The Liberal Arts: Fostering Science that Serves Humanity

By Isaac Holeman

I'm a student at Lewis & Clark, and am currently making my merry way through a third year of the biochemistry and molecular biology program. This program boasts its dedication to the liberal arts tradition, but in practice, a "liberal arts" oriented education has meant many different things to many different people over the years. I would like to describe how this academic perspective has shaped my study of the natural sciences here at Lewis & Clark.

After attending a high school where almost all of my exciting challenges were in athletics rather than classrooms, I came to Lewis & Clark and was blown away by material that engaged me and professors that were really willing to challenge me. Nine months later, I was conducting research as a Rogers Summer Research Fellow in Deborah Lycan's lab. Almost drowning in a sea of stimulating but difficult tasks, I was kicking hard to keep my head above water. I loved it.

During my second year, I went through a mid-life (mid-college, actually) crisis. Although now dedicated to studying cells and molecules, I was also studying society from several theoretical perspectives. Several of my social science and humanities professors and my favorite mentor in the natural sciences were goading me into venturing off the beaten path, daring me to become a more dynamic and independent thinker. A few fellow students played a very big role too. I was trying to piece together a vision for a career that involved the natural sciences, and luckily I had enough leeway in my academic life to move from the question "HOW can I be better at this fun intellectual endeavor" to "WHY is research in the natural sciences important."

In the U.S., many have reached a consensus about why natural science research is important. If you are passionate about the process of discovery and very good at what you do, you are able to and should help combat the "science crisis," and make a decent living while you're at it. Our Dean Julio De Paula recently wrote about this crisis. He recalled some themes that are popular in this debate, like the fact that test scores and childhood achievements of Americans are falling far behind those of our international economic competitors. In this common argument in favor of boosting science and technology education, there is a pervasive fiscal motivation for recognizing the shortfall and addressing it as a crisis. As our Dean wrote, whoever "wins this race and commands the scientific frontier will control the global economy." In short, we Americans need to be the best at science and technology so that we can continue to get away with asserting economic authority over the rest of the world.

After some serious thought, a lot of reading, and countless chats over coffee, I have decided to disagree with this motive. I believe that a science crisis does exist, but it doesn't have anything to do with Americans stepping up the research so that we can continue to be the controlling economic superpower. My reverence for science relates to its (often unrealized) potential to alleviate human suffering. As of yet, science has yet to produce:

1. A vaccine for HIV/AIDS
2. A vaccine for avian flu
3. Sufficiently cost effective production and distribution systems for countless other medicines and necessary material goods that are useful primarily to the world's poor
4. Sustainable energy alternatives to petroleum
5. Lots of other important things

This is the science crisis. These are the innately human (not fiscal) crises that the scientists of my generation can and will confront. Our Dean also called attention to the need to foster "a voting public that is informed about science and that can insist on an economic infrastructure that fosters scientific research and technological advancement." But an economic infrastructure that fosters scientific research and technological advancement should not be tasked with enabling the people of our nation to better serve the economy. Rather, it is morally imperative that we foster an economy, science, and technology that can better serve all of humanity.

Dean De Paula got it right when he said "Scientists trained in the tradition of the liberal arts understand the socioeconomic and political contexts of the problems being tackled and are more likely to find solutions that affirm human rights, protect the environment, and raise standards of living across the globe." It's important to make the distinction, however, that we should pursue human ends first, rather than making a secondary attempt to fit human needs into some lionized fiscal equation. In my opinion, a proposition is not a solution at all if it doesn't work towards affirming human rights, protecting and restoring the environment, or raising standards of living for the poor.

As a liberal arts student, I have taken classes in a range of disciplines. These varied perspectives have helped me dissect the "science crisis" with some understanding of the complex relationships involved and with a special attention to social justice. More importantly, this process of discovery was encouraged from many directions at my school, even though I will never be graded on it, even though no graduate school admissions exam will test me on it, even though as a result I have decided to hold and vocalize opinions that might be in tension with those of some of the most influential leaders of my college and my country. I appreciate the less conventional opportunities I've had here. I believe that this type of free and independent thinking ultimately informs the best science.

###

Issac originally wrote his response to Dean De Paula's article on his blog CrissCrossHatch on October 19, 2007. (This expanded article first appeared on this site on November 8.) Issac is currently studying abroad in Cuba.