21/20 VISION

In any historical examination of a century, it's the first 20 years that are most critical, for it is during this time the seeds for the other 80 are sown.

The century just passing is a wonderful illustration of this.

From 1900 to 1920, the world was introduced to many things that would shape life and culture for the remainder of the century: the emergence of the gasoline engine as the primary method for getting around, the sinking of the Titanic and the death of technological innocence, World War I (which ultimately led to World War II), the rise of professional sports, the advent of the motion picture industry, the birth of radio.

Arguably, the same 20-year period may also have been the most important for OSU's 20th century.

Not only did the university enjoy its greatest period of growth, it also was guided by its most important president, William Jasper Kerr, whose impact on Oregon State during his administration (1907-1925) can still be seen and felt today.

What about the first 20 years of the 21st century?

Chances are, the things we will witness over the next two decades will shape and change life for a long time to come, a topic we recently posed to eight of OSU's top professors, all holders of endowed chairs in the key disciplines of history, agriculture, environment, family studies, science and religion. Here we share their visions of the future.

Warren Kronstad: The challenge to provide enough food.

Kronstad examines stalks of wheat he helped develop.

Warren Kronstad, '63, has been called a giant of agricultural research in Oregon and the most prolific and well-known wheat breeder the state has ever known. He officially retired in 1998 as distinguished professor of plant breeding and genetics after a 40-year career at Oregon State University, but continues his international wheat research.

He and collaborators developed a large percentage of the grain varieties grown in the state in recent decades, including "Stephens," a soft white wheat variety that has dominated Oregon's wheat acreage for many years. Economists estimate the high-yielding Stephens and other Kronstad varieties have added millions of dollars a year to the Oregon economy.

He has trained thousands of undergraduate and graduate students, including students from most of the major wheat producing regions of the world.

The most obvious challenge to agriculture in the next decades will be to provide enough food, feed and fiber for an ever-increasing population. This includes not only the production but also the distribution of such commodities, especially to the people in the poor developing countries.

The magnitude of this challenge becomes more apparent when it is realized that it took 10,000 years, until 1975, to produce 3.27 billion metric tons of food. To just maintain the current amount of food per capita it will be necessary to produce 6.6 billion metric tons of food in the next 60 years. Less cultivated land and the current economic downturn in the agriculture sector make the problem of enhancing food production even more difficult. This situation is compounded when good agricultural land, like observed in the Willamette Valley, is replaced by houses and support systems to accommodate the influx of people. It will be necessary to manage and sustain every acre of cultivated land in the most efficient manner possible.

Also, the question of the most economical-sized farm must be evaluated. If current trends continue, it is anticipated there will be fewer but larger farms in the future. Today in the United States there are approximately 300,000 commercial farms, while in the next few decades there could be 30,000. Another measure of the health of the family farm is the age of the family farmer--it keeps rising as more young people choose to leave the farm for other careers. The concept of the family farm and

Farming as a way of life will continue to give way to large corporate ventures.

Not only are farms becoming larger, but institutions serving farmers--lending institutions, agricultural equipment industries, chemical companies--are merging and downsizing. For example, farmers have fewer and fewer banks or lending institutions to which they can turn when they need to borrow money. As a result, the government is subsidizing farming more than it has ever done, and the subsidies will continue into the future. Most people don't realize the plight of agriculture today hasn't been this bad since the Depression.

Research will continue to develop more environmentally and sustainable methods to protect the natural resources, such as minimum or no tillage, better crop rotations, etc. However, the major change will be the opportunity to collect, analyze and use information about the entire farming operation. With desktop computers and instant access to data via the Internet, plus information gained from the satellite imaging of individual fields, it is possible to generate an array of information including the farm's financial picture, yield maps, soil fertility and crop models, and chemical application records. Information on disease forecasting, irrigation schedules, soil fertility responses--even down to a specific acre--will make farming more cost-efficient while also more environmentally friendly.

