Generous Scoundrels

We've learned to depend on those who exploit us.

by Bruce Schimmel

Eight-year-old Uriah is dancing his way through a chemistry class. Literally.

Then their teacher cranks up the beat and turns up the heat. The kids fly apart — hot molecules, on their way to becoming a gas.

And what a gas this is, as lab assistants and parents watch them boogie about the loft of the Fishtown Free Library. What a great way to teach science.

So why does this lovely scene leave such a sour aftertaste? We'll get to that. First, let's do the sweet stuff.

"Science in the Summer" is an innovative program that's been 22 years in the making. It offers one-, two- and four-day workshops to about 5,300 children in the Delaware Valley, for kids entering grades two through six.

This year, Philadelphia's 52 participating public libraries are hosting classes in chemistry; last year they did genetics.

The program is free, and as a way to bring science to children, it's hard to imagine better. Teacher Jonathan Nguyen, a recent Penn grad, usually teaches high school biology. But this program, he says, "brings out the children's sense of wonder."

If regular schools were like this, says Nguyen, "it would be ideal."

Nguyen gets lots of supplies, which lets him transform the library's loft into a chem lab. Every child gets a set of beakers, pipettes, bottles of reagents, and a rack of test tubes. And if Nguyen needs more, all he has to do is make a call.

Earlier, the children mixed vinegar and baking soda and watched the molecules fly. "Ohmygod," cried a little boy as the foam erupted.

"It's beautiful," said a girl, who brightened a dull penny with salt and vinegar. "Salt and vinegar chips also make my nose fizzle," she said.

Some of these kids go to public school, some to parochial. But, said parents, they aren't taught science like this. If science is taught at all.

The secret to this program's success is simple: money, but not a lot. To fund the 5,300 children who attend "Science in the Summer," it costs about $400,000 a year, or about $75 per student.

Which brings us to the unsavory part of our tale. In times like this, when some teachers buy their own supplies, how is "Science in the Summer" so lavishly endowed?

Philadelphia Area Music Podcast Hosted by
Jon Solomon

Local Support 063
Mtn. High | Fred Martin | Sola | And The Moneynotes | Busses | Gang | Ponieheart | Astral Archetype | Andrew Keller | The Silence Kit | Persona | Newton | Prophecies Of War | The Emotron | Aderbat | Jukebox Zeros

Local Support Home Page

It's free. Subscribe.
Get on it.

The program's benefactor is British pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, which swallowed Philadelphia's SmithKline in the late '80s. The teaching materials children take home are emblazoned with company's logo, and their generosity is touted in news stories.

As a drug company, GSK is no worse than other big pharmas. Which means that, after reading in Wikipedia about allegations of pollution and price-fixing, I wanted to wash my hands.

I then turned to Dick Morris' investigative book, Outrage, which documents other acts of generosity from this industry. Such as contributions to Sen. Arlen Specter, who got more than $375,000 between 1998 and 2004 — placing him third behind George W. himself, who took in more than $790,000.

But it isn't just the blood money that sours my stomach. I find it heartbreaking that we, as a nation, have learned to be grateful to those who exploit us. That we depend on them to fund things that schools can't afford — and should.

In his public school, Uriah said he had a couple weeks of weather science this year. "But we didn't have all these supplies." Uriah's mom was more succinct: "His school kind of sucks."

"There have to be schools," declared another mom, "who do things like this."

Maybe there could be. We could pay more for schools if we spent less on drugs. According to Forbes, America's drug companies doubled their sales between 2001 and 2005.

So while it's oh-so-nice that GSK funds "Science in the Summer," let's be sure to bite the hand that feeds us. Because, in the end, that same hand is often picking our pockets.

(bruce@schimmel.com)