The Public and Sustainable Energy
For several years now, the nation’s attention has been increasingly focused on the problems of increasing fuel costs, decreasing fuel supply, and global climate change. In the online broadcast lecture “The Role of New Technologies in a Sustainable Energy Economy,” Professors Daniel Nocera and Angela Belcher help to shed more light on the cogs of the sustainable energy machine. While they initially talk about their scientific work – Nocera on splitting water and Belcher on bioengineering biocomposite materials – the conversation eventually turns to a broader query of the entire sustainable energy issue. Nocera appeals to the crowd by describing the relative ineffectiveness of non-solar alternative energy, knocking out big names like biofuels, nuclear energy, and wind energy. The crowd does not appeal back, unfortunately; instead, an array of repeated questions and hot-button issues only provides further proof that public knowledge of science is far behind the times.
On the surface, I am thrilled that the audience is asking questions related to sustainable energy sources and the costs thereof. Some important topics were covered in Nocera’s and Belcher’s responses, such as the major types of alternative energy, the politics behind ethanol, and the prognosis of an alternative energy world. Each scientist even got a chance to describe their respective work as it pertains to global energy in a very thorough and user-friendly way. Educating the public in ways like this is critical in making smart energy choices; far too many voters are (sometimes willfully) ignorant of the effectiveness of each type of renewable energy. Even worse, as Nocera pointed out, big industries have the money and power to put scientists in their pocket, allowing the suppression of potentially unwanted innovations like solar energy and exaltation of things like the cash-crop fuel, ethanol. In the public eye, the scientist shouting “Go ethanol!” is indistinguishable from the one shouting “Go solar!” If any real progress is to be made with energy issues, the scientific community needs to come to a consensus on the path to take. Given President Obama’s objective in the executive branch returning to science, uniting under one plan of renewable energy seems more plausible than ever.
What disappointed me about this video, however, was the audience. The questions, so carefully crafted in their breakout groups, consistently examined and reexamined the same “hot button” issues of renewable energy. It appeared as though the participants were scrambling for any related topic they had heard about – solar roadways, ethanol, wave energy – which either Nocera or Belcher almost certainly had to explain to them before answering their question. In all fairness, some well-placed questions were raised, related to both conservation technology and using energy technology-producing microbes to assemble with materials normally toxic to the environment. However, if this ratio of informed vs. uninformed is representative of the entire population (and these people voluntarily went to an MIT lecture series), then there seems to be general misinformation and lack of education on renewable energy issues; the public is simply not on the same page, effectively inhibiting science from moving forward in renewable energy.
While this soap box lecture took place more than two years ago, the need for scientific discussion is still apparent in 2009. As a scientist researching a vein of renewable energy, I feel obligated and empowered to spread any knowledge I can on these issues. Similarly, I hope to see more people not only asking questions, but also doing their own investigations into this field, either online or otherwise.
March 2, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Your main “call” seems to be for better public education about science. As an educator, I couldn’t agree with you more! I wondered if you or any of the other students in the classes have thoughts about how to make this happen.
March 5, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I suppose this begs the question, then, of how do we handle the education of the populace? Alternative energy is a quickly advancing field – I think it might be changing entirely too fast for traditional avenues such as public school education to do it justice.
March 5, 2009 at 9:46 pm
To a scientist, a lot of the questions raised did seem ill-informed at times. And greater widespread knowledge about energy issues and scientific progress in general would certainly help solve the problem at hand. But I think this piece is too critical about the audience’s scientific knowledge. Expecting global citizens to understand research that will affect their long term well-being has a high-minded rationale. But let’s be realistic. What are some other major issues affecting us? How would you comment on the measures taken to ease the now global economic crisis? What about the efforts to quell political tensions in the Middle East? Though many of us consider ourselves to be well-informed citizens, I’m sure an economist or a political scientist might laugh at our ignorance on such important human issues. I don’t want to argue against general scientific education, but remember that in a specialized society, huge knowledge gaps must necessarily exist. Expecting much more of the audience either asks them to place this issue ahead of many other critical problems in the world, or asks them for an unrealistic amount of knowledge.
March 6, 2009 at 3:32 am
I agree that a better understanding of the scientific issues at hand would certainly help, but would this solve the larger (and more immediate) political issues? While it would be much better if the average person understood more about the policies, this process would take time. In some ways it might be more effective to focus the education on politicians or policy makers (hopefully concurrently with a broader education), so that at least those in charge can recognize the difference between a good solution and a problematic one. The obvious issue here would be finding policy makers with a genuine interest to learn more about a situation or change their views, especially if the voters do not have a similar understanding.
March 6, 2009 at 3:36 am
I think the question about educating people about alternative energies is not as much a matter of education in sciences, but rather education in how to analyze an issue critically. At Harvey Mudd College, we have Integrative Experience courses that look at the effect scientific work can have on society. Many non-science majors take these courses but are able to converse fluently because they are able to understand a topic from multiple viewpoints, including the scientific viewpoint. In our school system, we need to integrate science into the analysis of the social and technological problems. For example, when studying poverty in the US, teachers should encourage a social, economic, and technological analysis (for example what technologies could be feasibly developed in order to help with this problem; what technologies have been developed; what has aided us in our understanding). By encouraging a full analysis of issues instead of the one sided non-quantitative view schools often develop in students, we can encourage people to be educated in the sciences.
March 8, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I agree that education in the field of science needs to improve in order to advance the research of alternative fuels. While educating policy makers and politicians is definitely important, I don’t think that the education of the majority can be ignored. Because it is the majority that influences policy makers. For example, hybrid cars have been widely available for the past 6 years, but they are still not widely driven. Most people that own a hybrid are those that understand the energy crisis and the need for change. If more people were educated in these areas, more widespread change would occur. There would be more focus on energy issues, because more people would be demanding that it receive attention. I agree with carbokittyion that people must be educated in the sciences for progress to be made.