Through conventional plant and animal breeding, superior strains have evolved, but concerns are being expressed that the genetic diversity necessary to make further improvements has been exhausted. Thus, if the necessary demands for food are to be met, it is imperative that alternate methods to enhance genetic diversity be found. One of the most promising approaches is biotechnology or genetic engineering. Through the use of genetic engineering it is possible to select and incorporate desired genes with improved adaptability, flavor, nutritional value, insect and disease resistance, and herbicide tolerance.

Biotechnology and more specifically genetic engineering also have resulted in concerns about perceived environmental and health hazards, lack of regulatory controls, and moral and ethical implications. It is quite apparent that both the private and public institutions involved in such research must do a better job in providing the necessary facts regarding genetically modified organisms.

In the future the university can have even a greater role to play in terms of extending information to the agricultural community and packaging the information in a way that is useful. To survive, the farmer will need new tools, and those tools can come through extended education. The university must be a leader in the development of precision agriculture and in sharing those developments with the agriculture community.

Alexis Walker: We will experience a tremendous increase in longevity.

Alexis Walker holds the Jo Anne L. Petersen Chair in Gerontology and Family Studies. She directs the program on gerontology at OSU and is professor in the department of human development and family studies. In 1999, she received the OSU Women's Center Woman of Achievement Award and in 1997-98 was named a top professor by the Mortar Board National Senior Honor Society at OSU.

Nationally, Walker has been recognized for her work as president of the National Council on Family Relations and as a fellow of the NCFR. She has served as editorial board member and reviewer for 11 different journals that publish family-related research.

There are a number of social trends that have implications for both the immediate and distant future. We will be experiencing a tremendous increase in longevity. We've always had people live until their 80s, 90s, and 100s, but the number doing so has grown and will continue to grow.

There will be far more people who will have living grandparents and great-grandparents, and family relationships will be extended for longer periods of time. The older generations will need to rely more on the younger generations, many of whom will be old themselves. When people live into their 100s, their children are in their 70s, potentially resulting in two generations of people with dependencies.

Another implication is that people who will be moving into later life 20 years from now will be people whose children have experienced a higher rate of divorce and remarriage.

Divorce and remarriage really complicate family relationships, creating new kinds of ties that we don't have rules about. For example, we don't have language to describe a person who used to be a grandmother or a mother-in-law. On the one hand, this could create the possibility for people to have wider family ties and networks. On the other hand, these kinds of new family connections might not be subject to the same kind of social obligations and might not provide the support that traditional family members have provided.

Families are becoming smaller due to the fact that people are having fewer children and a greater number of young people are delaying marriage or may never marry. Stepfamilies will become more important as families become smaller, and there are fewer people in the younger generations to help those in the older generations.

One of things that has changed dramatically during the last 40 years has been the ability of the single wage-earner to support a family. In the 1950s it was more possible for a single wage-earner to support several dependents. Unfortunately, the real dollar value of wages hasn't kept pace with cost of living. Most families today are supported by two wage-earners, and that trend will continue.

Another of the biggest influences on families in the 20th century has been the development of effective birth control. This has made a dramatic difference in the choices people make and has resulted in a drop in the birth rate.

Effective birth control and changes in the economy changed women's employment patterns. In the 1960s, women with young children were not in the work force. Now, however, 60 percent of women with infants are employed. That has been a huge change in a 40-year period. I expect this trend to continue. Higher levels of education for women also contribute to this employment trend.

Lower-income workers may find that they need to stay in the work force as they get older for financial reasons. Also, more people at older ages will want to and will make contributions. Because the generations following them are relatively small, there will be a need for more workers. I hope that happens because older people have a great deal to contribute.

In the future, retirement communities will be a real growth industry. These kinds of communities, however, are only practical for people who have enough resources to be able to afford them.

Social changes bring a mixed bag of costs and benefits. More people are living longer with good health and resources, and yet more people are coming forward with greater needs and fewer resources and are much more vulnerable. The degree to which we can optimize quality of life for the majority is how we should be judged as a society. In the United States, we have a very strong tradition of independence and autonomy. Helping older people be autonomous in older life should be the American way.

Marcus Borg: Spirituality will continue to grow along with conflict about the Bible.

Borg at the First Presbyterian Church in Covallis

Marcus Borg is Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture in the philosophy department at Oregon State University. He is the author of 10 books, including the bestselling Jesus: A New Vision and Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. Described by the The New York Times as "a leading figure among the new generation of Jesus scholars," Borg also has appeared on national television shows and is a regular columnist for "Beliefnet."

A fellow of the Jesus Seminar, he has been national chair of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature and co-chair of its International New Testament Program Committee. He is currently president of the Anglican Association of Biblical Scholars. His work has been translated into German, Dutch, Korean, Japanese, Italian, Spanish and French. His doctorate is from Oxford University, and he also has studied at Union Theological Seminary.

Conflict about the Bible will continue to be the central issue in North American Christianity in the 21st century. The conflict divides fundamentalist and conservative Christians from moderate to liberal Christians. The first group sees the Bible as a divine product that is to be interpreted literally and factually as the absolute will of God. The second group sees the Bible as the human product of two ancient religious communities and thus views it as a document to be interpreted historically and metaphorically as these ancient communities' witness to what they thought life with God was about. Interest in the second approach is growing rapidly, as the remarkably strong public appetite for books of Biblical scholarship suggests.

This conflict not only divides churches but is also responsible for cultural conflicts, such as the teaching of evolution in public schools and social policy toward homosexuality. For example, if the Bible is a divine product, then the laws of the Bible are God's laws and the Genesis stories of creation are God's stories of creation and can't possibly be wrong. If the Bible is a human product, however, then the laws of the Bible are ancient Israel's laws and the result of early Christian movement ethical teaching, and the stories of creation are ancient Israel stories of creation. While not necessary scientifically accurate, the stories can be considered profoundly true as metaphorical or symbolic narratives. Though I think fundamentalism has reached its high-water mark, I also think the conflict will continue for several more decades.

Interest in spirituality will continue to grow, both within the church and outside of it. I think of spirituality as the experiential dimension of religion. It emphasizes practices such as contemplative prayer, solitude, retreats, pilgrimage and so forth. Its purpose is the opening up of the self to the reality of the sacred. Many churches, Protestant as well as Catholic, are recovering the spiritual practices of the ancient and medieval church.

Religious pluralism in the United States will continue to increase. Our children and grandchildren will grow up in a religious environment very different from people of my generation. Already there are more Muslims in this country than Episcopalians or Presbyterians. Not just major metropolitan areas, but many medium-sized cities have Buddhist and Hindu temples. Moreover, religious pluralism is having a major impact on mainline Christians. Many no longer think of Christianity as "the only way," but affirm that God is known in all of the major religions.

I think dialogue among the world's religions is going to be a very central feature of the next century. I think religions will maintain their distinctive identity, but exploration of the similarities and cooperation will be a major feature of religious life. Another interesting development is that there are now more Christians in the southern hemisphere than there are in the northern hemisphere. Europeans and North Americans are no longer the majority in the Christian church worldwide.

The relationship between religion and science is changing. For most of the 19th and 20th centuries, many people saw that relationship as deeply conflicted and felt that they had to choose between them. The conflict was between a fact-oriented science and a literalistic understanding of religion. Recent developments in both theoretical physics and theology suggest the possibility not only of a "truce," but of mutual compatibility. Therefore, the conflict between science and religion is a conflict between Newtonian science and a literal reading of the scriptures and was a conflict of the 18th to 20th centuries.

Mary Jo Nye and Robert A. Nye: Society risks skewing things in the direction of an inhumane life.

Mary Jo and Robert A. Nye are the first holders of the Thomas Hart and Mary Jones Horning Chair in the Humanities. They teach both undergraduate and graduate classes and organize symposia and workshops relating to the ties between science and the humanities.

Mary Jo Nye, a faculty member at the University of Oklahoma from 1970 to 1994, studies the social and cultural significance of science and scientific institutions. She is a former president of the History of Science Society and was selected as the 1999 recipient of the Dexter Award for Outstanding Achievement in the History of Chemistry.

Robert Nye was a faculty member at the University of Oklahoma from 1969 to 1994. He specializes in European intellectual and cultural history, the history of social sciences, and the history of sexuality. He recently edited a reader, Sexuality, which considers sexual theory and behavior from a historical perspective.

The Nyes both served as visiting professors at Harvard University in 1988 and have been fellows of the Churchill College at the University of Cambridge.

The premise of the Horning Endowment is to build bridges between the sciences and humanities. Therefore, in envisioning the future based on past trends, the one area we would like to comment on is the interrelationship between science and the humanities.

There's a great book, which is taught in one of Bob's courses, called Dr. Faustus by the German novelist Thomas Mann. It's a novel about the German soul, and it's deeply historical in the sense that it traces the history of the German culture from the Middle Ages to the present.

Mann believes the reason Germany has been an unpredictable part of the world in the last 75 years is because Germans had less respect for the humanities and what he calls humane knowledge and learning and too much respect for those things that Mann said were least directly rooted in human life, namely the fruits of imaginative investigation and enterprise--including science, but also some of the higher arts such as music and mathematics.

According to Mann, and we think this is a viable part of the interpretation of the Holocaust and the events of World War II, this emphasis, which was not unique to Germany but stronger in Germany than elsewhere, deprived the Germans of the vision of human tolerance necessary for any society to function with a strong sense of human dignity.

Mann contends that education is very important because it has political consequences. The sciences and the arts are not political by nature, but the humanities are deeply concerned with human beings and the way they live their lives, including politics and self-government. If the humanities are ignored and all the emphasis put on science, a society risks skewing things in the direction of inhumane life.

From a historical perspective, it's rather interesting to compare the early 20th century to the early 21st century in terms of the relative prestige of the sciences and humanities. Around 1900, electricity revolutionized the world, just as the computer and Internet are doing so now. In the late 19th century, institutions of higher education were committed to teaching the classics, the humane classics as they were called, including philosophy and languages and literature. As more and more science curriculum was introduced, it wasn't long before the so called modern track began to gain more prestige and the classic track had less prestige and visibility in both American and European universities. Governments began to realize that they had a stake in educating their citizens scientifically because scientific and technical knowledge in the long run benefited the state and increased its power.

Traditionally, the arts prosper in times of economic prosperity. When there is money to be had and patronage to be given, people give money to artistic foundations and organizations and can spend money to go to performances and museums. During good times, the arts do okay ... they limp along. But the problem is that in bad times those things go belly up right away. They have no endowment, no margin for survival, no government support in the United States. Even though many European countries do support and endow the arts rather generously, it is still a minuscule part of the amount they allocate for support of technology and science.

Trying to find a balance between these two things is not an easy matter, whether you're a pedagogue trying to teach your students a balanced view of the world or a legislator sitting in Washington trying to divide up the monetary pie. But it's not just a question of equity, it's a question of the starvation--the complete starvation--of one side and the enrichment of the other.

If we go 25 years down the road, and we hit a bump economically and all the arts that operate according to private largesse and generosity right now disappear, then the world will be a grimmer place, a less humane place. We learn a lot from the arts about tolerance and humanity and about ourselves that the sciences don't teach us in the same way.

As state legislatures have cut support, public universities have had to find other sources of financial support and have turned increasingly to business. As a result, there is so much emphasis on the so-called real world and preparing students for the industrial and modernizing work force based on the Internet and computers that some things are getting squeezed out. Pure science is getting squeezed out a little bit and so are the humanities and the arts because they don't have the same kind of industrial or commercial base to which they can appeal for support.

A general liberal education has been a very important aspect of education traditionally, and in state universities it is being largely abandoned. You can major in history or major in English, but you can't major in the sciences or engineering or forestry or agriculture and still have enough exposure to the humanities to give you much more than a very passing understanding. We're impoverishing our students from what used to constitute the bulk of knowledge about human beings.

Arthur Sleight: Quality of life may significantly decline in the next 20 years.

In addition to his professional activities, Sleight raises llamas.

