But I am really forced to question the premise. Is there really a lack of focus on science?
Absolutely! Just because there are lots of science majors doesn't meant the jobs are there. In addition, let's look at funding for basic science. Back in the 80's the National Science Foundation was funding approximately 30% of the grant proposals they received. Today that rate is less than 10%. Here's how bad it is, I submitted a grant proposal a few years ago and it received five external anonymous reviews and all 5 reviews were "excellent." The excellent rating is the highest a proposal can receive. Not only did it receive 5 excellents, but there was not a single criticism of the proposal. This kind of review virtually never happens. Even so, the grant did not get funded. NSF just said, sorry, we don't have the money.
In my world, I see more of a lack of focus on skilled trades. Try to get a decent plumber, HVAC, or electrician. Sure they are out there, but cost is high and most kids I know have NO interest in working in these fields. Society has convinced our next generation that they are really too good for a blue collar job.
Caveeagle, this is something you and I can both get on board with. I've seen lots of college students just "going through the motions" because they were really interested in getting a college degree. I've encouraged many of these students to learn a trade and be dam* good at what they do. Sadly, most aren't interested in that either.
I don't think you would assert that climate change isn't highly politicized, would you?
Yes, climate science is highly politicized. Not by scientists though. The research has been politicized by those who worry that policy stemming from the research will hurt their pocketbook (e.g. Exxon Mobil's mis-education campaign).
I think sometimes when funding of science is brought up there is a lot of misinformation or left out info; for example around 60-70% of science funding in our country is from private industry so simply looking at public funding is very incomplete. Second, I think sometimes it is assumed that any public money spent on science is well spent, taking a look at some of the ways research money is wasted I think clearly that isn't true.
Yes, private industry funds a lot of research. Most of that research, however, is for things that will make them money. For example, there isn't much money in antibiotics, which is why we are running out of effective ones. Things that are big sellers are drugs for things like erectile dysfunction.
As far as wasted money for basic research, there is a big misunderstanding there. This idea of wasted money has largely been pushed by congress members like Lamar Smith. This advocation of wasted money by congress members is disingenuous because they have access to grant budgets. For example, the famous case where it was claimed we spent a million dollars to put a shrimp on a treadmill. As it turns out, the researcher spent less than $200 of their own money to build the treadmill.
As a recipient of federal research dollars I'd be happy to give you a breakdown of how the money is spent, just PM me. For starters though, over 25% goes to educate graduate students. In addition, most of the money actually spent on research goes directly back into the economy. All of the major equipment I've bought from my grants has come from US business and all air travel was done on US-based carriers.
And finally, let's put waste into perspective. Total spending on basic science in the US amounts to about 6.5% of our annual military budget and it makes up about 1% of the total US spending. So about 1% of the taxes you pay goes to support basic science.
