Promoting science is a major reason often given in support of the space shuttle program and against ending it. But the space shuttle program was never about science, as astrophysicist and celebrity science-show host Neil deGrasse Tyson recently admitted (in the video below). It was created for geopolitical reasons — to combat the commies. He thinks Americans are afraid to admit this and need to be more honest with themselves.
He also allowed that you can see the program as a waste of money from the perspective of funding science, but I disagree with his suggestion you can see it as a waste of money only if you see the program as existing solely for the purpose of promoting science. It was a colossal waste of money by any measure, and I say that as a proponent of space exploration and exploitation.
One thing that disturbed me, however, was Tyson’s claim that he could second-guess the geopolitical reasons for the space shuttle program if he were a political scientist, but he’s not so he won’t. On the one hand, it’s refreshing to see a scientist not making cocksure pronouncements about things outside of his particular area of expertise. On the other hand, speaking as a political scientist myself, political scientists should not be put on a pedestal and treated as technocratic experts to whom one must defer on political issues. Ironically, Tyson here falls prey to a kind of provincial attitude, despite warning against another kind in the video, in limiting his personal responsibility for making reasoned judgments to his own field of science . The “Oh, I’ll leave the ethical and political concerns to others, I’m just a scientist” conscience-absolving attitude is an irresponsible abdication of responsibility that has played a role in the development of government weapons of mass destruction, such as the atom bomb.
{ 4 comments }
I agree completely! I have been arguing for a while that Ike’s road program and the space program were efforts to imitate Soviet central planning because most Americans, even conservatives, thought the USSR had a better economic system.
Americans had thought that since the 1920′s. Most intellectuals and the average Joe were convinced that Soviet central planning was superior to free markets and the Soviets would soon pass the US in wealth and power.
FDR worshiped the USSR and his policies were intended to make the US as much like the USSR as possible without resorting to a dictatorship. It’s claimed that Ike wanted the interstate highway system because he saw the need for it in WWI. But a lot of time had passed between WWI and the 1950′s and the need for such a highway system no longer existed. Being a military man, I’m guessing Ike like the central planning system of the USSR and was trying to imitate it.
Clearly, Kennedy saw the purpose of the space program as a way to bring some of the Soviet central planning to the US.
Even Samuelson predicted in his econ ext book of the late 80′s that the USSR would soon overtake the US in wealth and military power.
And the CIA got the gdp of the USSR wrong by a factor of ten!
It’s a shame no one paid attention to Mises.
If someone is interested in some politicial background, may I recommend Piers Bizony’s “The Man Who Ran The Moon – James E. Webb, NASA and the secret history of Project Apollo”. There are tons of colorful “operators” behind the moderately successful space program.
About NASA’s creation:
“As Senate Majority Leader, Johnson’s power rivaled, and in some cases even surpassed, that of Eisenhower himself. The wily, strong-willed Texan convened a special Senate Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences (we’ll just call it the “Senate Space Committee” from now on) with himself as chairman. This was the first time that a new permanent “standing” committee had been established on the Hill since 1946. Now, the point of such a committee is to provide oversight over its area of concern: in this case, the American space effort [at that time divided between Army, Navy, Air Force and NACA - National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics]. Johnson knew perfectly well that committee members would not wish to be seen presiding over some no-account backwater activity. [Future] NASA’s prospects were brightened merely by the formation of this committee, let alone any of the decisions it might make.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was signed into law in July 1958. Johnson was gratified by the lack of resistance, initially at least, from the Department of Defense, but he had deliberately sent briefing papers and draft copies of the relevant legislation for Pentagon officials to examine during the Easter recess, and it seemed thay had registered nothing more than the insignificant changing of one letter in an acronym, from NACA to NASA. “They must have whizzed the paperwork through on a motorcycle!” Johnson crowed.
The generals woke up in alarm as they eventually realized what was happening. Soon enough, the Army Ballistic Missile Agency rocket programs, and even von Braun himself, were to become part of NASA. The Pentagon fought a rearguard action to protect its “latitude to pursue those things [in space] that are already clearly associated with defense objectives,” but in essence the matter was settled. The great majesty and power of America’s space effort was destined for civilian hands. …
The supposed distinction between civilian and military action lay more in the spirit than the letter of NACA’s acronymic conversion to NASA. Navy and Air Force pilots dominated in the selection process for the first astronauts, while NASA’s early space launchers were derived from ballistic missiles . Redstones, Titans and Atlases – shorn of their deadly nuclear warheads but otherwise indistinguishable from their Cold War cousins. Much of the “systems engineering” expertise for managing NASA’s operations also came from within the military. The Pentagon’s thwarted ambitions for space were not so eeasily brushed aside. Tensions between NASA and the DoD would never entirely dissipate. Indeed, one day they would contribute to the creation of a flawed, dangerous mess of a machine, the space shuttle. But for now at least, Eisenhower had prevented space from becoming an immediate playground for the warmongers. This at least was his fervent hope as he left office. …
In a sideswipe undoubtedly aimed at the space cadets and other big spenders on federally funded research and development projects, Eisenhower also suggested that “public policy could become the captive of a scientific-technological elite” He would have been dismayed if he had known that the newly-formed NASA would soon come under the control of a man who believed that the “scientific-technological elite” wan’t by any means a threat to America’s future. It was the solution to all its ills.”
Thanks for the book recommendation, El Tonno! I added it to my Amazon.com wish list.
The atom bomb was destined to be made as a simple projection of technological curiosity and “advancement” made available by recent discoveries in appropriate fields. Should the government have accelerated its realization? Probably not, but the science genie was out of the bottle and all that was needed were resources and some engineering know how. So the government should not have provided the resources of course. But the A-bomb was destined to be created by someone, somewhere, sometime.
Like the discovery of fire, nuclear energy can be used for good as well as for evil. Scientists should not be held responsible for their discoveries, they should also not be afraid to speak out against what they perceive to be said discoveries’ negative uses. So I agree that Tyson shouldn’t put political scientists or political players on a pedestal, and he should speak out against the misuse of scientific ideas/discoveries/technologies that don’t jive with his moral conscience.
Comments on this entry are closed.