The problem that we face

Here is the problem that we face. Even though the universe operates as a cohesive whole, the process of discovery by which we get to understand the universe - this is what we call science - is inherently fragmentary. Exploration occurs piece by piece, sample by sample. And the more that we learn the greater the need to compartmentalize our body of knowledge. This means that fragmentation, atomization and reductionism are more natural to us than the systemic and cohesive perspective that we need to solve the social challenges that we face. Yet, the social problems that we face can all be attribute to the fragmentation and atomization of our civilization.

Run the race

If you really believe that God maintains and rules the universe, it should be obvious to you that the more we focus on God - whether negatively or positively - the less likely we are to accomplish whatever purpose God had in creating humanity. It is truly ironic that focusing our minds on God may be the highest form of blasphemy.

The starting line is the most important line in a race but it only exists to point the way to the finish line. Ignore it and you will either have a poor start or be disqualified from the race. Keep focused on it and you may never get to the finish line. Run the race.

Why is Our Education System not Preparing Us For the Ultimate Success in Science?

The U.S. Department of Education has allocated a total of $340 million in the budget of its new STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education program to “identify and implement effective approaches for improving STEM teaching and learning; facilitate the dissemination and adoption of effective STEM instructional practices nationwide; and promote STEM education experiences that prioritize hands-on learning to increase student engagement, interest, and achievement in the STEM fields.” Schools wanting to participate in the STEM education program had to make the recommended changes to their curriculum and are expected to hire and retain 200,000 new teachers. Colleges and universities were challenged to graduate an additional 1 million students in science. This program was inspired by a desire to maintain the nation’s position of global leadership. With the United States ranked at 25th in Mathematics and 17th in science among industrialized nations, the goal was to “move from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math” within the next decade.

It is obvious that the education of students was placed secondary to the needs of the nation. More importantly, however, this approach represents a new twist on the role for the educational curriculum, referring not to a particular curriculum but to the very idea of having a curriculum to guide the education system. In addition to being a statement of what is to be taught the curriculum will now be used as the basis for making comparisons between the United States and other nations on earth.

The curriculum has always been used as the basis for comparison, but those comparisons have been between students in a classroom or between school districts or other administrative units. These comparisons are generally based on test scores, and for a test to be fair it ought to cover what has been taught in the classroom. Using the curriculum as a basis for comparison between nations is a novel idea but there is no inherent flaw in it even though it is of no practical value. In the traditional use of the curriculum for comparisons there has always been a next step. At the first level of comparison between students the students can use that information to improve their own performance and mastery of the subject. At the second level of comparison between groups the goal is to improve the national educational process. The districts or administrative units that obtain higher average scores from their students can serve as examples to other districts on how to better utilize the curriculum and better serve the nation. At this stage of our development, bragging rights are the only possible advantage from the third level of comparing the performance of nations. The next logical step is to consider how humans, as a species, would fare if our species had to compete against intelligent species from other parts of the universe. It is a question that is not as farfetched as it may seem.

It is hardly arguable that some of the most enterprising and amazing work associated with achievement in the areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics has been done outside of the earth’s atmosphere. Long before a STEM program was thought to be needed, we had an active space race in which the US was pitted against the USSR, the old Soviet Union. Beginning with the launch of the USSR’s Sputnik I in 1957, humans first sent satellites, then animals and finally humans into earth orbit. A lot of great science was done during those missions but the capstone of space exploration was when we landed a man on the moon in 1969. Currently, we have scientists from a variety of nations working together on the International Space Station at the same time that two of our spacecraft - Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 - are traveling through interstellar space. Then in November of 2014 we we able to land one of our space probe on the core of a comet. The only area in which we have not had any success is in our search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Since 1960 some of our best scientists have been involved in this quest. None of us knows why we have not made contact with others like us out there. We have identified many earthlike planets in the so-called Goldilocks zone that may support life but, so far, no one with whom we can communicate.

What if we did make contact with an alien intelligent civilization? What if we did make that breakthrough? What next? Are we ready for such an encounter? Would we be able to compete against them? How do humans rank in terms of intergalactic leadership in the Universe? How would our best academicians and scientists stack up against theirs? How would our level of development stack up against theirs? There are many ways in which we can ask the same question but they are all valid and deserve to be addressed.

There is no clear evidence that any of our education systems are doing anything to answer those questions. I serious doubt that any of our leaders in education or in politics have given it any serious thought. We cannot with any degree of certainty say that any part of our educational system is preparing us for that moment when we may have to compete against other civilizations. As far as the curriculum is concerned we are alone in the universe. But our science shows that we do not believe we are alone in the universe. Most humans do not believe that we are alone in the universe.