Arthur Sleight, holder of the Milton Harris Professorship since 1989, specializes in the study of solid state chemistry. He became head of the OSU Center for Advanced Materials Research in 1995 and was awarded the title of Distinguished Professor in 1998.

He was one of a team of researchers that discovered zirconium tungstate, a compound that contracts instead of expands when heated and was hailed as one of the top scientific advancements of 1996 by Discover magazine. Sleight, who spent 25 years at DuPont conducting and managing research projects, has 20 patents and 330 publications to his credit.

He has been editor in chief of the Materials Research Bulletin since 1994 and was awarded the Gold Medal Award from the National Association for Science, Technology and Society in 1994 and the American Chemical Society Award for Chemistry of Materials in 1997. He has served on the editorial boards of many scientific journals, and a recent issue of the International Journal of Inorganic Materials was dedicated to him in recognition of his contributions to the field of inorganic materials.

During the next 20 years, science will undoubtedly continue to offer us exciting new miracles that will have the potential to dramatically impact the way we live. Despite this, I fear that the quality of life enjoyed by us and other life forms on this planet may significantly decline in the next 20 years and beyond. My concerns are based in part on the rejection of certain scientific advances by large portions of our population. More importantly is the fact that the most severe problem we face is not one to be solved by science and technology, and I fear that this problem may not be adequately addressed.

Many have noted the growing disconnect between those who understand science and technology and those who do not. This is in part a consequence of science and technology becoming more complex and difficult to comprehend. This disconnect, however, also can be partially attributed to inadequate education, especially at the kindergarten through grade 12 level. This disconnect leads to irrational reactions from those lacking a good understanding of relevant science and technology and frequently to rejection of advances in science that have the potential to solve many of the problems we face.

Some examples of this disconnect are amusing. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become a very powerful medical diagnostic tool. The first MRI instruments used to image the human body were labeled as nuclear magnetic resonance instruments. Very quickly, due to irrational reaction from some patients, the word nuclear was painted over. Eventually, these same instruments were relabeled as magnetic resonance imaging instruments, but there were no associated changes in the instruments.

This irrational reaction fortunately did not stop the adoption of MRI. There are other cases, however, where such negative reactions have greatly impeded or actually halted technology that could improve our lives. There has been significant negative reaction to irradiated food, a reaction that lacks any scientific foundation. This advance with great promise is currently being relabeled as electronic pasteurization in an effort to gain general acceptance.

Genetic engineering is likely the new technology that could have the greatest impact on our lives in the 21st century. The negative reaction to this new technology is so strong that some companies are abandoning this area.

The human race uses enormous and ever increasing quantities of energy. At the present time there is no large-scale source of energy that does not come without substantial risks and significant adverse side effects. The consumption of fossil fuels comes with associated risks, and we now know that fossil fuel consumption is wreaking havoc through global warming. The fossil fuels will not last forever, and there is no risk-free large-scale source of energy in sight for the next 20 years.

The need for another source of energy is extreme. Nuclear energy could provide us with the breathing room necessary while we are seeking a large-scale, risk-free source of energy. Negative reaction from the public, however, has essentially squelched the nuclear energy industry in this country. This irrational reaction also has caused the shutdown of research reactors that are vital to the research of thousands of scientists. There is no doubt that science and technology will continue to alleviate the energy problem through providing more efficient use of energy and decreasing the pollution caused by fossil fuel consumption. Without nuclear energy, however, science and technology will not make the energy problem disappear in the foreseeable future. The risks of nuclear energy could have been managed, if we had not surrendered to irrational reactions.

When I arrived at OSU about 10 years ago, I was asked for ideas for new research initiatives. On examining various environmental problems, it became clear again and again that the underlying cause of the problem was overpopulation. I completely lost interest in finding scientific solutions to problems that should be solved by a decrease in population. Reducing population would reduce noxious emissions, halt global warming, alleviate our energy problem, conserve our dwindling resources, save our endangered species, halt urban sprawl and give us the space we need to live comfortably.

