Science, too big to fail

While not directly market related, I would like your indulgence for a few moments on a topic I am interested in. I will tie it in to the markets but really it’s more of a social zeitgeist matter.
One of those cliche sayings you hear now and again is “If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we…?” You can fill in the blank with anything from “make a travel coffee mug that won’t spill and fits in the cup holder” to “extract oil from the Canadian tar sands”. It’s seems like a fairly trite thing but I believe there are socio-economic ramifications implied by the phrase that merit some drilling down.
First the phrase points to one of the paramount achievements of our species, and of our country. It is held in the highest pantheon of human endeavors and in my opinion it warrants that standing. The collaboration of intellectual power that was brought to that program has very few peers and none I can think of off hand that weren’t related to some type of military application (the Manhattan project for example).
Second it points to our failing in the same arena to continue to push the envelope in areas both mundane and esoteric. We clearly have the capacity as a citizenry to tackle the two aforementioned challenges.
So, now for the rant.
Why if we can put a man on the moon, can’t we solve the problems of today? What obstacles present themselves that are more insurmountable than escaping Earths gravity, sailing 384,000 kilometers through the void, landing on the surface of the moon and returning?
The answer? Well it appears to be, we’re just not that interested. The biggest obstacle appears to be us. The desire to achieve intellectual goals merely for the joy of finding things out seems to be a thing of the past. We as a culture are putting more energy into the chance to humiliate ourselves on some moronic “reality” tv show, or to watch some other hapless souls take their shot at 15 minutes of fame. The ratio of people who know all the winners of “American Idol” to those who can name one Nobel prize winning Physicist other than Einstein is probably ten thousand to one. Children are raised to believe it’s better to be pretty or athletic than smart or well educated. Society, especially here in the states, inculcates youngsters to have goals of fame and fortune over knowledge.
If a case can be made for the opposite position I’d love to hear it.
Maybe as the child of a teacher, I harbor a bias towards this position, but I am open to counter arguments. In fact it would make my day if someone could offer evidence to the contrary, but alas it seems not to be forthcoming.
We hear there is a shortage of scientists and engineers here in the U.S. and that we must “import” intellectual skill from other countries to our universities and industries to keep up with a fast changing world that increasingly relies on technology for day to day needs.
As an American who believes we have the best and the brightest right here, and the system of government that allows these attributes to flourish, I am saddened by the culture that has manifested itself here and acts as a stultifying agent.
There are however, a few things we can do change this.
First is begin a Manhattan project type effort to establish our energy independence. If we can join with our neighbors to the north even better. We are the “Saudi Arabia” of coal and our Canadian friends have a supply of oil locked up in the tar sands. Cooperation in grid and transmission of power can reduce the costs of getting electricity to where it needs to go. The technology will need to be developed and once it is the engineers can go to work developing the practical application. Our Government, university system, and our industrial complex, will all have roles to play, and in the end we will be able to tell the 14th century sultanates the hold us hostage to eat sand. We should have done this when the first oil embargo took place way back in the early 1970′s, and we didn’t, and we’ve been suffering the consequences ever since. It’s possible, it’s sensible, and it would add to the prosperity of our economy and our national pride.
Second is to fund the “Big Science” projects. NASA, the Superconducting Super Collider, The National Ignition Project, The Human Genome Project, and many other pure science projects. These projects may have less obvious benefits but the world is full of things that were the incidental result of these type of projects. From Tang, to the national GPS system, to MRI machines, we benefit every day from advances made in pure science, even if the benefit was not the intended purpose of the project. NASA’s 2009 budget was $18 billion, about a seventh of the amount the Dept of the Treasury has not spent out of the $700 billion in the TARP program that ends in December (Treasury wants to hold on to the money “in case” they need it in the future). Personally I’d rather see the money go to an astronaut planting our flag on Mars, than to some bank CEO who should be perp walked to Leavenworth.
Third, how about for every dollar we spend on school programs for underachievers (and I believe this money to be well spent) and athletic programs (also well spent) we spend a few cents on programs for the gifted, or prizes for students at all levels who achieve in science and math.
I say we make as big a deal out of the kid who gets a perfect score on the SAT’s as we do out of the kid who throws a touchdown pass. Both are great, and deserving of praise, but one is a whole lot more likely to make an advance in the treatment of cancer.
The typical argument against the funding of pure science is that it’s expensive and the results are not guaranteed. Both true. But one thing is guaranteed, if we continue to fall behind in the sciences, we will lose our preeminent place in this world. America is the greatest country in the world not because we produced some dippy actress or prima donna athlete but because we produced the likes of Richard Feynman, Barbara McClintock, and Elias James Corey, and we provided a culture and a society where they could achieve the things they did.
Does anyone believe the money we gave to some of the TARP recipients was better spent than it would have been if NASA had gotten it? Big science is expensive, but it does employ many folks in many disciplines, and it promotes a healthy national pride.
Maybe if we can’t seem to solve the problems of today it’s because we have elected not to intellectually prepare ourselves to address them. Think the TARP program is expensive? What is the price of allowing ourselves to slip into scientific mediocrity?
Science and the benefits that come along with it, are truly too big for us to fail, and right now we are in danger of getting left back.