||10 THE THIRTY-THIRD ANNUAL REYNOLDS LECTURE from its implications in application. Despite an organizational division of labor, science and technology are closely intermingled. Nonetheless, it is still useful to make the distinction between science and technology, if only because they are two aspects of an undertaking which differ in the degree to which they are widely known and understood. Technology is far more visible than science. Regarding science as repugnant because of a distaste for technology is an unfortunate attitude which is as misleading as an uncritical enthusiasm for technology based on a delight in science. Disenchantment with technology surely plays a role in widening the gap between scientists and non-scientists, but it doesn't really account for it. What does account for the gap, of course, is our pattern of education. A short way back I mentioned that it is difficult to think of a human institution which hasn't been more or less profoundly changed by the rise of science. It sometimes seems as if education might be the exception. Much of our education still regards science as dispensable - or at least not as essential as a grounding in our political and literary traditions. In much of our education there is still a strong flavor of the Renaissance when the excitement centered on the rediscovery of the great and neglected literature of the ancient world. That is still with us, but other sources of excitement have come into existence since the Renaissance, most notably science. Nonetheless, the sciences are still regarded as rather peripheral in the making of an educated person, and much of education is conducted as if the scientific and industrial revolutions had never taken place. It is perfectly possible, and not at all unusual, for a gifted student to spend four years at the University of Utah, for example, without extending his knowledge of science much beyond what he brings from high school. A smattering of science is considered enough. An educational system geared to an image of an educated man for whom a smattering of science is enough is antiquated. In it, only the professional scientist gets more than a token exposure to science, hence the gap. Before trying to manipulate our educational practices to correct this situation, we should ask what its consequences are. Most critics agree that the state of affairs is a harmful one. C. P. Snow looks at this gap between the scientists and the non-scientists and sees it as a sign that we have never really assimilated or tried to understand our scientific and industrial revolutions. This lack of understanding he then views as a barrier preventing us from doing our part in correcting the great and ever growing disparity in living standards between the wealthy and poor nations of the world.