Science For the Chumbolone

I am a chumbolone. I freely admit that.

(What, you may ask, is a "chumbolone"? John Kass of the Chicago Tribune has brought this word to the attention of the uninformed masses in a number of his columns. Chumbolone is a word used by some members of Chicago's Legitimate Businessman's Association to describe an idiot or fool.)

As I was saying before I so rudely interrupted myself, I am a chumbolone. Now I don't walk around with my knuckles dragging along the ground while breathing through my mouth, but truth be told I am quite often not the smartest guy in the room, sometimes not even in a roomful of chumbolones. Part of my dimness can be attributed to the fact that I spent some time in the Chicago Public School system in the 1980s, not a great time for public schooling anywhere, but particularly not in Chicago. The school system, and the city itself, were a bit run down in that time between the Daleys, Richard I and his son, Richard II.

I feel no shame due to my knuckleheadedness, and this is not merely because people in this day and age no longer feel shame. I feel no shame because I am not alone. We are, as a nation, not all that bright, at least when it comes to science. Sure, we've made a success out of not one, but two, "Nutty Professor" movies, one with Jerry Lewis, one with Eddie Murphy. But that doesn't mean we as a people actually understand the science behind the transformation of Professor Kelp into Buddy Love. What's that? It was fictional, not a documentary? As a I was saying...

Students in the United States rank behind those of many other industrialized nations in math and science. We are behind Finland for crying out loud. The schools of Finland are filled mostly with reindeer, yet Americans trail the Finns in science scores on international tests. That's just great.

I must say, though, that I can sympathize with these ignorant children. I was one of them. I didn't know squat about science when I was in school and I still don't. But let me tell you why this bothers me so much right now.

I read the other day that Harvard scientists are getting closer to being able to create synthetic life. That's a big deal, I would think. Or at least it should be. It was on page two of one the newspapers I read on Sundays. Almost creating synthetic life. On page two. not the front page. Didn't see anything on any TV news program about it. Probably not the kind of story that translates well to television news, not like a murder or a car crash.

But really now, this should be a big deal. This scientific advance could pave the way for wonderful new drugs that help cure so far incurable diseases. Or it could lead to an uncontrollable disaster that rips apart the very fabric that holds humanity together. Just check out "I Am Legend" with Will Smith to see what happens when fantastic new medical breakthroughs turn out not to be so much with the fantastic but more like the end of life as we know it.

Anyway...I wonder how many people read this article about the discovery. I think people usually bypass this sort of stuff. I myself frequently overlook articles about science. It just seems to too difficult a subject to broach over my morning cereal. While I did stop and read this story about synthetic life, I have to admit it took me a couple of tries before I made it all the way through. For whatever reason, whenever I read about something like this, I get a little sleepy, no matter how important the subject may be.

Why is that? I mean, other than I'm a chumbolone. Did we not get taught science in a manner that made it interesting? That's one possibility. I know I didn't. The biology teacher I had my freshman year of high school appeared to be drained of life, and her teaching style reflected that. Maybe I was too distracted by sex, drugs and rock and roll. Not that I was having any sex, nor was I into drugs yet. But I was definitely preoccupied with rock and roll. (Still am.) Where was I now...?

Oh yeah. Almost being able to create artificial life and why science bores the average American. I'm not sure why we're bored with science. Maybe it's because we Americans historically have an aversion to them egghead types. I can tell you right here and now though we need to get over that. We as a people are getting left behind educationally by other countries. I for one have no desire to be ruled someday by an well educated Finnish reindeer.

What we need in this time of change is a new way of teaching the sciences. Like what, you ask? Well, I'm not sure. Perhaps we need an exciting cable personality, like a Bill O'Reilly-type, yelling at us about the wonders of new scientific advances instead of the dangers of liberalism. Better yet, how about a cable science network manned and womanned by say, Halle Berry and Salma Hayek, and whoever People magazine says is the sexiest man of the year. Sex sells. We'll pay attention then. Otherwise, get ready to bow down to your reindeer overlords.