From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (General Ignorance)
Subject: Re: Space program necessary for Global Good
Summary: Trust me, just look at the spin-offs...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: and this won't hurt a bit. 
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 21:03:00 GMT

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.



Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc