Fall 1994
Welcome to the first issue of the Cornell Science and Technology Magazine, also known as the SciTech! This being the opening issue, some basics are in order. The SciTech is not really "new"; we used to be the Cornellengineer magazine, which lays claim to more than a hundred years of history-from 1885 to the present. We're completely student-run on a volunteer basis; despite the large demands Cornell places on all of us, the dedication and effort of committed students ensures the success of this magazine. We try to cover new discoveries, ideas and inventions both within and outside Cornell, as well as write about issues and controversies within science. For the past few years the magazine has continually broadened its scope of topics, such that we now consider anything of interest in the physical, applied or social sciences to be fair game. Thus the change of name; we've had and plan to have plenty of topics of interest for a wider audience outside of engineering alone, which we simply weren't reaching with a misleading magazine title.
So why do students find working on the magazine worthwhile? {Insert corny plug for magazine and blatant appeal to self-interest here} For their resumes? For the free food at parties? For the camaraderie (there's nothing like an all-night layout marathon to make friends)? Making business and alumni contacts? Meeting eminent faculty? Sharpening writing, publishing, analytical and people skills? The thrill of being published and later recognized for it? {End of shameless plug for magazine}
There are, of course, more abstract and possibly nobler reasons. Perhaps sharing an experience is the best way of conveying some of them. During a dinner conversation with a recent Ph.D. engineering graduate from Cornell, the topic turned to vegetarianism. Specifically, he wanted to know why I was a vegetarian. "Well, for ethical, health and environmental reasons", I said. He remarked, "You're in physics. How can you care about ethics?" He wasn't referring to the dubious work of physicists in creating nuclear weapons; he simply saw it as untenable that any scientist be concerned with ethics. After another ten minutes of heated debate on whether being a moral human being comes before being a scientist, the discussion turned to Social Darwinism. To my chagrin, his understanding of Evolution was uncannily similar to what Victorians thought of other races and the poor. Victorians, Nazis and other Social Darwinists justified racism and oppression on the grounds that the victims were genetically inferior, an idea erroneously interpreted from Darwin's Descent of Man. Social Darwinism continues to be one of the most infamous examples of science being twisted for political expediency, and considering how many of our social, political and economic institutions are based on the misunderstood phrase "survival of the fittest", it is neither a trivial nor dead issue.
Perhaps this fellow's opinions were more extreme than is typical, but there is a disturbing fulfillment of the notion that scientists and engineers needn't care about the consequences of their work and that they should be as cool and detached as possible in their research and writing. Social scientists are no exception to this "rule" and largely try to emulate the same style. Besides dry and obscure papers being the norm, the consequence of such overly aloof attitudes is very alarming. As scientists are discouraged from thinking about the uses and consequences of their work, their insights and understandings fade from the public forum. Scientists' voices in contentious issues such as genetic engineering, nuclear energy, arms control, global warming, and the growing environmental crisis are often faint or absent. Society thus makes decisions on such unprecedented problems with little or no knowledge, or worse still, on misleading information from powerful special interest groups.
As the scientific community becomes less vocal, nonscientists have a harder time appreciating what scientists actually do, why it's worthwhile, and how it enriches all our lives. The recent demise of the Superconducting Supercollider is a case in point-the wonders of modern physics and particle theory can be shared with nonspecialists without too much injustice to the subject. Yet most people, such as the politicians who ultimately killed the project, are indifferent to quarks, bosons, hadrons or the Grand Unified Theory. It's simply outside their everyday experience and interests, and there are few people trying to make it otherwise.
Besides apathy, a more dangerous consequence is to blame science and scientists, since those ignorant of science easily confuse its means and ends. It has been far easier, for example, to condemn the Los Alamos A-bomb researchers and science itself, rather than understand and question the political and military motivations behind that project or behind present day weapons research (such as the horrifying biological weapons being secretly developed). Given that half of the world's scientists and engineers are directly or indirectly trying to find better ways to kill people, it's tempting and easy to criticize science, when we should direct our anger more at the suicidal values of our society.
Thus, when someone suggests that scientists and engineers need not concern themselves with the consequences of their work, the obvious question arises: "Who will?" "Politicians, bureaucrats, generals and businessmen" is neither a satisfactory nor comforting answer. If we say, "The public," it falls to scientists to best explain the ideas and issues at stake; democracy without information and open debate is ineffective at best. Although none of us at the magazine have yet earned the title of scientist or engineer, it's within our means to bring up the controversies of science and technology, lessen the alienation between science and morality, and generate awareness and discussion.
Besides making science more accessible to everyone, we also hope to break down some of the barriers between the different fields. Do physicists follow the astoundingly rapid developments in molecular biology? Are biologists aware of how computer science can shed light on evolution? The unfortunate answer is often no; everyone is hard-pressed to keep up with their own field. But jumping the discipline-fence can give more than new ideas about one's own work; it adds to the beauty and mystery of this fantastic human enterprise we call science and engineering, which is ultimately concerned with nothing less than understanding the universe, and using our knowledge for good. If we as a magazine can convey even a small part of that enterprise to our readers, then all the deadline crunches and long hours spent on thinking, writing, drawing, planning, layout, and rewriting will have been worth it.
Kai Wu '96
Editor
I'd like to thank Mike Slivka, last year's editor, for his continued help and advice to ensure this magazine had a running head start. Thanks to his efforts and initiative, we can all worry more about putting out the best magazine possible and less about how to fund it.
I'd also like to thank Deans Hopcroft, Randel and Call, of the Engineering, Arts, and Agriculture Colleges respectively, for their continued or newly committed support. Thanks for your encouragement and willingness to give us a chance.
Last but certainly not least, my thanks to all those who gave time and energy during the hectic semester to make this issue of the SciTech a reality. You've all helped prove that very few human activities are solo endeavors, and that ours is no exception.