Q&A with Neil deGrasse Tyson

When astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson visited N.C. State Thursday, he sat down with the Technician as well as   representatives from other campus media and The News & Observer. Due to space constraints, the questions and answers have been edited for length. Here’s some of what Tyson said:

Q:  We live in wonderful times for science communication, in part because of YouTube and TED and shows like yours. You’re atop that tidal wave right now. Where do you think it’s heading?

A:  I’m providing ways for people to reveal their inner interest in science and in that now-tested world, there are 111 other ways that you can have people reveal that create a wave. Because they come to those YouTube channels, and they watch the science talks on TED, and they make The Big Bang Theory the number one show on television, and Fox says, we want to put a science documentary on our channel, and not relegate us to the science ghetto. The science programming channels are where people who already know they’re interested in science tune in. If you’re trying to spread science, that’s not the way to do it.

I think had Cosmos landed 10 years ago it would not have been on network television. Because the climate, the soil would not have been tilled sufficiently for it to have landed in prime time, on a major network, on a Sunday night when everyone is home, on Fox no less. I’d like to think, however delusional, that this movement is irreversible. Because when it manifests, it will manifest as a stronger nation economically as well as politically. We are flexing our muscles, saying Russia, we’re not going to deal with you anymore because you did bad things in the Ukraine. Did Russia flinch? Why not? Because it doesn’t matter if we boycott Russia. So we’re losing our influence in the world. Meanwhile we still need their spaceship to get to the space station.

Q:  I once heard one prominent scientist say that if you want solutions from outside the box, you need scientists who don’t all come from the same backgrounds. What can be done to grab the imaginations of more minority kids with science?

A:  I have one observation, however. If you come from a disadvantaged background, however we define that in America, and let’s say you’re the first to go to college (from your family), you’re not thinking that in this, a capitalist democracy, you’re going to major in something that has the intellectual luxury of just solving cosmic problems. You’re going to take a major that has clear and distinct correspondence with the acquisition of wealth. So you’re going to become a lawyer or doctor or a business person. If you look at for example, the majors of first-generation immigrants, it’s not the exotic majors they’re in. It’s the standard professions that assure employment when they get out. It could be nursing, whatever. Now, when you talk about something like aerospace engineering, I don’t know any unemployed aerospace engineers, but it’s a less traditional path to wealth than anything I just listed. I would hypothesize that it would take a second or third generation in that family after the acquisition of wealth for someone to feel comfortable enough about where that next meal is going to come from and say, ‘I will major in botany or zoology or entomology,’ or something that’s just the luxury of creative thought.

Q:  If you could call the shots on science education in the United States, what would you do?

A:  I would double or triple NASA’s budget. That’s all you need to do. That solves everything. Then NASA can have a budget to go somewhere, a budget to advance the space frontier. And any time you advance a frontier, you have to patent new machines, tools, and methods, and these discoveries then make headlines. Because any discovery on a frontier is headline-worthy, typically. And people read the headlines and go, ‘Wow, I didn’t know that was on the far side of the moon.’ Or, ‘Oh, we’re going to mine asteroids for the first time. So now I need mining engineers. And maybe I need some lawyers. What are the legal ramifications of mining an asteroid?’ Everyone ends up being a participant, and the frontier of space is so cool that now people want to specialize in STEM fields, and you don’t need programs to get them interested. I derive this from the fact that when Sputnik was launched it put a flame under our rear ends in 1957, and people were climbing over each other to take science and engineering classes. Once you do that, by my read of history and of human conduct and the impact of the space program on the American economy, I know of no more effective force to be brought to bear on that problem than a fully-funded NASA.

Q:  How can science literacy change the minds of people who reject scientific evidence out of hand?

A:  The people who reject scientific evidence out of hand don’t know how science works, so I’m not into beating them over the head for not knowing, I’m faulting an educational system that hasn’t taught them what science is. And for me, science literacy isn’t the recitation of what the DNA molecule is or how an internal combustion engine works or what the Big Bang Theory is. Science literacy is knowing how to ask questions. That’s really all it is. So if you have these two crystals and you say, ‘If I rub these together they will heal you,’ some people think, ‘Well, that’s bogus, get it out of my face.’ That’s just as blind as accepting it outright. Each one of those options requires no thought. Thinking is harder than not thinking. So you say, ‘Well, what are these crystals made of? Why does rubbing them make a difference? Where are they from? What ailments are they said to heal? Can you show me where they have healed? What do they cost? What is the mechanism by which they heal?’ By the time you’re done, the person has run away in tears. Because they wouldn’t, in that case, have the answers to every one of the questions. You won that encounter because even without knowing the laws of physics, you knew how to inquire.