I gave a presentation to a science policy group here in which I discussed the current US space exploration policy using this paper by a couple of Rice University professors as a starting point.
Basically the authors argue that the continued US preeminence in space exploration is contingent upon resolving four issues:
1. Cumbersome US export policies for satellites and other space-related equipment.
2. Declining numbers of new US scientists and engineers.
3. A flawed and incoherent plan by NASA that neglects the importance of basic science.
4. A lack of real perspective on international cooperation.
The discussion was lively especially with respect to the second and fourth issues. Several of the attendees were non-US nationals studying for science PhDs here. A big question that came up was whether or not declining US-native scientists is a problem. The argument goes that if space exploration in the 21st century is a journey, not a race, why should we care about the nationalities of those involved? Shouldn't we rather care solely about the progress of science? Does nationalism have a place in our international world plan?
I don't have good answers to these questions. But I thought out next president might. Barack Obama released a campaign statement stating that his goal is to maintain US preeminence in space. I'm sure the statement there that "Human exploration beyond low-earth orbit should be a long-term goal and investment for all space faring countries, with America in the lead," was meant to inspire US nationals, but do we really need to be the lead? When the position states that "The United States needs to fully involve international partners in future exploration plans," shouldn't it really say that the US needs to be fully involved with international partners, a subtle difference but one that treats our international collaborators as actual partners.
Perhaps I'm naive. Perhaps I like to think I avoid competition generally. Perhaps there are national security issues which ought to be considered. Perhaps the desire to maintain US preeminence in space will keep us from complacency. But I'm not sure. It feels equally as likely that the desire to out-do other nations will impede our progress and cause us to miss out on valuable opportunities for collaboration. I know scientific discovery is very much built on profit and competition (patents). But it seems equally built on open dialog and acceptence of valid theory and practices regardless of the source.
So I guess my real question is: When science meets the state, who wins?
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGreat questions Marcus. My knee-jerk reaction, without letting your post settle in my brain a bit, is that space exploration was born as the space race. As far as I understand it, it was mainly necessitated by nationalistic desires.
ReplyDeleteMost all of the literature and films on space post WWII are about power struggles and wars. Sputnik changed our curriculum drastically by severely cutting humanities in favor of math and science - all because we had to beat the Rooskies. It seems that our relationship to space is a rather competitive, if not bellicose, one.
In fact, as I read your post, I was surprised that the question was even being asked at your presentation whether space exploration is a race or a journey. This gives me hope that maybe we have had a generational shift and that attitudes really have changed.
I'm all about cooperation as opposed to competition myself. Still, there are aspects of what has been done in space that have serious national security ramifications. It doesn't seem like exploration can be purely without paranoia and protective instincts.
As for your final question about who wins when science meets the state, my initial response is: military/weapons contractors. But I'll have to think about it for a bit.
Will, the beginning of space exploration was most certainly a race and it does look promising that most scientists think of our reaching toward space as a journey, but this is far from the accepted view. Many decision-makers still think we need to beat everyone out and dominate, rather than work collaboratively. And when policy-makers leave out scientists to make decisions regarding our national security with regards to science everyone loses.
ReplyDeleteAs Abbey and Lane suggested in the first paper the State department has an incredibly inefficient licensing process that has cost many US space companies revenue, thus impeding our progress. And not just our national progress, but human progress toward space.
I'm not even sure that military contractors are winning on this one.
As an addendum here Neal Lane and George Abbey discuss how Obama can save the space program.
ReplyDeleteMarcus, I'm sorry I missed your presentation. I look forward to reading this paper. According to your post, it sounds like scientists are more inclined to think of space as a cooperative journey, while the political heads are still stuck in a Cold War space race mentality. It seems to me we need the exact opposite: scientists competing for innovation and politicos fostering an international spirit of collaboration. How great would it be if national borders didn't play a role in any of this.
ReplyDeleteSince it seems that humans are unable to think beyond an "us vs. them" framework, it seems that space exploration provides the perfect (heuristic) scenario for all nations to band together as "us," even if the goals are unreasonable. Unfortunately, the few military superpowers seem to view space exploration - at least in part - as a platform for more predominant weapons defense systems. Fear of revealing military secrets may explain why the United States has created (or failed to remedy) a restrictive policy on exports.
Like you and Will, however, I'm not convinced that America should strive for global dominance in this quest for extra-terrestrial knowledge. Sharing the glory (and the costs!) of this enterprise seems like the best policy with far more gains for America than losses.
More after I actually read the Abbey and Lane article.
"Virginia Physicist Pleads Guilty to Illegally Exporting Space Launch Data to China. See here and here.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like this physicist was looking to win a contract from the Chinese government to build a liquid hydrogen tank system. He apparently bribed Chinese officials to get this contract, helped them design and develop a cryogenic fueling system, and shared information about cryogenic pumps, valves, and filters from a defense article, all without permission from the U.S. Department of State.
I need to read more about this case, but the media suggests that the information will be used by the Chinese to launch vehicles designed to send space stations and satellites into orbit and provide support for manned space flight and future lunar missions. The physicist is guilty of violating the Arms Export Control Act, yet it's unclear to me that any of the information in question is related to arms or military defense systems. Nor is it clear that the physicist acted in bad-faith or that his actions are detrimental to American security.
I know very little about the facts of the case, but this seems like a clear example of how Problem #1 in your post can impede collaborative space exploration.
Wow, Doug. This is fascinating.
ReplyDeleteAs a peace-loving scientist I tend to glance past the possible legitimate reasons our country limits collaborative research. Space exploration is especially difficult for in this regard since anything that could be used to launch some payload into space could also be used to launch missiles.
While it's clear that in this case more was involved than the peaceful exchange of science (Shu was working for a private company that had money to be made of the Chinese), I can't help but think that if we weren't so suspicious of other nations' motives we could get a lot more done as scientists. Also, if the public were more supportive of fundamental science, scientists desperate for research funds wouldn't be sneaking around trying to finagle money by corrupt means.
Another issue to be considered is if we export all our innovations, is it possible to profit. Do we have to keep secrets to ourselves to make sure the GDP rises?
Here's an article from the NY Times adding a bit of color to the issue. NASA has an ever-increasing budget that doesn't seem to be accomplishing goals. As a scientist, I realize that projects can easily go over budget, but at some point we have to stop what we're doing and really assess the cost and feasibility of the experiment. There are a host of issues to discuss.
ReplyDelete