NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/conspira/13378

Text File | 1992-12-23 | 15.1 KB | 283 lines

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!news.uta.edu!utarlg.uta.edu!b645zaw
From: [e-mail] (General Ignorance)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary for Global Good
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: Trust me, just look at the spin-offs...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Keywords: and this won't hurt a bit.
Sender: [e-mail] (Stephen Tice)
Nntp-Posting-Host: utarlg.uta.edu
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:03:00 GMT
Lines: 267

From the Congressional Record.

>(Bound Page: 526)
>(Issue Date: January 3, 1985)
>TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE, BONN, GERMANY
>
>HON. GEORGE E. BROWN, JR.
>of california
>
>in the house of representatives
>
>Thursday, January 3, 1985
>
>
>Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, at a recent conference in Bonn,
>Germany my colleague and chairman of the Committee on Science and
>Technology, the Honorable Don Fuqua, delivered remarks on the future conduct
>of science in the world that I would like to call to the attention of all of
>us. The ideas present an alternative approach to the development of ``big
>science.'' This approach is one to which we in America have not been
>accustomed. The ideas are thoughtful and provocative, and I believe we would
>all benefit from giving them serious consideration. In part, Mr. Fuqua
>said the following:
>
>While science and technology have helped us each meet our national
>objectives and goals, they have also played a role in bringing all nations
>of the globe closer in cooperation.
>
>However, these international efforts have been, for the most part, isolated
>programs. We, as a community of industrial nations in the world, have not
>yet developed a pattern of using science and technology to move us beyond
>the realization of individual nation goals to the next level, that of global
>goals. Science and technology are tools of such potential and magnitude
>that, given their possibilities, we have barely begun to utilize them to
>achieve global well-being and prosperity.
>
>We are a wonderfully diverse conglomerate of nations, and a group of several
>unique continents; ultimately, however, we are one planet upon which mankind
>must continue to survive. Although our different cultures and histories
>cause us to function in different ways, this individuality, this
>nationalism, must also become more compatible with our global goals. We must
>recognize that there can be both competition and cooperation among nations;
>there can be both diversity and solidarity. These are not mutually exclusive
>but rather, I believe, mutually beneficial.
>
>I want to address specifically the place of science in that gobal
>perspective. In Jacob Bronowski's book, Science and Human Values, he says,
>``the world today is made, it is powered by science. .
> .'' I would expand on his declaration a bit. We so frequently hear
>and use the phrase ``scienceand society.'' If we perceive science and
>society to mean that science has a ``relationship to'' or a ``role in'' our
>society, then we may be persuaded, in these times to budget imbalances and
>burdensome deficits, to believe that both national and international support
>of science is worthwhile and even important, but not absolutely essential.
>
>If, however, in our contemporary context, science and society are understood
>to be interdependent, then science funding is appropriately fundamental to
>our national and international well-being. I firmly believe that the latter
>is the case.
>
>Science is a human endeavor, always dependent upon human thought, curiosity,
>and dedication to know and understand more. Society is a community of people
>having common interests. Contemporary society has survived and prospered
>through its increasing utilization and integration of the new knowledge and
>understanding that science produces. It is the human endeavor of science put
>to work for the whole human society that has forwarded much of our
>civilization.
>
>Although science has always been an international exercise among individual
>scientists, I believe the time has come for it also to become a routine
>international exercise among nations.
>
>The internationally known biologist and author Lewis Thomas wrote recently
>in Foreign Affairs magazine, ``I believe that international science is an
>indisputable good for the world community, something to be fostered and
>encouraged whenever possible. I know of no other transnational human
>profession . . . from which human beings can take so much
>intellectual pleasure and at the same time produce so much of immediate and
>practical value for the species.''
>
>I am extremely pleased that the agendas of the Versailles, Williamsburg, and
>London Summits testify to the growing affirmation of this understanding.
>
>At the summit meeting agreement was also reached to plan nearly twenty
>cooperative science and technology projects, each worthy of attention and
>effort.
