Spacelab's Worth

In the article “Research drought looms after Neurolab mission”(News & Comment, 24 Apr., [p. 515][1]) Andrew Lawler presents negative views of the NASA microgravity research program. It is suggested that metrics such as “good scientific value for the money” and “cost-per-science” be used to evaluate the program. This concept alone requires a response, but particularly so because a conversation that I had with him needs to be clarified. In the next to last paragraph of the article, it would seem that I am endorsing the view that “good science” is hard to obtain by means of the quotes attributed to me—that “[t]here is precious little time in space for experiments” and that “it is also hard to repeat and alter experiments and to publish papers based on only one data set.” In fact, I was responding to the view that very little worthwhile science has been done in spacelab missions. My point was that the shuttle has been used for many different purposes and that there has been relatively little available total time for the research community to do microgravity research. I have been fortunate to have had sufficient time for my experiments, and that research led to the awarding of seven Ph.D. and five M.S. degrees and the publication of 22 papers. With respect to the issue of metrics, which some want to apply to the microgravity research program, I would challenge these individuals to indicate to what other research programs such metrics were applied and used as justification. How does one determine the dollar value of a science program? When Charles Townes was doing his pioneering work on lasers, did anyone, at that time, have any idea of the many applications of that work? Yes, space research is expensive, but so are many other research programs. Lawler also says that “even [Spacelab's] supporters acknowledge there have been no major breakthroughs” in the program. Despite the relatively little experimental time allotted to microgravity research, a great deal of knowledge has been obtained about the behavior of fluids in that unusual environment. There are few, if any, other research programs that have yielded more scientific information from so little experimental time. Microgravity research is of intrinsic scientific value in that it explores fluid and transport phenomena in an unusual environment, not unlike the ultra-high vacuum, high-magnetic field, and cryogenic environments that are used in other scientific fields. In addition, microgravity research is important because fluid and transport phenomena are inherent in many biophysicochemical systems and, therefore, it not only provides a knowledge base for the design of efficient and reliable space technologies but also can give insight into complex phenomena in industrial processes. As more flight experiment time becomes available to a broader research community on the international space station, the exciting potential of microgravity research will be more readily achieved. # Response {#article-title-2} Ostrach does not appear to dispute that Spacelab provided limited experiment time for researchers and has yet to result in a major scientific breakthrough—two points accepted by program critics and supporters alike. His belief that worthwhile science has been done on the shuttle is expressed in depth by several in the article. As for the cost of science, Townes did not conduct his work in an era of the Government Performance and Results Act. All taxpayer-funded research programs by law must begin to measure their effectiveness, which clearly poses a daunting challenge for physicists as well as for life and microgravity scientists. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.280.5363.515