A Message from the Editor

Postindustrial society, the new economy, the cybernetic age, postmodern culture: these are a few of the monikers political scientists, economists, and others use to describe the complex times in which we live. Common to all of these labels-and to others we often adopt-is the idea that our era is one characterized by a strong dependence upon technology to improve our way of life; a reliance on basic science to satisfy basic societal needs; and, a recognition of the importance of education, especially science and tech- nology education, in order to sustain the continued satisfaction of these needs. Unfortunately, critics argue, policy commitment to advancing science and technology education does not often match society’s recog- nition of its importance.

This issue of the Review features a symposium on the need to improve science and technology education in the US through policy changes that would foster coherent, effective curricula; promote adequate teacher training; ensure adequate funding and other support; and encour- age useful evaluation efforts to determine what sorts of educational pro- grams work as opposed to those that do not make the grade. The authors focus on efforts to develop, implement, and evaluate science education from the vantage points of several constituencies including scientists, teachers, and those who train both. Increasingly, as David Kumar of Florida Atlantic University and James Altschuld of the Ohio State Uni- versity note, greater governmental support for science and technology education is likely to be seen as an option for which there is little choice. Without a literate population that ”understands scientific principles and how they affect US,” they report, our ability to maintain our high stan- dard of living as well as remain globally competitive may be seriously undermined.

Impacts from science and technology upon society of a different kind are the subject of the article by Michael Greenberg, Karen Lowrie, Michael Frisch, and David Lewis of Rutgers University. They examine one of the lesser-studies’ legacies of nuclear weapons research, development, and manufacturing sites in the US-their impact upon the economic development of host communities and the justifications for some form of compensation to rejuvenate them. They find that readjusting these communities to a future without dependence on agencies like the US Department of Energy is a difficult challenge.

We also include some focused on other important forms of policy change-one on explanations for state passage of laws to prevent and deter discrimination against gays and lesbians, by Donald Haider-Markel of the University of Kansas and Kenneth Meier of Texas A&M University, and the other on the impacts and implications of adopting a lottery to support scholarship opportunities for higher education, by Joseph

560 DAVID L. FELDMAN

McCrary of the Baltimore City Schools and Stephen Condrey of the Uni- versity of Georgia.

With this final issue for 2003, change of another kind beckons: this is my last issue as editor of the Review. It has been an honor and a pleasure to have the opportunity to participate in this important forum of policy ideas. I wish to thank all the people involved in the production of the journal within the Policy Studies Organization and Blackwell Publishing, as well as the authors, reviewers, and others whose commitment to this publication has been extremely gratifying. But most of all, I leave with gracious thanks to the readers of the Review. Ultimately, it is you, and you alone, that an academic policy journal must serve. I hope we have served you well.

David Lewis Feldman, The University of Tennessee

Editor-in-C hief The Review of Policy Research