S reta
nbypoj
tea:
I
ineBatta ion
inion
Page 9 • Monday, October 12, 1998
Science job market evaporates suddenly Yugoslavian fighting
requires careful action
n old joke goes like
this:
^Engineers say, “How
BEVERLY
MIRELES
es it work?’
Scientists say, “Why does
■work?”
^And liberal arts majors say,
fould you like fries with
[it?”
|Ah, irony, we meet again.
In 1989, the National Sci-
!ce Foundation warned that in about a
ade there would be a huge vacancy in sci-
|ceand engineering fields. Almost 675,000
s would supposedly remain vacant, wanti-
for an eager new flock of scientists to fill
£m. Future science majors rubbed their
eaty little hands together, almost salivating
Ithejob opportunities — and the money —
•aiting them.
■Now, it is almost a full decade later, and
J lere are the jobs?
■ Most definitely filled.
I Unfortunately, the NSF could not foresee
[/I/® end of the arms race, which caused a dras-
1 Mdrop in the need for physicists and most
ospace engineers. They also could not fore-
the explosion of science majors that would
n follow their announcement. Even with
rise of genetics, biotechnology and quan-
m physics, science fields cannot deal with
onslaught of graduates and Ph.D.s being
nked out by universities everywhere.
And now, scientists go begging for jobs,
fcj current issue of Newsweek, a molecular
ggest biologist with a doctorate said, “Science as a
thFroit ; C a eer is a nightmarish dead end.”
FroniElAt the moment, that sentiment would be
ose HaiBrd to refute.
6-3. Iln a recent survey from the National
jst in felademy of Sciences, 38 percent of biology
said, iftduates reported they could not find any-
first viewing but temporary jobs, even six years af-
■ they had received their doctorates.
vere jiWMaybe a career in fashion designing would
/on all wve been the smart move after all.
secun*Teasing aside, this finding is disconcerting
■ all current science majors, particularly bi-
logy majors.
a paid lab position was almost al-
lys difficult, but with the glut of science ma-
Jsnow, it is worse than ever.
Maybe at this point it is naive to say, but
dents with science degrees were not sup-
sed to have to worry about job security, or
finding a job.
Times have changed, though, and science
i/ors must adjust to them.
At Texas A&M, hard-science majors make
about 5 percent of the population, or 2,503
mbers. That does not seem like such a
ge number, but consider all the other col
ies and universities with their own stock of
ence majors.
Plus, that 5 percent is just referring to ac-
al members of the College of Science. It is
teven counting those enrolled in the Col-
?e of Medicine.
CALEB
McDANIEL
him.
punter
i puni
line sec
uchdotf
nsive.
ked Nfi
^ New 1
ut sen# 1
vn.
McCo#
j lineal
m bff
left
1-7 If
pull W'
and >
own.
t have
m said
withe
long P
inted d
t worltf
in iced
. top-li
i’s firs'
beat
Jo. 8»]
break jj
there"
latest
The question is, why are there so many sci
ence majors out there, ineffectively trying to
infiltrate the science job force? Or perhaps the
question should be, why are there not an
abundance of science jobs out there?
John Morgan thinks he knows. He is an au
thor whose new book is precariously titled
The End of Science. In the book, Morgan con
cludes the reason science jobs are so scarce is
not because of the large number of science
majors trying to contribute to the work force,
but because science, as we know it, is over.
Morgan argues exploration in scientific
fields can advance no further, since no scien
tific discovery will ever be able to do better
than Darwin’s theory on evolution or the
discovery of DNA.
It is an interesting view, but it is wrong.
Though new branches of science are not being
discovered daily, that hardly means science is
finished. If anything, it only recently has ex
panded to the point of having real conse
quences for the average citizen.
One example of this is the Human Genome
Project. This effort’s main goal is to map the
location of genes within human DNA. The
project will aid in identifying and treating
some genetic diseases, something that could
become greatly beneficial. The awe-inspiring
findings of the project could spark a whole
new understanding of life itself.
Saying that science is dead is ridiculously
presumptuous, much like Harold Bloom’s
statement no writer could ever surpass Shake
speare’s works. If anything, the amount of sci
entific knowledge that is now commanded by
scientists will only serve to expand the
progress of science.
For example, Darwin’s theory of evolution
was indeed one of the greatest discoveries of
all time, but who is to say his theory is
etched in stone? If anything, it has only
served as an outline, and it will soon be
overshadowed by Gould’s and Eldredge’s
theory of punctuated equilibrium.