>
>I am concerned, however, that there is a much larger perspective that must
>be examined if collaboration in these areas is to become a successful,
>forward-moving effort for future continuation, rather than the isolated
>accomplishment of a scientific event or project.
>
>It seems to me that in each major scientific discipline that lends itself to
>megaproject efforts, we need to look at the big picture for that discipline
>for perhaps the next 20-30 years. Then within that overall picture,
>specific projects and experiments will logically fit along that continuum of
>time.
>
>At this point, a significant question must surely be, who is the collective
>``we'' that will look at the big picture? Well, in identifying a long-term
>scenario for fusion as an example, the pronoun ``we'' would be personified
>by the European fusion community, Japan, the United States and possibly the
>Soviet Union.
>
>They are the principals in fusion research today. As a group, they house
>most of the world's knowledge and expertise in fusion energy. Collectively,
>they ought to be able to map the general direction of the road for the next
>few decades and then delineate where specific markers and way stations would
>need to be set up in order to progress along the specified path.
>
>This approach would serve two important purposes. First, it would allow us
>to understand the relationship of each experiment or project to the larger,
>more comprehensive discipline. And second, it would also help us to parcel
>out and balance the long-term responsibilities for the whole scientific
>accomplishment and even determine tentative geographical locations for
>various future projects.
>
>This more comprehensive view would make us mindful of the presumption that
>any given tree in the forest represents the forest in totality, and any one
>experiment the larger scientific discipline.
>
>But we cannot hope for this kind of comprehensive outlook for each science
>discipline to be successful if we do not go one significant step further. As
>we attempt to parcel out and balance the long-term responsibilities for each
>major discipline of science, we will have to do so on the much larger arena
>of all the science disciplines viewed collectively.
>
>In this largest scientific context, each nation will be able to see the
>benefits for itself in the more comprehensive scheme. While one of us will
>perhaps have to relinquish some national advantage to join the
>``international pack'' in fusion research where a different lead nation
>could be identified, we would be able to view this as a trade-off for a
>place we might hold in space research or high energy physics.
>
>I believe that if we do not use this more universal approach, it will be
>philosophically simple for nations to agree to give up national control and
>advantage in a given area but in practicality it will be difficult to get
>the cooperation and funding commitments necessary. It seems to me that this
>can only be accomplished if we agree to set up something in the nature of an
>international body or parliament of science.
>
>In such a forum we would be able to view the trees or experiments as part of
>the forest of a specific science discipline but even more importantly, we
>could see beyond each forest to the larger geography of science. Ultimately,
>it can only be from this geography that we can agree to be dedicated
>caretakers of all the forests and their individual trees and in return
>receive an appropriate share of the harvest.
>
>Our knowledge and research are now so sophisticated that in order to probe
>further, in order to learn more, in order to reach higher, we must use ever
>more complicated and costly tools and technology. Although we may not be
>reaching limits in the knowledge we can accrue, we are, in many cases,
>reaching limits for some scientific projects that any one nation can
>unilaterally fund and maintain.
>
>In addition to the task of mapping out an overall plan and direction for
>advancing a particular scientific discipline in which we can consider
>majorcooperation, I believe the global community of participants also needs
>to address the issue of coherent strategies for carrying out all ``big
>science''.
>
>As we look toward the prospect of routine scientific partnership, we must be
>meticulous in our objectives and policies because goodwill and diplomacy can
>quickly disintegrate in an environment of misunderstanding and
>misinterpretation.
>
>In general, global collaboration in ``big science'' projects will mean, for
>each participating nation, the necessity of giving up a degree of
>nationalism in exchange for a step gained toward our international goals.
>This is not always simple for a nation and perhaps it is more difficult for
>the United States given the position of both independence and isolation in
>our history and culture.
>
>America's role in cooperative science endeavors must be one in which we
>learn to be a more equal partner. We cannot plan to paying a
>disproportionate share of the costs in any venture in exchange for the
>prevailing voice.
