Nikhil Swaminathan, at Seed reported out a story I've been thinking about this week: America swept the science Nobel Prizes last week, but how long can the U.S. keep it going? Today's senior scientists were in elementary or high school when Sputnik flew over their backyards in October 1957. Overnight, young people had a reason to go into science. It was interesting. The nation was prodding them to. There were good careers to build. Today, all the indicators point in the opposite direction. Seed talks to Norm Augustine, the chairman of the National Academy of Sciences "Rising Above the Gathering Storm" report that I linked to yesterday. Augustine, whom I sat down with a couple of weeks ago, continues to sound the alarm through speeches and appearances. More on that chat next week.

Nations at the top of their game generally have debates about "declinism." It happened in Germany in the second half of the 19th century, before they'd invented aspirin or the automobile. It happened in Britain. I'd say we're closer to the latter. Question: If you had to plot the United States on the historical arc of the British Empire, what year would you pick? 1880? 1890? Thirty years past peak and twenty years from falling off a cliff seems reasonable.

Daniel Sarewitz, director of the Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes told Seed, "We basically have a scientifically illiterate public." He said it's not a new phenomenon and not alarming. I disagree. Last week I was reading some newspaper accounts from the 1930s about the history of the petroleum industry. I was surprised, when a Chicago Tribune story read (paraphrasing): Of course, readers are already familiar with the concepts of atoms and molecules. It seems so unlikely that statement would--or should--make it into today's papers.

To date, "declinism" has only destroyed Americans' curiosity. Let's hope it revives, or it might take scientific and technological prowess along with it.