And in this way, science will continue to
expand, and hopefully the number of science
jobs will expand as well. Science is not over,
and although its students are begging for work
right now, that will likely dissipate in the com
ing years.
Until then, science majors must persevere.
If they do not, then it will not just be the scien
tists that are suffering, but humankind itself,
for having to watch the new — and possibly
great — wave of scientific minds being pushed
out of the realm of science.
Beverly Mireles is a sophomore
microbiology major.
T he latest
threats of
military ac
tion against Yu
goslavian presi
dent Slobodan
Milosevic reveal
just how awk
ward American
foreign policy
has become.
In a New World Order populat
ed by more irreconcilable con
flicts and less identifiable ene
mies, Washington is still strangely
attached to the use of convention
al military action as a diplomatic
cure-all. Some Clinton officials ut
ter the word “airstrikes” with the
same reverent awe with which
Aggies pronounce “Toombs.”
Knee-jerk, reactive airstrikes
hardly warrant the kind of re
spect they are afforded by Amer
ican politicians. Especially as the
United States decides how to re
spond to conflict in Kosovo, it
should be clear the use of force
in Yugoslavia is neither effective
nor ethical.
First of all, the American affini
ty for airstrikes in Yugoslavia un
derestimates the intense ethnic
hatred that divides the region.
If people kill and terrorize each
other in ignorance and prejudice,
no amount of military action will
stop their violence. The most well-
placed American missile will never
reach the place where ethnocen-
trism eats at the human heart.
Therefore, the Clinton adminis
tration is profoundly mistaken if it
believes a few hours of bombing
can correct a few decades of ha
tred. It is more likely continued
violence will only deepen the re
sentment and bitterness between
Serbians and ethnic Albanians.
Given the special ethnic char
acter of Kosovo’s embattlement,
some analysts believe airstrikes
will only tighten Milosevic’s grip
on power. Responding to the
common threat of American ag
gression, many Yugoslavians who
were staunch opponents of their
president are now his allies.
American involvement in the war
could trigger rally-around-the-flag
nationalism in Serbia.
This should not surprise the
Clinton administration. How of
ten have Americans burst into
countries like Iraq and Somalia,
determined to “rescue” the op
pressed, only to find their own .
flag being burned?
Therefore, the effectiveness of
airstrikes in Yugoslavia is likely to
be thwarted by ethnic rivalry and
deep-rooted nationalism.
But perhaps the most frighten
ing specter of American involve
ment in the Balkans is its lack of
definition. As the New York
Times reported Wednesday,
“Even within the [Clinton] ad
ministration there is disagreement
about how best to pursue and en
force a resolution to the standoff
with Mr. Milosevic.”
Some members of the govern
ment, including Secretary of State
Madeline Albright, have not ruled
out the possible deployment of
ground forces to Yugoslavia. Other
officials, including Secretary of De
fense William Cohen, flatly oppose
placing American ground troops in
Kosovo. If NATO goes ahead with
airstrikes, it will be another unfor
tunate case of American action
without agreement.
So the pitches against
airstrikes are all strikes. Bombs
cannot get the best of bigotry —
strike one. Militarism breeds na
tionalism — strike two. A lack of
clear vision virtually guarantees a
lack of victory. Three strikes, and
the strikes are out.
The questionable effectiveness
of airstrikes makes them dubiously
ethical. The very refugees NATO
wants to rescue probably will be
more hurt than helped by military
action. Many aid agencies are al
ready fleeing Kbsovo as airstrikes
become more imminent. Militariz
ing the region with aerial assaults
will oply delay aid to Albanians,
and those without food and shelter
will continue to struggle even if
Milosevic’s army folds.
NATO and the administration
face a very difficult question. Is it
right to endanger more lives with
out a guarantee of success?
It hardly seems right. Violence
begets violence, and airstrikes on
Yugoslavia will almost surely open
more wounds than they will close.
Concerned Aggies ought to let our
country’s leaders know that we
need more Toombs on Kyle Field
and less tombs in Kosovo.
Caleb McDaniel is a sophomore
history major.
tudent attitudes toward homosexuality demonstrate ignorance, intolerance
LISA
FOOX
growing senti
ment of homo
phobia is mani-
|st on the Texas A&M
mpus, and this
ould not be regarded
a good sign.
What people say
out homosexuals are
ten reflections of
eir home life, up-
inging and religion. Most of the time
is not based on actual relations with
iy homosexual people, but rather a
n of biases passed down through
mily perspectives.