>
>In addition, our budget process is set up on the basis of an annual
>appropriation which has created conflicts for us in making commitments to
>multiyear projects. In this situation we always run the risk that restricted
>funds will force us to choose either reneging on an international commitment
>or diminishing our domestic program in order to meet the continuing
>international commitment. Neither of these is a satisfactory choice for us
>as participants or for the long-term harmony and security of an
>international project.
>
>In our effort to seek major international science collaboration on a
>continuing basis, we as a nation must simultaneously tackle this funding
>issue at home. I believe it is time for us to integrate the philosophy of
>big science collaboration with the financial and functional practicalities
>of making them work.
>
>To be a reliable partner, which America has not always been, we all have to
>accept the responsibility that the stability of any science megaproject will
>be directly dependent upon the stable funding commitment of its
>participants.
>
>The proposals that I have put forth here for ``big science'' collaboration
>might easily be interpreted as a general suggestion that makes sound
>philosophical sense today, and may, at some point, have practical bearing on
>a future way to do things. I do not mean for this to be the case.
>
>As you know, America is in the initial planning stages of a space station in
>which we have already invited major international collaboration. We are also
>commencing discussions and design of a Superconducting Super Collider (SSC).
>As our plans are more clearly defined, the SSC may very well become a prime
>candidate for just such ``big science'' collaboration. This early stage of
>planning is perhaps the opportune moment for examining SSC as a possibility.
>
>In my view, the cost and complexity of these scientific projects which drain
>our human and financial resources dictate a future where cooperation will
>become a routine exercise for the advancement of scientific research, rather
>than the exception that it is now.
>
>And I believe we can only do this successfully if this collaboration is not
>only within the comprehensive circle of each science field but, beyond that,
>to a further cooperation that sees the largest science disciplines as pieces
>in the bigger scheme that addresses the future tasks of science within the
>global forum I have proposed.
>
>At this very time, the Science Committee is undertaking a review of our
>national science policy. The study will span the two years of the new
>Congress. As a nation, we have not taken a comprehensive look at these
>policies for about 40 years. Our last major study was undertaken shortly
>after World War II. Times, conditions and priorities have inevitably changed
>and we are perhaps overdue for this review. It will be, as far as basic
>principles are concerned, a study which will address the next 40 years.
>
>As the Science Committee's Task Force begins this study in January, I will
>suggest to the other Members that they consider how to address the issue of
>developing an international consensus in defining the scope of the several
>scientific disciplines in which there will be expanding activity over the
>next few decades within the concept of an international forum.
>
>These next 40 years, that our study will attempt to examine, offer a vastly
>different perspective of the world and America's place in it. Although, as a
>nation, we in America have been abundantly endowed with a rich variety of
>resources, there is no nation that possesses all that it needs. In addition,
>practically everything short of sunlight on this Earth is either limited in
>quantity or depletable by misuse. As we come to increasingly understand this
>reality, we are more aware that our individual existence depends, more than
>ever, on the survival of the earth's collective population. This necessarily
>leads to cooperation.
>
>As I have said, I do not believe that the concepts of competition and
>cooperation are mutually exclusive, but rather on a more expensive level,
>mutually beneficial. I believe that the tension between competition and
>cooperation in the international community is not a negative force because
>it drives each nation to find its own avenue of economic success while
>accepting the increasing reality of security and well-being through
>cooperation.
>
>Competition can bring us excellence, innovation, and diversity. It enhances
>our desire and our determination to improve. As for cooperation, it will not
>always be out of love for our fellow man that we choose to cooperate, but
>rather out of the practical knowledge that it is crucial to the survival of
>each of us. Our world is too small, too tight and too volatile to have it
>any other way.
>
>I have been honored by your invitation to speak here today and hope that
>these thoughts will provoke future discussions and perhaps serve as
>stepping-stones to an expanded era not only in German-American relations
>but in global relations.