Vergino, deputy director at the center, which has taken on one question a year for the six years of its existence.

Institutions that can create interdisciplinary teams to look at fundamental research problems will likely have an advantage.

The question is whether the U.S. will continue to lead this research surge. That depends on the country's choices about security, secrecy and international isolation.

"We can certainly have national security, but we cannot have national science," said Jay Davis, a senior fellow at the security institute, emphasizing the global nature of research.

The future of national security is less certain. Whether there will continue to be a separation between military defense and homeland defense is still being debated. But undoubtedly, what is traditionally known as "national security" will not solve all U.S. problems.

"The front line of defense is not in the national but beyond," Falcone said.

In fact, the panel said, it is increasingly important to ensure the public understands risk and understands science. Right now, there are huge disconnects between the pace of discovery and how quickly both society and governments can adjust to it.

Education "was a surprising red-button issue in all of the discussions that we had," Davis said.

The panel concluded it is incumbent upon scientists to lead the charge in all of these areas. As one person wrote, the country needs "regiments of geeks" and "pocket-protector brigades."

"Looking out at you," said panelist and former Energy Department defense programs head Vic Reis, "I can see at least the first battalion."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reach Andrea Widener at 925-847-2158 or awidener@cctimes.com.

MadMordigan

Who's going to win the Stanley Cup?

Wyz_sub10

Well, it won't be the Canucks, so you might want to think of a better use for that question.

Boro Nut

If I was going to top scientists I would probably ask if they wanted a favourite meal or a last cigarette or something. That's what I usually do anyway.

Boro Nut

Starboy

RIM SHOT!

Starboy

So Boro Nut, after you are finished playing the IID room where is your next gig?

Starboy

Feather

Well, I aim to become one of those scientists (har har har--I can dream can't I?).

So I guess my question would be: "Why not dispense with the formalities and just let me sit on the panel?"

In all seriousness, there aren't too many questions I have that can be answered by any panel of scientists. In fact, right now, I cannot think of any.

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Feather ]</p>

galiel

"WHY DON'T YOU SPEAK UP???!?"