NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/talk/politics/misc/65220

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-23 | 14.8 KB

Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:65220 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:10647 alt.rush-limbaugh:12198 alt.politics.bush:14887
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush
Path: sparky!uunet!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...
Sender: [e-mail] (Stephen Tice)
Nntp-Posting-Host: utarlg.uta.edu
Organization: University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:55:00 GMT
Lines: 264


(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.