But what’s it for?
Why attacking the space program or other fields of science for not being about to cure cancer hurts science, and all of us.
The aircraft Pheonix completed a risky soft landing on Mars yesterday, and is set to start analyzing the soil and ice in search of organic compounds that could indicate the precursors of life, the posibility of it or, in the wildest dreams of the NASA scientists who watched the landing in terror yesterday, signs of past life.
Often, when there is a big NASA story, an old debate comes up about whether the millions of dollars spent on the space program are “worth it” considering the multiple needs the country faces in other areas. I say that it is absolutely worth it, for both practical and philosophical reasons.
First the practical reason. Though it may seem like ancient history to some, it used to be that certain fields of science, notably astronomy and biology, were considered to be little more than pastimes, cultural tidbits of societies rich enough to have money and time to spare. Those times are long gone, and through the various technological and medical advances of the past decades people have gotten the idea that science is useful.
This is great, but it’s led to an unfortunate side-effect that reaches from the general public all the way to the inner world of sciences and grant committees. It can be summed up by the question any grant-seeking scientist is almost inevitably asked “So what use will this be?”. The funding for research is being dominated (in the private field pretty much exclusively) by projects that have short to mid-term foreseeable uses, in medicine, aeronautics, computer science, industry etc.
Initially, this is a natural enough idea. Project grants, when given by public institutions, are done so essentially to better society. You will not see me attacking the funding of genuinely useful projects. But thanks to this orientation, basic research, and projects that might not seem quite as directly “useful”, like the space program, find themselves under attack. The problem with this is that many advances in science have come not from a carefully orchestrated project with the clear goal of achieving something, but from things derived from projects that had no other goal than advancing human understanding.
Finally a word about the space program itself and my more philosophical reasons for supporting the space program. I’m not an astrobiologist, though my microbiology teacher at the university was one that collaborated with NASA, so I have a more than passing knowledge of some of the issues involved. Personally, I HIGHLY doubt they will find life, or even signs of previous life, on Mars. However, if they were to find even precursors; aminoacids, lipids, nucleotides, that would be a HUGE discovery. It would be pretty good circumstantial evidence that the conditions that are required for life might not be all that uncommon in the universe.
Would learning that we aren’t alone be useful? I can’t think of any way it would be. Would it be worthwhile? I can’t pinpoint a practical, scientific reason for it, but from deep within me I must say that I am convinced that YES IT WOULD BE WORTHWHILE. Now go ask yourself what the usefulness of this is.
Claudia,
we learn a lot about climatology and geology from studying mars also.
i never took arguments against the space program seriously, private companies spend more on their R&D budget.
people on the libertarian side of this should also ask if we would have the Internet without the department of defense
We sure do. We learn that "global warming" has been occuring on other planets in the solar system, despite a lack of human presence on them. Seems that big ball of fire in the sky plays a role as well.
Who woulda thunk it?
Huh, why would anyone want someone to study something that "someone" isn’t interested in? If a person is interested in space why have them study cancer cures, sounds like a waste of research dollars there! Why fund them though (the next obvious question for sure) since it is purely an interest on the part of an individual? Well, no ones’ crystal ball is clearer than anyone elses, but the science and technology to get things done in one arena are often applicable to another and who knows what questions will be answered or asked and what discoveries will be made? Besides, news like the Mars landing is a lot more interesting (and a needed break) from all the campaign news!
Not to take this topic off on an tangent, but I wonder if the issue is whether people “attacking” the space program are truly arguing that there is no benefit to exploring space or whether they are merely arguing that it should not be a priority of the federal government. Absent from this discussion is whether the government should be devoting the billions of dollars it spends on the space program to other priorities as well as whether this is yet another area which would be better suited were it to be run by private enterprise rather than a government bureaucracy.
Many of us take air travel for granted nowadays, but there was once a time when people though that such feat–the organized transport of people via aircraft–could never be accomplished were it not controlled by the government. Yet airlines are run as private enterprises now, and no one even gives it a second thought. Sure, the airline industry is far from perfect. But would any of you here really want the federal government to own and run the airline industry?
Government subsidization of industries removes the incentive for innovation. I believe that the technology and innovation for space exploration would occur at a much faster rate if it were left in the hands of private industry enterprise, much the way that computer innovation and technology has exploded during the last quarter century.
While I believe that space exploration is a laudable goal, it doesn’t strike me as being a necessary function of government. The billions of dollars we spend on NASA would be better spent–I think–dealing with some of our economic issues at home.
Re: Sure, the airline industry is far from perfect.
Are you kidding? It was on the news today: they are not going to serve peanuts or pretzels anymore. I say, that’s the straw that breaks the camel’s back after $15 charge for the first luggage checked in (last week’s news) and paying fares determined by the pound (prediction for the near future).