More Than Lip Service

This fall, Columbia College will begin the phased replacement of the Core Curriculum with a new single-semester Frontiers of Humanities course. A pilot program for the 2009-10 school year will give students the opportunity to take Frontiers of Humanities instead of the current general humanities requirements—two semesters of literature, two of philosophy, one of music, one of art, and two of global cultures. It will be followed, pending review, by a subsequent University-wide replacement.

Renowned Kant scholar Patricia Kitcher will kick off the Frontiers of Humanities semester with an introductory lecture on grammar and punctuation, titled “Semicolon or Colon? The Grand Grammatical Mystery.” Former U.S. Poet Laureate Mark Strand will follow with a series of lectures on why poetry does not always have to rhyme. The semester will conclude with a discussion by Mahmood Mamdani, recently named by Foreign Policy magazine as one of the world’s top-100 intellectuals, on the names and locations of countries in Africa. The weekly lectures will be supplemented by semiweekly seminars on selected topics in the humanities, including “songs” and “paintings.”

If it isn’t yet obvious, Frontiers of Humanities is a less-than-subtle jab at Frontiers of Science, a class that seeks to do with natural and applied science what the Core Curriculum already does with Western art, music, philosophy, and literature. Opinions about Frontiers of Science are polarized, but one thing is for sure: while it is commendable that the University has added to the Core what Frontiers’ Web site calls “an essential contribution of Western civilization,” Frontiers of Science and the coupled “Courses Designed for Nonscience Majors” are insufficient.

The study of the natural sciences cannot be shoehorned into the same pedagogical structure as can much of the humanities. A survey class on “science” coupled with two perfunctory courses that are often without a single problem set is inadequate. Science cannot be studied in a qualitative and deliberately superficial way, but instead must be approached with respect for rigor and detail. As we have seen through the Core courses, to survey Western art and music is far more productive than to survey all of science, an understanding of which must be developed vertically rather than horizontally.

The lack of a more rigorous set of requirements in the natural and applied sciences informs us of a very serious and far-reaching state of affairs. On a national scale, little more than lip service has been paid to science over the past decade, and science funding rapidly approaches humorous levels. A series of studies by www.scienceprogress.org, using information from the American Academy of Science and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, shows that for 2007, “the slight increase in the dollars for non-defense R&D [research and development] was more than surpassed by projected inflation.” Federal investments in this area in the early 1960s totaled around 2 percent of GDP, but today they are only about half of that.

Nonetheless, there is cause for optimism for the future of science, and Columbia must herald the transition. In the spirit of growth and innovation espoused by U.S. President Barack Obama, CC ’83, who said in his inaugural address that “we will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders” and “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age,” it is high time that our own university, culpable in its lack of dedication to wide-reaching science education, begin to take science more seriously. Because every student has access to an academic arsenal stocked with some of the finest scientific investigators in the world, it is reasonable to expect that every graduate of our university be scientifically literate.

Our acceptance of scientific illiteracy is validated by our acceptance of a perceived dichotomy between scientists and non-scientists. We have come to take this separation for granted in the general public, but to welcome it at an academy is unacceptable. Science is hard, but not out of reach for anyone. Everyone has a basic scientific curiosity; this is a conviction that was embraced by the television program from which this column takes its name. NOVA, the ongoing show aired by PBS, has sparked a thirst for knowledge in countless viewers, the authors included. With its crisp and engrossing explanations of scientific phenomena, NOVA has made accessible to many people what was previously dry and distant, opening their eyes to the beauty inherent in scientific pursuit.

At the root of our acceptance of scientific illiteracy is an unhealthy aversion to poking and prodding the things we don’t understand, a willingness to leave to “experts” that which we do not in earnest try to grasp. It is the very opposite of this mentality that guides scientific progress: a belief in our ability to understand and explain that which we do not know.

In the words of Albert Einstein, “The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.” We hope that, like NOVA, we can help Columbia regain that curiosity.

Adrian Haimovich is a School of Engineering and Applied Science junior majoring in applied mathematics. Vedant Misra is a Columbia College senior majoring in physics and mathematics. Nova runs alternate Wednesdays. Opinion@columbiaspectator.com