INTRODUCTION: This is AudioExplorations, a podcast series from AccessScience, the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology Online at www.accessscience.com. I'm Jessa Forte Netting. Today Dorian Devins speaks with astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, for this AudioExploration: Pluto. This segment: "Reinvigorating Science Education-Recreating the Sputnik Mystique"

DORIAN DEVINS: I have a final question for you.

DR. NEIL deGRASSE TYSON: Sure.

MS. DEVINS: I know your time is tight, and I know this is an area that's of deep interest to you, science education. You spoke of the sputnik before and I've heard several scientists kind of bemoan the fact that we don't have a sputnik situation because that did inspire a lot of people to go into science.

DR. TYSON: Yes it did.

MS. DEVINS: And there's nothing like it now, and how do we get kids nowadays to be interested in the way they were back then?

DR. TYSON: That's an excellent question. I think back then we have to remember that accurately. Yes, sputnik lit a flame under the rear ends of Americans and America made it clear that the ticket to sort of regain foothold in that race and to possibly win the race was to get as many scientists trained as possible. But the scientists that were attracted, the students that were attracted to become scientists, they were not saying, "I want to become a scientist so I can fight the Russians". That's not what they were thinking, they were thinking, "This science is cool, we're going into space." And so there was a slight mismatch between what lit the flame and what kept the flame going. What kept the flame going, that is public sentiment, was that we were going into space, and isn't that … we're living the future. Well, the futurists got in on it and said we would have Moon bases by the 1980's and 1990's. In fact I just completed an essay for Natural History magazine, it will come out in, I guess November. And it's titled — is it November or October, November, it comes out in November. It's titled 'Delusions of Space Enthusiasts', and it's a reality check on what drives what, when any government is spending scads of money. So to repeat, to get, to somehow reprise that era, there's a little bit of sputnik going on, there are some people in government who are a little bit spooked by the fact that China all of a sudden became a, started putting people in space. And I've spoken with some Chinese representatives and they're right on track with the plan that they had said, "We want to put up weather satellites", and their country the same land area as we are, they have weather there too. Weather satellites, earth monitoring satellites, it's the same stuff we did. And those who are frightened by that, or worried about it as a security issue, they might be more interested to redouble our investments. It's all of our hope that we go into space for a sort of pure means of course, but that's not always the case. If there are assets that need to be protected, that’s an argument that will be invoked. If there, say if a country is viewed as a threat, that's an argument that will be invoked. So in some cases it’s just simply all of the above. What I want to do is make sure that the public knows how exciting the universe is. And I think that's all you need to attract the next generation — well, it's not all you need, it's an important factor that will excite the next generation to become scientists and engineers. If you look at the rovers on Mars, highly publicized, the web hits were tremendous at the Jet Propulsion Lab, who are the shepherds of these rovers. And if you just look at the interest in robotics that unfolded from that, it was … you couldn't, you can't buy that kind of publicity.

MS. DEVINS: And that was relatively low budget.

DR. TYSON: Relatively low budget, that's right. Totally. Totally low budget. It was those entire missions were equivalent to a few days in orbit for the space shuttle, if you want to put that on comparative terms. So I think access to science is as great as it's ever been. Just channel surf on the hundreds of channels we all now have, you're going to hit, any time you do that you’re going to hit a program on science. Whether or not it's the universe, it could be on biology or chemistry, you're going to hit a program on science. And growing up, I was born the same week that NASA was founded, and growing up you didn't have that kind of option. When Sagan's Cosmos series aired, a thirteen part series, that was the only science in town. You'd go months without seeing a science program, and there you had, you can bask in this, celebrate this orgy of science, thirteen episodes. So I think access has never been greater, and the challenge is to make sure we present it in as interesting a way as it really is.

MS. DEVINS: And accurately.

DR. TYSON: And accurately, most certainly. And if we fail that, we've failed the nation as educators.

MS. DEVINS: Because there is some pseudo-science out there, it kind of gets the lingo in there and confuses people sometimes, so.

DR. TYSON: Yeah, and it's almost like there'll always be pseudo-science. I've almost stopped fighting it because there are people who just want to believe what they want to believe without regard to meaningful evidence, and what I'd rather do is train people, kids, to think right the first time. In other words, teach them not what to know but how to think.

MS. DEVINS: Critical thinking.

DR. TYSON: And once you know how to think then I no longer need to worry about you, because you'll say, "What, you were abducted by a UFO? Do you have anything from the UFO ship that you can show?" No. "Well, there's not much I can do about your claim. Come back when that happens." All right, that's all it takes, it doesn't take any kind of, you know, just … you're right, it's critical thinking. And there should be entire courses on critical thinking in school. I would give up a science class just to have a critical thinking class, a science or a math class, you know, chemistry, biology, physics, whatever. Give one of them up, teach an entire course on critical thinking and you'll be set for life.

MS. DEVINS: Well, that sounds like a good plan, maybe we should hope people who are writing up the curricula are listening now. Well, thank you so much Dr. Tyson for taking your time out.

DR. TYSON: Well, it was a pleasure to be on with you.

SIGN OFF: This has been AudioExplorations, from AccessScience, the McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology Online. For more interviews, articles, quizzes, and research-help on this topic and others visit www.accessscience.com and click on our Explorations box.