2014 State of the (Scientific) Union

(Adapted from last year's post, with updated data for 2014)

Did you watch President Barack Obama present the 2014 State of the Union address?

Source: Whitehouse.gov

Once again, I downloaded the text to the 2014 S.o.T.U. (Opportunity for All), and compared it against the text from 2011 (Winning the Future), 2012 (An America Built to Last), and 2013 (Unfinished Tasks / Next Chapter). 

I’m not a political pundit or a news analyst - I’m a scientist. So let's see how certain scientific themes grew or shrunk over the past 365 days.

Breakdown (# of each word in full text):

Energy – 2011: 9, 2012: 23, 2013: 18, 2014: 8

Oil – 2011: 2, 2012: 10, 2013: 5, 2014: 6

Gas - 2011: 1, 2012: 9, 2013: 7, 2014: 4

Wind / Solar - 2011: 4, 2012: 3, 2013: 4, 2014: 2

Nuclear – 2011: 5, 2012: 3, 2013: 3, 2014: 5

Batteries - 2011: 0, 2012: 2, 2013: 1, 2014: 0

-----

Biotech / Biomed / Biofuel – 2011: 3, 2012: 0, 2013: 0, 2014: 0

Chemical – 2011: 0, 2012: 1, 2013: 0, 2014: 1

Tech / technology – 2011: 12, 2012: 9, 2013: 8, 2014: 6

Science / scientist – 2011: 7, 2012: 2, 2013: 4, 2014: 1

Engineering – 2011: 3, 2012: 1, 2013: 3, 2014: 1
Math – 2011: 3, 2012: 0, 2013: 2, 2014: 1

Research – 2011: 9, 2012: 4, 2013: 4, 2014: 4

Development – 2011: 1, 2012: 2, 2013: 1, 2014: 0
Carbon – 2011: 0, 2012: 0, 2013: 1, 2014: 3

-----

College / Universities– 2011: 12, 2012: 15, 2013: 8, 2014: 12

Health – 2011: 8, 2012: 5, 2013: 5, 2014: 8

Internet – 2011: 6, 2012: 1, 2013: 1, 2014: 0

Cyber – 2011: 0, 2012: 1, 2013: 2, 2014: 1

Jobs – 2011: 25, 2012: 33, 2013: 32, 2014: 23

Fun 2014 one-offs - "Let's Move!", in-sourcing, "vaccines against drug-resistant bacteria, and paper-thin material stronger than steel," unemployment insurance, STEM!, gender pay inequality, "MyRA," student loan debt, minimum wage, military drones, Iran, Mad Men.

Is there a take-home message here? Does word count relate to the overall direction of the country? Probably not. Each speech is different: 2014 spoke to middle-class unemployment, higher ed, and equality issues, while 2013 spent serious time on fiscal reform, job creation, foreign affairs, and domestic mass shooting incidents.

We've got Obama shilling for more jobs, which is great. It's a bit disheartening, though, to see that, in an era of STEM politics, we're seeing a steady year-to-year decrease for scientific terms in the SoTU. The excitement I once felt about a President who would speak about solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells has substantially dampened. 

Readers: Did I miss anything? Let's discuss it in the comments!

Friday Fun: Who Should be Science Laureate?

Perhaps this little tidbit from ScienceInsider got lost in the shuffle yesterday:

Looks like Washington wants a Science Laureate, a travelling scientist "national spokesman for science" to rove about the country drumming up support and excitement. From Sen. Hirono's (HI) office:

"This new honorary position would be appointed by the President from nominees recommended by the National Academy of Sciences and serve for a term of 1-2 years. Using this national platform, the Science Laureate would be empowered to speak to Americans on the importance of science broadly and scientific issues of the day..."

"So, should we rock-paper-scissors for it, then?"
Credit: Solar San Antonio | Hayden Planetarium

“...Establishing honorary U.S. Science Laureates would send a clear message to young people about the value of science and technology in our society, and the importance of scientific research to both economic progress and our quality of life,” said Alan I. Leshner Chief Executive Officer of the AAAS and Executive Publisher of Science." 

OK, I'm all in favor of increasing exposure and public awareness of science, even if most of the politicians quoted in the article keep beating the STEM STEM STEM horse to death.
So, what does this gig pay, anyway?

"Like the Poet Laureate, the Science Laureate would be an unpaid, honorary post. The scientist would also be encouraged to continue their important scientific work."

Tough break. Guess you'd be expected to write those R01's on the road, then.

Happy Friday!
SAO 

Now Where Have I Heard This Before?

Yesterday morning, I heard an NPR report that detailed more strife in a typically white-collar profession. Whose field do you suppose we're discussing?

"...schools routinely said that 90 percent or more of their graduates had jobs nine months after graduation. It turns out they were including barista positions, low-level marketing gigs, or just about anything else you could call a job." [Emphasis mine]

"At some schools, less than a third of their graduating class were obtaining long-term, full-time jobs" 

"A new study reveals that since 2009, the median starting salary...has fallen 35 percent." 

Any more of these posts, and I might
have to rename the blog!
Credit: Arrested Development

Give up? It's not chemists, it's lawyers (This story does seem to spring eternal, given earlier posts by Chemjobber and myself). The comparison's just too apt to pass up: young grads consider financial security, invest their time towards an advanced degree, and later awaken to an economy facing a glut of overeducated professionals.

To their credit, at least the American Bar Association (ABA) seems aware of the risk, and wants to inform newly-admitted legal students of the economic dangers. Their Nero, unlike ours, isn't fiddling while Rome burns. So, what lessons could Ph.D.-granting chemistry departments learn from the legal profession? 


Honesty - Brian Vastag's Washington Post article from two weeks ago really struck a chord, amassing nearly 3700 comments and prompting discussion up and down the blogosphere. Although it's a political talking point (STEM STEM STEM!), chemical graduate departments must take a page from the ABA and inform new recruits that the salad days of secure scientific employment have passed.

Transparency - As Janet Stemwedel recently mused: What does a chemistry Ph.D. get you? Are alternative careers really playing out? How are pharma salaries adjusting to the recession? Are stock options, benefits, or retirement plans really going away? Where will the jobs be in 10 years?

CJ's correct to call for career tracking; after all, we have the technology! Through a combination of email surveys, social network mining, digital IDs, online CVs, and employer reporting, we should be able to paint a more complete picture of the sci-employment landscape. Using data from past students, new grads could adequately prepare themselves, and younger students could better assess their decision to attend grad school.