My concerns about the future will disappear if we can contain irrational reactions to science and we reverse the population growth. Just controlling population growth is very challenging. Even with two children per couple, the population in this country will nearly double during this century, if current immigration levels are maintained. And controlling population growth is not enough. The challenge we must address is decreasing the world's human population, even as life expectancy increases.

Lubchenco and Menge at Yaquina Head at the Oregon Coast.

Jane Lubchenco and Bruce Menge: We will become increasingly aware of the importance of oceans.
Jane Lubchenco and Bruce Menge are Wayne and Gladys Valley Professors of Marine Biology. They are lead principal investigators for the Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans, a long-term interdisciplinary research project involving four universities and funded by a $17.7-million grant from the Packard Foundation.

Lubchenco has served as president of the Ecological Society of America and the American Association for the Advancement of Science and will be the first woman president of the 70-year-old International Council for Science. She has been a Pew Scholar in Conservation and the Environment and a MacArthur Fellow. She has received a number of honorary doctorate degrees and was Oregon Scientist of the Year in 1994. She recently was nominated by President Clinton to serve a second term on the National Science Board, a 24-member board that oversees the National Science Foundation and advises the president and Congress on scientific issues.

Menge is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and was named a John Simon Guggenheim Fellow in 1994-1995. He has been awarded the F.A. Gilfillan Memorial Award for Excellence in Research from the OSU College of Science and an honorary doctorate of science degree from Long Island University, Southampton College.

Most of the attention relative to natural systems has focused on either changes that are occurring on land or in the atmosphere (i.e., global warming), but in the next couple of decades we're going to see a much stronger focus on the world's oceans. We know a lot less about changes in oceans, either in recent times or historically, than we know about changes on land. We are, however, becoming increasingly aware of our dependence on oceans and the very rapid rate at which many ocean systems are changing. We think there will be a much stronger appreciation for the importance of oceans and a much greater concern about how people can manage their activities so that oceans will continue to supply things on which humanity depends.

We are actively engaged in and excited about understanding the basic workings of nearshore marine systems, for example those along the coasts of Oregon. With the fantastic opportunities made possible by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Wayne and Gladys Valley Foundation, and OSU alumni Bob and Betty Lundeen, we are in a position to make significant advances in our knowledge of these systems. Along with our outstanding colleagues and our talented students, we are forging new interdisciplinary partnerships and developing new paradigms to understand nearshore marine environments. Until recently it was next to impossible to study nearshore marine systems at the scale needed to really understand their dynamics or in the interdisciplinary fashion required. All that is changing rapidly, due to new technologies, new interest in the problems and the generosity of special donors.

In our experience, Oregonians care passionately about our shores and oceans. Having better information about how they are changing, how we can maintain the glorious diversity of life at our doorstep, how to restore depleted fisheries and how our land-based activities affect marine systems will be useful information to guide future decisions and actions. Our research builds upon and is connected to many ongoing management and policy efforts.

The topic of marine reserves is a nice example of one specific area at the intersection of this basic research and policy efforts. One of our predictions is that in the next two decades there will be a vast expansion of networks of marine reserves in this country and hopefully around the world as well, based on the increased recognition that reserves are a very potent fishery management tool and a very powerful conservation tool for protecting entire habitats. Our country currently has just a handful of very "postagestamp" sized areas that are fully protected, meaning no fishing or taking of marine organisms. There is a vigorous dialogue about expanding those areas into a larger network of marine reserves that are comparable to the national parks that we have on land. Our research efforts are designed to understand better where, how and when to place networks of reserves for maximum effectiveness.

The future of our oceans will be determined largely by the decisions that are made in the coming decade. It is our expectation that our students and the research they are doing will play a key role in guiding and influencing those decisions. The challenges are formidable – oceans are strongly affected by global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, invasive species, habitat destruction, overfishing, coastal development, and runoff of nutrients and pollutants from land. The consequences of these changes – depletion of fisheries, increases in harmful algal blooms, coral reef bleaching, loss of specie – are motivating many to ask how can we trigger a sea change. We are greatly encouraged by the energy, talents and dedication of our students who are actively learning and working on ocean issues – our future.