Starship Enterprise…
Trekkies know that there were two starship Enterprises, the first named after the aircraft carrier and the second after the first. I claim there are three. In a few days, the true first starship Enterprise will end its life as a museum on the decks of the old aircraft carrier Intrepid berthed in New York City’s harbor.
The demise of NASA’s shuttle program ranks as one of the most asinine decisions the government has ever made in its mismanagement of science funding. Another, of course, was the cancellation of the SSC (short for “Superconducting Super Collider”). The first killed America’s capability to put an astronaut in space, thus all but ending an all too brief era of space exploration. The second ended U.S. dominance in experimental particle physics. The Higgs particle, if it exists, won’t be discovered by American scientists, at least not by those working in this country.
While these failures and others indicate gross negligence and mismanagement of American science, they also indicate the stark difference between progressive and conservative viewpoints. A conservative promotes scientific research only if it’s clear that the research will eventually make money or, at least, lead to something practical. (I’m ignoring those conservatives like creationists and believers in intelligent design—they are anti-science religious fanatics, not true conservatives.) A progressive promotes scientific research because he or she knows that humanity only move forward by acquiring knowledge. The two points of view might generate the same result in specific cases in the sense that pure knowledge often does lead to profitable and practical applications.
But sometimes it doesn’t. Is that a bad thing? I’m trying to lead you beyond that mere patriotic pride that motivated President Kennedy to initiate a space program that put an astronaut on the moon, surely the key event in NASA’s history. I, like many others, was more than disappointed and frustrated when the USSR launched Sputnik. Kennedy built on those emotions. But disappointment and national pride on the rebound are not sufficient to stay in space for the long haul apparently, at least not for the American government.
Of course, the shuttle program, the SSC, and many other programs were victims to massive budget cuts. However, if I remember correctly, the SSC was terminated when the budget was balanced, but the shuttle program’s demise was certainly a victim to the government guillotine. NASA is muddling along making miracles with relatively few funds.
As I have said many times in this blog, it all comes down to national priorities. NASA’s entire budget is miniscule compared to the Pentagon’s. The entire NSF funding of particle physics, both theoretical and experimental, is also tiny in comparison. The Pentagon’s budget is the last thing conservatives will attack when wielding that budget-cutting battle axe.
All this reflects the anti-science mood that is now dominant in the U.S. Young people aren’t into science anymore—at least, not enough of them. They are technical savages playing their video games and using their smart phones and exhibiting no thirst for scientific knowledge. Some if not all of this unhealthy attitude can traced back to their parents and teachers.
Global warming is beginning to ravage the Earth with extreme weather and people blame science. BP destroys a Gulf ecosystem and scientists get the blame for not cleaning it up fast enough. Children suffer from whooping cough and their parents blame science, even though it’s their choice that they don’t vaccinate their kids.
These and other anti-science attitudes are accompanied by young students’ and their parents’ perceptions that the young man or woman can’t do science and math because it’s too hard (for the young man it’s just a complaint; for the young woman it’s a nefarious stereotype). Educators at all levels, secure with their tenure and union benefits, encourage these attitudes and resist teaching anything outside their comfort zone. Again, I’m speaking to a majority phenomenon—the number of people who thirst for knowledge is diminishing at an alarming rate.
Perhaps the government should endow science like it endows art. Science, especially pure science, is a creative activity and, like art and music, is tremendously rewarding in and by itself, for both the human being as creator and the human being as spectator. National pride loses its luster in comparison to the wonder and awe you can feel in acquiring pure scientific knowledge.
There are many, of course, who see danger in knowledge. The tyrant has no desire that his subjects learn to question and think for themselves—he wants to control knowledge. The religious fanatic fears any datum that’s contrary to his world view—he wants to destroy knowledge. The egotist is afraid that his peers will know more than he does—he wants to hoard knowledge. You can probably add more to this list. And, if you fundamentally disagree with it, you’re part of the problem.
When you go to visit that starship Enterprise this summer, or any other time when you visit the Big Apple, please remember that our nation’s astronauts, whose predecessors once on the moon, now have to hitchhike even to arrive at the International Space Station, a mere stone’s throw in comparison. This is what a conservative attitude toward science leads to. But we should all be ashamed for letting it happen.
And so it goes….
