STEM Is Not Enough: Education for Success in the Post-Scientific Society
In this paper, I briefly review the concept of the Post-Scientific Society and then present some of the confirming evidence for the aptness of the concept. This leads to important implications for how we should think about education and workforce development in the twenty-first century. Both require the incorporation of a very high cognitive level of scientific and technical knowledge with deep understanding of human wants, needs, and behaviors, as well as a substantial appreciation for how design will affect the success of those technologies in application.
KeywordsSTEM education Post-Scientific Society
Compliance with Ethical Standards
This study did not involve any research or other activity by the author with human subjects of research or with animals.
Conflict of Interest
The author has been intimately and personally involved in “STEM education” since he entered college in 1960. He holds three degrees in engineering through the Ph.D. Since the mid-1970s, his professional career has been focused on science, technology, and innovation policy. In the broadest sense, he has interests, commitments, and engagements in every conceivable aspect of the subject matter of this paper through professional engagement, employment, publications, positions in professional societies, advice, and consulting to the US Congress, the Government of Japan, and clients in Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Sweden, Republic of Korea, Portugal, Colombia, and the USA. To detail all of my conflicts regarding the subject of this paper would require presentation of my entire professional c.v.
- Hill, C. T. (2007a). The American Innovation System in the Post-Scientific Society, in AICGS Policy Report, part three: innovation in the United States and Germany: the future, pp. 7–17. On the web at: https://www.aicgs.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/PR-28-Gillette-Innovation-3-FINAL.pdf
- Hill, C.T. (2007b). The Post-Scientific Society, issues in science and technology. Fall, 24(1), 78–84.Google Scholar