If this sounds like the stuff of science fiction then there is no need to continue searching for signs of extraterrestrial life. We are searching because we sincerely anticipate that such an encounter may occur. If it is science fiction to communicate with alien life it is also science fiction to search for alien life. We have spent millions of dollars over half a century in a search for extraterrestrial intelligence and not one cent in preparing ourselves for success in this effort. It is true that we will never know our standing in the universe until we make contact with an alien civilization, but we cannot wait until we make contact to get ready for contact. We need to make fundamental changes to our global education curriculum now if we are serious about STEM education. Good science is not enough. Only best science will suffice at this level.

We do not need to have any details about any alien civilizations that may be out there to know that when contact is made they will be their best selves. Each of us knows that from our personal educational experiences. As a species we are not ready for contact because we are not yet our best selves. As a species we are emotionally immature. We could not stand up to any of the species that share our planet if they had the same capacity to reason, plan and strategise that we do. We will never be ready for intergalactic contact until we teach ourselves how to cooperate together as they do by allowing nature to teach us as it desires. The failing in the curriculum is not in what is taught locally but in what is not being taught globally.

Our students are being trained to master the practices and procedures of science. This is an education that will help in the battle for scientific supremacy among the nations of the world because it enables us to compete against each other.. But our curriculum does not address the purposes and perspectives of science, both of which are required to optimize our mastery of science. If we are serious about science we must change our curriculum to broaden our perspectives on science. We are confused regarding the purpose so of science and we have no sensitivity towards the different perspectives on science.

Our current curriculum assumes a reality that is not true. It assumes we are an optimally developed species that only needs to use science to make our enjoyment of our lives better. But we have failed to note from our discoveries that the purpose of science is not to make our lives better but to complete our development as a species. We boast that science is a human enterprise without pausing to consider why that is so, or why it is that humans are the only species that benefits from our scientific achievements. We have only learned from nature. We have not taught nature anything. We have learned a great deal about the nature and identity of a few of the trillions of species and entities that share the earth with us but we do not understand our true nature as humans.

Consider a few of the ways in which our education is lacking in a universal context. Our scientific education does not emphasize the fact that we are the only species that needs to learn about the world around us. It does not emphasize that we are the only developmental species on the entire planet, nor does it address the implications of that fact. It does not help us understand why we think there is something amiss with us when science has shown that we are part of an environment that is lawful, nor does it tell us how we can correct what is wrong with our species. It assumes that our only need is to develop within the known parameters of our species without taking into consideration that the development of our species is an on going process that we do not control. It does not tell us that we are a organic whole rather than a loose conglomeration of individuals. The health and well-being of the species are as important as the health and well-being of each individual, and that both perspectives of science are important.

We do not know whether other civilizations exist in the cosmos or whether their perspective on science is better than ours. But what if they do exist and what if they have used science in their development as a species rather than for their individual selfish benefit? How will we fare in such an encounter with them? We cannot leave it all to chance. We must prepare for that possibility.

Science can teach us how to live together as members of the same species because all other species already know how to do so. But it can only do so if we adopt a perspective on science that views us the way the universe views us - as an organic whole that came into being thousands of years ago. The rewards will be immediate. An ideologically united world will no longer need standing armies and large military and law-enforcement budgets. With those savings we will have sufficient resources to eradicate poverty and illiteracy. To achieve this we do not need to change our current education system. It has served us well and healthy competition is always useful. But we do need to supplement it with a system that embraces a global perspective and considers what it means to be human in addition to what it means to be humans. If we are serious about being global leaders our students must be educated to prepare for the needs of the species as well as for the needs of the nation. We are humans first. Our responsibility is to the health and well-being of our species. We cannot be content with “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”

Scientists cannot afford for DNA science to be eclipsed by DNA technology

In 1986 Renato Delbecco published an article in Science advocating for the sequencing of the human genome. His primary goal was to find a more effective tool in the ongoing fight against cancer. In 2003 the human genome was completely sequenced and the Age of DNA technology was begun. By that time our focus had extended beyond cancer to all diseases with a genetic foundation.

Excitement over what was learned from sequencing the genome has overshadowed what we know about the DNA molecule. One could be forgiven for thinking that the goal in studying the DNA molecule was to map the genome. DNA technology has eclipsed DNA science. As a result no effort has yet been made to determine how this new knowledge about the genome complements other knowledge we have concerning DNA.

Now that we are able to read the instruction book of life an overriding scientific question remains: How does this new knowledge of the genome clarify what we know about DNA?

The sequenced genome can be used in the fight against genetic diseases because it contains the instructions for building an organism. But we should never conclude that fighting disease is our goal. After all, the immune system has been fighting disease long before humans invented medicine. And even if we were to find the answers we seek in DNA technology they can only benefit individual who suffer from or have a genetic disposition to any of those diseases, and only one individual at a time. Given the investment we have made in mapping the genome, it seems reasonable to expect a much broader application that would benefit us all. Thankfully, there is.

An organism does not exist on its own. Each organism belongs to a biological grouping called a species and that species is defined by its DNA. This is widely acknowledged in the knowledge that human DNA is different from feline DNA and from equine DNA. It is not only human individuals who differ from one another by their DNA.

