disillusionment

I just attended a reception in the NSF chalet here in Mactown for the visiting members of the congressional science committee. They had just returned from visiting the Pole, where the South Pole Telescope danced for them and they signed their names on IceCube detectors as they sank into the hole. Other people attending included a cross-section of Raytheon workers and grantees like myself. The main commonality of the minglers however was that they belonged to one of the Congresspersons' states. (There was one congresswoman from CA normally on the defense, homeland security, and budget committees.)

After a little while, we were all whistled into a semicircle where the organizer passed out blue velvet bags containing some sort of heavy metal medal and done up with an Antarctica patch and pin. Each congressperson was given their minutes' impromptu speech which fell into the theme of 'we're in awe of what you smart people do, and thank you'. Deviations included 'your research leads to innovations and technologies which keep America as the (western) world leader', 'the teamwork displayed here is a model we should carry back to all people at home', and 'it's good to see technology used for something other than killing people' (CA congresswoman).

Thanks for the recognition, certainly! We were even told we give 110% and the taxpayers certainly get their money's worth. But please, take us down from the smart-people pedestal and just try to listen and understand what we're telling you, in simplified terms for your benefit!, about what we do. You don't need to patronize, just ask questions when you don't understand something. It'll help us get off the pedestal and learn how to talk to you so you actually do understand, and then we might actually begin to get somewhere in making the world a little better place.

When I asked my specifically more benign question: how did you like the Pole, of Tennessee congressman, he told me it was cold and that the SPT moved around. I inquired what he thought of IceCube. He said they were drilling holes to detect impulses of ... neurons... Neutrinos? No, he said, neurons. Neutrinos, I said more emphatically. He mumbled and wandered off. His speech touted the importance of science and technology in keeping the US at the top. The disjunction between true understanding and stated principle was unnerving and made it hard to believe his sincerity.

Another question: If funding science research is such a good bargain, why aren't we doing more of it? In fact, why did Kathie Olsen, deputy director of NSF, relate that she got a phone call after the holding budget passed this year in the House and Senate with ~7% increases over the presidential bill, that it had suddenly been cut by $350 million? (More on that from AAAS: shortages and overall NSF structure and budget stats.)

People who come to the Ice do so for many reasons, but perhaps common to most is a desire to explore, to adventure, to go outside one's comfort zone. To do so, they accept certain responsibilities and hardships, whether the boring janitorial work of cleaning bathrooms and common areas every day or the possibility of being caught in extreme bad weather while out in the field doing research or the lack of unexpired foodstuffs. Regardless of their personal history or training, they are very often interested in learning why their fellows are here, and what sorts of science they are supporting or sharing lab space with. This is the "esprit de corps" lauded by one congressman in his speech.

Yet I wonder how well their own ~2.5 day pampered visit brings them into that spirit. They travelled over 30 hours (roughly 2 days), just to get here. In total, they will spend almost twice as long in transit as on the Ice, "inspecting" the science they allocate money for. At least one DV worried more about getting off the Ice than on it. Rather than scientists, their reception attempted to connect them to their voting constituents. Perhaps this reflects the reality of politics; perhaps the speaker attempted to suggest his own compatriots try to adopt this lauded system. Perhaps I am having trouble believing that.

The question I asked only of my first congressman was why he chose to be on the committee. I appreciated the sincerity of his answer. His state has some resources which would benefit and grow if hydrogen were promoted as a fuel source. He envisions using next-generation nuclear power plants' super-heated water to efficiently create hydrogen to be used in car's fuel cells. I wonder if anyone has actually calculated the energy throughputs in such a system and compared them to current auto-energy usage. I wonder if all committees are used as special-interest forums. The congresspeople all agreed that the House Science and Technology Committee was one of the least partisan of all committees.

In his speech, he said the natural law is for all standards of living to come to a median value, and that we, being currently at the top, certainly didn't want that median to be lower than we have now. Which means that either the bottom comes up (benefiting his work with the foreign relations committee) or even better, both the top and bottom move up in parallel, and we stay on top. Wow. Let's rule the world? Or, us versus them? He said, it's a harsh reality, but if you bump along in high school (he likes to talk to high schoolers, to encourage them to get into technology fields), you'll bump along at the poverty level for the rest of your life, unless you find a back door. (He certainly encouraged seeking back doors if you have messed up.)

May I offer a different paradigm? It's a global economy, even if the governments are slower to recognize this and act accordingly (they just have a lot of historical baggage and are understandably slow to change). Putting others down just for cheap clothes and throw-away consumables will only hurt us in the end. Slaves have more to contribute than a broken body, but they can't do it until we free them, and yes, that is half the oppressors' responsibility. Together, we may be able to be proactive stewards of our environments, both "natural" and "man-made". By using our resources efficiently, we may be able to safe-guard some for future generations. By communicating with gentle, honest words rather than fists and guns, we may discover commonalities that make us all humans and honor the differences that make us all unique, allowing us to better define and work towards our goals, both individual and societal. Rather than us and them, me and we. This, perhaps is the esprit de corps found here, when we are at our best.

I don't think my honest congressman is a bad person, but the state of politics he is part of and a party to, which I have attempted to sketch here, scares me. Partly, it is the sense of powerlessness, though I have recently tried to assuage that by participating more in the political system and by attempting to share science and my hopes for a revised system with anyone interested. The general disinterest shown by the "top dogs" seems to point towards my naivety; I hope instead that my small patch of picture is not as dismal as it seems from here, that the spirit of adventure will free us from our fears and help us tackle our big problems together.