Bruce Partridge is emeritus professor of astronomy at Haverford College....more
I've spent much of my long life studying -- and trying to understand -- the history of the universe. Along the way, I have been constantly reminded that science is essentially international: Science knows no borders. The next great discovery could be made in Kansas or Kosovo or Kyoto.
And yet, as an American patriot, I take pride that so much scientific research bears the imprint "Made in the U.S.A." By so many measures, this country -- my country -- has dominated all branches of the scientific enterprise since World War II: the number of Nobel Prizes in the sciences (nearly 300, with second-place Britain having about one-third of that amount), the number of patents in the sciences (with China rapidly catching up), the sheer number of Big Discoveries. We Americans have walked on the moon and brought back chunks of it for further study. We've whipped polio and fenced in HIV.
Consider just my small branch of science. I'm an astronomer, so here are some of the things we've learned about our solar system and the cosmos during the six decades of my scientific career:
All this knowledge can be labeled "Made in the U.S.A." All this is our legacy, enabled by federal funding.
In just a few months, the Trump administration has undermined U.S. dominance in science, built up over many decades. The federal funding that made America the world's science leader is threatened with crippling reductions, not just for astronomy and space science but also for fundamental research in energy, chemistry, computer science and preventive medicine.
Consider, for example, the proposed budget for the National Science Foundation, the federal agency that has funded many U.S. contributions to astronomy (including mine), as well as research in physics, chemistry and computer science. Last year, NSF supported more than 330,000 scientists, students and teachers; next year, the budget allows for only 90,000. The funding rug will be pulled out from under nearly a quarter of a million American scientists, engineers and future scientists.
Why?
Does science cost too much? I've been involved in some of the discoveries listed above. The total cost to the average American taxpayer for all of my research, from my first article in 1961 to now, is less than a penny. The entire National Science Foundation budget for all research in astronomy costs each American about $1 a year.
Is the scientific enterprise riddled with waste and fraud, as some in Washington insistently allege? Some experiments don't work -- I've had some duds. But we learn from our mistakes; failure is not always a waste. And allegations of widespread fraud in the scientific enterprise are not just entirely unproven; they make no sense. If I receive funds from NASA, I have to account for them, and officials at both my college and NASA review my accounts. Carefully.
If, instead, the gutting of science and so much else the federal government does for us is just a whim, it is a costly one. Investments in basic research have been one of the most cost-effective expenditures of government money in my lifetime. It is not just the faster computer chips, the better weather forecasts, the cheaper batteries and the more potent vaccines American science has pioneered. Scientists at colleges and universities across the country have trained the scientists and engineers who go on to found companies that now employ millions.
In the last letter he wrote, Thomas Jefferson pointed to the value of "the light of science." Whatever the reasons are -- real or proffered -- for dimming this light, we risk surrendering leadership in an enterprise of proven value to our health, prosperity and sense of wonder at the marvels of the natural world.