Mission Science

A vivid portrait of how Naval oversight shaped American oceanography, revealing what difference it makes who pays for science. What difference does it make who pays for science? Some might say none. If scientists seek to discover fundamental truths about the world, and they do so in an objective manner using well-established methods, then how could it matter who’s footing the bill? History, however, suggests otherwise. In science, as elsewhere, money is power. Tracing the recent history of oceanography, Naomi Oreskes discloses dramatic changes in American ocean science since the Cold War, uncovering how and why it changed. Much of it has to do with who pays. After World War II, the US military turned to a new, uncharted theater of warfare: the deep sea. The earth sciences—particularly physical oceanography and marine geophysics—became essential to the US Navy, which poured unprecedented money and logistical support into their study. Science on a Mission brings to light how this influx of military funding was both enabling and constricting: it resulted in the creation of important domains of knowledge but also significant, lasting, and consequential domains of ignorance. As Oreskes delves into the role of patronage in the history of science, what emerges is a vivid portrait of how naval oversight transformed what we know about the sea. It is a detailed, sweeping history that illuminates the ways funding shapes the subject, scope, and tenor of scientific work, and it raises profound questions about the purpose and character of American science. What difference does it make who pays? The short answer is: a lot.

The after-school science club is just starting, and Beatrice Honey Flinn, who is called Bumble B, and her best friends are joining, but when Mr. Dan separates the students into teams, Bumble B finds herself paired off with two children she does not know, Jasmine and Otto, instead of her friends--and their assignment is to make a list of all the animals, insects, plants, and rocks they find in the playground.

Science as an instrument to justify religious missions in secular society The relationship between religion and science is complex and continues to be a topical issue. However, it is seldom zoomed in on from both Protestant andCatholic perspectives. By doing so the contributing authors in this collection gain new insights into the origin and development of missiology. Missiology is described in this book as a “project of modernity,” a contemporary form of apologetics. “Scientific apologetics” was the way to justify missions in a society that was rapidly becoming secularized. Mission & Sciencedeals with the interaction between new scientific disciplines (historiography, geography, ethnology, anthropology, linguistics) and new scientific insights (Darwin’s evolutionary theory, heliocentrism), as well as the role of the papacy and what inspired missionary practice (first in China and the Far East and later in Africa). The renewed missiology has in turn influenced the missionary practice of the twentieth century, guided by apostolic policy. Some “missionary scholars” have even had a significant influence on the scientific discourse of their time.

Lost in the Stars is a biographical study of Alexander William Roberts, a Free Church of Scotland missionary educator who in 1883 was posted to the Lovedale Institution at Alice, South Africa. Inspired by the night sky of the southern hemisphere, Roberts became a leading observer of variable stars and an early contributor to the theory of close interacting binary stars. He actively promoted the development of colonial scientific culture and was elected president of the South African Association for the Advancement of Science in 1913. His teaching career at Lovedale fostered a commitment to the interests of his African students and their communities. In 1920 Roberts was appointed to the South African senate to represent “native” Africans; he also served as senior member of the Native Affairs Commission. Despite his liberal instincts he acquiesced to the movement toward racial segregation as advanced in the Natives (Urban Areas) and Native Administration Acts. Roberts nonetheless militated against the erosion of the Cape non-racial franchise rights; he resigned from the Native Affairs Commission just as the all-white parliament was poised to remove Africans from the common voters’ roll. His engagement with the politics of race interfered with Roberts’s astronomical research. Although he published nearly one hundred papers in scientific journals most of his observational data remained unknown until the Boyden Observatory’s Roberts archive was digitized in 2006. His influence as a mission educator also has been little known, although among his pupils were journalist and academic D.D.T. Jabavu, the physician James Moroka, and Swazi king Sobhuza I.

NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) is engaged in the final stages of a comprehensive, agency-wide effort to develop a new strategic plan at a time when its budget is under considerable stress. SMD's Science Plan serves to provide more detail on its four traditional science disciplines - astronomy and astrophysics, solar and space physics (also called heliophysics), planetary science, and Earth remote sensing and related activities - than is possible in the agency-wide Strategic Plan. Review of the Draft 2014 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan comments on the responsiveness of SMD's Science Plan to the National Research Council's guidance on key science issues and opportunities in recent NRC decadal reports. This study focuses on attention to interdisciplinary aspects and overall scientific balance; identification and exposition of important opportunities for partnerships as well as education and public outreach; and integration of technology development with the science program. The report provides detailed findings and recommendations relating to the draft Science Plan.

The Food and Drug Admin. (FDA¿s) responsibilities for protecting the health of Americans are far-reaching. This report assesses whether FDA¿s current science and technology was sufficient to protect the nation¿s food and drug supply. The FDA Science Board undertook this review and included outside experts from industry, academia, and other gov¿t. agencies. The report, more than a year in the making, is one of the most comprehensive examinations of the FDA in its history. It concludes that the FDA cannot fulfill its mission because: its scientific base has eroded and its scientific organizational structure is weak; its scientific workforce does not have sufficient capacity and capability; and its information technology infrastructure is inadequate.