We also know that organisms grow through the process of cell division. When the cell divides the DNA molecule unravels into its two individual strands. Each new cell gets one strand. When the single strand is reconstituted into a new double helix the base pairs are matched using the same matching rule that was in evidence in the original DNA molecule: Cs always pair with Gs and Ts always pair with As. This rule ensures that a cell replicates itself into other cells that look and act in the same way as the original cell. The same rule explains why a man and a woman have a human baby – as opposed to a kitten. DNA does not only govern the growth of an organism; it also governs the growth of the species to which the organism belongs. Whereas only certain traits are considered to be genetic at the level of the individual, as we shall see later, everything is related to the genes or the genome at the level of the species. In essence, no behavior will be observed among a species that is not defined or allowed by that species’ DNA.

The sequenced genome provides us with insight into how DNA determines the traits of each human organism. Those traits depend on the order of the base pairs, hence the need for sequencing. Since each organism belongs to a unique species it follows that DNA also determines the traits of each species. This is scientifically important because a species is not an organization. An organization is formed when separate individuals come together in a group. The sum total of the characteristics of all the parts that belong to the organization determines the characteristics of the organization. By contrast, each species is defined by its DNA and it is this DNA that defines the characteristics of the species. Our inability to study a species except by studying individual members of the species tends to overshadow this scientific fact.

When we study any of the billions of species on our planet we are determining the identity of the species by identifying the properties of its DNA. Because humans are a part of the ecosystem we study our concern with the genome goes beyond our medical desire to overcome genetic diseases but reaches our scientific desire to understand what it means to be human. We would need to determine the sequence of the genome even if we had no diseases with a genetic basis.

The relationship that exists between DNA and the traits of an organism is not the same as the relationship between DNA and the traits that identify the species. But the knowledge the sequences have provided regarding the relationship in the organism is useful in understanding the relationship in the species. And the same use to which this knowledge is put in the organism can be used in the species.

At first this may sound like philosophy or something of even lesser academic rigor. But, because we are dealing with the traits and behavior of a species it is science. Science is a study of our world and our species is a part of our world. More importantly, it is science that crosses all disciplinary boundaries. This is Biology, or Physics, of Chemistry. This is science at its most elemental level. But it directs us not to undiscovered knowledge but to knowledge that has been overlooked. This may be what Dexter meant when he said that “mapping the genome . . . is the outstanding achievement not only of our life time but in terms of human history,” or what Dulbecco meant when he said that “the sequence of the human DNA is the reality of our species, and everything that happens in the world depends on those sequences.

********

Whatever term we decide to apply to this new paradigm, it is well to note how different it is from all the other science we have done. First, it is based on characteristic of the DNA molecule that sets it apart from every other molecule we have studied, and on which current work in DNA technology is not. The DNA is the only molecule that is self-replicating and self-actuating. This means that we are defining ourselves even while we are discovering ourselves.

The human body has not changed over thousands of years. But humans have changed intellectually and socially. The DNA molecule was first isolated in 1869, so ten thousand years ago humans could not be defined as a curious species that is currently studying the genome. This and other cultural changes in our identity have taken place because of the scientific work we have done.

It is becoming clear that our scientific work has been done without consideration of the self-actuating nature of our DNA. We have studied our world from the perspective of explorers. It is now time to review all the work we have done from a new perspective in which we see our species as a single organism and each human being as a cell within that organism. Until we have done work that incorporates this characteristic we have not completed DNA science.

In keeping with Dexter’s comment, the best place to begin is by reviewing the entire process of mapping the genome. DNA technology can do without it. DNA science demands it. I suspect that this is the only way for us to continue our conscious evolution until we eradicate those negative traits that set us apart from all other species. But, unlike other fields of science, one does not have to be a specialist in the field to understand it. Further, because this new approach is concerned with the development of the species as a unit these lessons have many practical applications in the social sciences.

We can only hope that at the end of Ryan Bell's very public experiment we will come to understand that God has to return to earth to solve humanity's problems is the exact equivalent of claiming to live without the Creator of the Universe, whom many refer to erroneously as God. We can only hope because we will have only wasted another year that could be used solving these problems.

It is amazing how lawyers can create new issues by creatively re-framing old issues. The founders granted the right to make recess appointments to avoid gaps in the Executive Branch because the Senate was unable to give advice and consent given the onerous nature of travel by horse and buggy in those days. The issue was gaps in the government not the right to make recess appointments. The constitutional issue is the tendency of the Senate to create gaps in the Executive Branch by not approving Presidential nominations. It is not when the President can make a recess appointment. Guess what the SCOTUS is about to hear arguments on.

Something seems to be wrong with a system that does not allow a citizen to bring Congress before the courts for not performing its Constitutional duties but allows a citizen to bring the Executive Branch before the courts for attempting to satisfy the Constitutional mandate that was neglected by the Congress.