JLVernonPhD presents "American SciCo"

Science can be found in the most unexpected places.  Recently, while indulging in one of my guilty television pleasures, I was happily surprised to learn about a piece of American currency that actually featured a bit of “Science.”  In fact, the $2 note issued in 1896 (shown above) displays a beautiful representation of 19th Century Science and is considered one of the most attractive pieces of American currency ever printed. 

Here’s a little history of which you may not be aware.  In 1883, in response to the “silver rush,” Congress authorized the creation of a series of silver notes that came to be known as the “Educational Series.”  The Chief of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing Claude M. Johnson made the conscious decision to integrate elegant artwork into paper money.  He hired four artists (muralists) Edwin H. Blashfield, Will H. Low, C.S. Reinhart and Walter Shirlaw to design the new currency.

When choosing the artwork for the $2 silver note, Johnson rejected the design proposed by Will H. Low which featured Peace and War (or Peace and Defense).  Instead, Johnson decided to use the artwork of Edwin H. Blashfield.  A mural created by Blashfield to be used on the $2 note depicted a wise and matronly “Science” presenting two younglings representing electricity and steam to flanking figures of Commerce and Manufacture.  Electricity holds a coil of wire wound into an electromagnet and Steam holds a lever which controls the gear of an engine.  The symbolism is not only beautiful. It is quite powerful.  The message: “Science fuels the American economy.” 

The lesson presented here was intended to educate the youth of the late 19th Century about the importance of Science in America.  If only this message could be revisited today in the form of modern paper money, we might impart to our youth the progress we’ve made through scientific discovery since the days of steam and primitive sources of electricity.  I think 114 years is time enough to give it another go.  In addition, I cannot overlook the metaphorical significance of Johnson’s decision to supplant “Peace and War” with “Science.”  The message evoked by this decision strikes at the heart of where we find ourselves today.  As President Obama has set out to use Science as a diplomatic tool for creating partnerships rather than rivalries with the Islamic world, the symbolism of “Science” overcoming “War” is compelling.  Many of the current dignitaries on our currency are politicians and war heroes.  Perhaps it’s time to dispense with the saber rattling and promote peace through science.  Further, a modern bank note featuring Science as an integral component of American exceptionalism including our economic prowess could do wonders for the current state of science.  Again, I must cite the President’s commitment to science.  As President Obama has vowed to return Science to its rightful place, it seems to me that Science’s rightful place is on American currency.

Now, some difficult decisions would have to be made in order to effectively deliver this message to our youth that Science is key to America’s success both technologically and economically.  Among the first choices to be made is, “who shall be represented on the back of this new currency?”  The 1896 bills featured portraits of Robert Fulton, inventor of the steam engine, and Samuel F. B. Morse, inventor of the telegraph (shown below).  Without a doubt, these gentlemen were technological leaders of their day.  To maintain continuity, I suppose we could select Albert Einstein, for his contribution to nuclear technology (a modern source of energy), and, oh I don’t know, how about Al Gore, for inventing the internet? 

In all sincerity, choosing Einstein would seem to emphasize the accomplishments made during the 20th Century.  I would prefer to look forward into the 21st Century by emphasizing modern scientific discoveries and the future of Science.  Many consider the 21st Century to be the “Century of Genetics” so perhaps we should honor James Watson for his contributions to science by essentially creating the field of molecular biology.  Again, this could be perceived as looking backward, and given his controversial past, perhaps we should identify a more palatable representative of modern genetics.  How about Craig Venter?  Venter might be on his way to replacing fossil fuels with biofuels.  Despite his contribution to the sequencing of the human genome (which has also yet to prove its value), he mainly represents the potential of modern genetics.  I would be comfortable with choosing Craig Venter because he is a pioneer (a truly American characteristic), but I’ll leave it to you to suggest more appropriate geneticists.  As for communication, perhaps it’s time to give credit where it is due and honor Vinton Cerf, the actual inventor of the internet.  What do you say?