Unfortunately, when students come to
'liege, they do not realize all of their
ejudices should be re-evaluated in the
ight light of a more liberal and open
college campus. If the Texas A&M cam
pus is more closed-minded than it could
be, then college students should at least
attempt to explore new perspectives on
their ,o,wn.
In the case of homophobia, or fear of
homosexuals, the inherent dislike many
students feel is not based on any factual
reasons. Talking to Aggies on campus, it
can be discovered that a dislike for ho
mosexuals stems from “the Bible says it’s
wrong” to “I don’t feel that way and they
shouldn’t either.”
Many people professing these beliefs
have not bothered to seek any facts at all.
They are merely spouting ingrained be
liefs they have heard others voice.
Now, it can be argued that using the
Bible is all the proof necessary for con
demning these homosexuals for their
actions. However, Bible verses that con
tain an indefinite amount of interpreta
tions cannot be used as the sole means
for an argument.
Further, there are numerous verses
that promote loving others without judg
ing their sins.
It is possible to assume that God loves
those who sin more than those who fos
ter hatred of fellow humans.
After attending a Gay, Lesbian Bi-Sexual
and Transsexual Aggies meeting, it is obvi
ous that homosexuals are not interested in
proving their orientation is genetic.
They simply could not care less, be
cause, as one gay student said, “This is
the way I am. It doesn’t really matter
how I got this way, because I can’t
change it.”
Homophobes feel differently however.
They think if they can prove homosexuali
ty is not a genetic problem, then they have
a valid excuse for hating homosexuals.
The argument runs as follows. First
they are not genetically inclined to mem
bers of the same sex. Therefore they are
making a choice that is different than the
homophobe would make. Therefore
these homosexuals are wrong and do not
deserve any tolerance.
The homophobia expressed on cam
pus is merely ignorance of anyone who
is different. It is the same ignorance
that causes racism and promotes reli
gious intolerance.
Other student attitudes simply show
an ignorance of life in general. Some
college students maintain the belief
AIDS is a punishment for those who sin
in homosexuality.
This notion reflects poor knowledge
of AIDS. Assuming that the only people
to contract this disease are gays and les
bians overlooks all the people who have
contracted the illness through blood
transfusions and heterosexual acts
within a marriage.
Or perhaps, these too are the sinners
to which the students were referring.
However, none of these attitudes in
themselves are significant. It is the un
derlying concept that those who are dif
ferent — through choice, biology or en
vironment — are bad, that should be a
real concern.
It is time to broaden perspectives and
open up minds. Aggies.
Lisa Foox is a senior
journalism major.
-M.COJ
lew computer
Sffers advantages
] response to Corrie Cauley’s Oct.
I column:
Corrie Cauley seems to think
pple Computers uses innovative
esign to compensate for a lack
ftechnology. In fact, the new
tec computer comes with a high-
peed modem, large hard drive,
igh-quality speakers, an infrared
ata-transfer port for wireless
ata transfer, a 15-inch monitor,
It-in ethernet connection and
luch more.
Cauley is a good example of
omeone who does not think dif-
irently. She claims we live in a
me when ‘‘the classic computer
>beige.” Is this a good thing?
What was most appalling
bout her column was her asser-
ithat “those even slightly fa
miliar with computers are quick to
idmitthat there is absolutely
'othing friendly about the Macin-
osh operating system.” Apple de
lves a little bit more credit than
that. The Windows operating sys
tem has never been anything
more than a copy of the Macin
tosh software.
Finally, if there is absolutely noth
ing friendly about Macintosh operat
ing system, why does Cauley claim
the iMac “belongs in the elemen
tary school classroom?”
Daniel Hayman
Class of ’01
Decals illustrate
student diversity
In response to John Lemons’ Oct. 6
column:
It seems people have taken of
fense to the decals showing
Calvin cartoon character urinating.
Although I do not own one of
these stickers, I feel I should
point out some things.
Although the sticker may offend
some people, it is not something
that should be embarrassing. By
the time people get to college,
they know what happens when na
ture calls. Everyone has seen
someone else taking care of busi
ness before.
The Calvin stickers should re
main on people’s cars and trucks.*
The character traits it portrays of
the owners just show the diversity
of our university.
Jeremy Dressier
Class of ’02
The Battalion encourages letters to the ed
itor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in
clude the author’s name, class and phone
number.
The opinion editor reserves the right to edit
letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters
may be submitted in person at 013 Reed Mc
Donald with a valid student ID. Letters may also
be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mail: 111.1
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: batt@tamvml.tamu.edu