The following is imagined, and purely fictional, in the same way that Galileo’s “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” was a work of fiction about actual scientific principles. Some of the text is taken from Ref. [1].
(cue music)
Mr. Tom Brokaw: Our issues this Sunday: He is a junior physicist from the state of Ohio, and a member of the international BaBar collaboration. He has been an outspoken critic of science policy in the United States and a leader of efforts to educate the Congress on the importance of physics to U.S. scientific and educational leadership. Is he now ready to make an endorsement in this presidential race? What are his thoughts on the major issues facing the country and the world? Our exclusive guest this Sunday, Dr. Steve Sekula. Dr. Sekula, welcome to MEET THE PRESS.
Me: Thank-you, Tom.
Mr. Brokaw: We indicated in that opening, there is a lot of anticipation and speculation about your take on this presidential campaign. We’ll get to that in a moment. But in your business we might call this a tour of the horizon. Whoever’s elected president of the United States, that first day in the Oval Office on January 21st will face this: an American economy that’s in a near paralytic state at this time; we’re at war in two different countries, Afghanistan and Iraq; we have an energy crisis; we have big decisions to make about health care and about global climate change. The president of the United States and the Congress of the United States now have the highest disapproval ratings that we have seen in many years. How can science, and your field of particle physics in particular, be a priority in the face of such challenges?
Me: Science in general, and even particle physics, has a critical role to play in the economic growth of the United States in the past, now, and certainly in the future. Let me give you an example. My own field, which is concerned with how the subatomic building blocks of the universe formed, bound together, and created the universe we know today, has deep implications for the U.S. economy. As with scientific research at ANY time in human history, particle physics pushes the edge of human knowledge and technology. In the pursuit of knowledge, we create new ideas, develop new technologies, and push those into the private sector. This process can take decades, but I don’t think anybody would argue with the benefits of this process.
Mr. Brokaw: Give some specific example. How does particle physics affect average Americans, make their lives better?
Me: There are many examples. Let me give a few familiar ones. It was particle physicists, who wanted to easily share information with one another using the internet, who developed the world wide web. In fact, that Web was developed at CERN, which is now the site of the frontier of particle physics research. Think about how much the web has changed the world: facilitating commerce, socialization, mobilization. Imagine how particle physics at the frontier now could change our lives 20 years from now, given what it did with the web just 15 years ago.
Mr. Brokaw: The web is something that your field touts a lot, but if that’s the only example it’s not clear why physics, or basic scientific research, should be a priority for the next President.
Me: It’s important to never rest on your laurels, Tom, but the only way to indicate unpredictable but inevitable future economic growth due to science is to point to all the past examples. Let me give a diverse set that will indicate the way forward. A friend of mine likes to say of silicon, the heart of the computer revolution that changed the world, that there was a time when nobody could imagine a world of machines that augment the human ability to compute and reason. But thanks to basic research cataloguing the properties of silicon a hundred years ago we today cannot imagine a world WITHOUT computers. Particle physics uses machines called “particle accelerators” to smash together known building blocks of nature and look for new building blocks flying out. Those same accelerators can produce needle-thin beams of radiation to treat cancer patients; in fact, thanks to the development of accelerators in the middle of the 20th century, most major hospitals today have a particle accelerator and about 10,000 cancer patients a day are treated with them. Another example, Tom: can you imagine getting around a new city in a rental car without global positioning? Once only a military technology, the process of GPS itself cannot work without a fundamental understanding of gravity. Thanks to Einstein’s seemingly esoteric work on understanding the deep nature of gravity, we can operate the GPS system successfully today, taking into account the 11 kilometer PER DAY drift of the system due to the Earth’s gravitational field. No Einstein, no functional GPS. Life today would be very different, and much harder, without a deeper understanding of nature thanks to physics.
Mr. Brokaw: These are compelling arguments, ones which you and your colleagues have taken many times to the U.S. Congress. Despite that, the Congress slashed spending on particle physics in particular last year, and continues to hold spending now at low levels thanks to the continuing budget resolution, which expires in March of next year. How can science, and particle physics in particular, sustain the necessary research in order to create these benefits?
Me: That’s an excellent question, and one with no clear answer. While my field has already made a number of tough choices in the past year, it’s still not clear what will happen next year when the new President takes over and sets new budget priorities. There have been layoffs – I have seen a number of friends and colleagues retire early, or leave for private industry, or leave the field altogether. Now, taking experts in my field and moving them to industry has a short-term economic benefit, moving expertise into the private sector. But the private sector has demonstrated time and time again that it is not willing to make the very long-term investments needed to execute basic scientific research. The days of Bell Labs seem to be long gone, and public companies beholden to shareholder demands need to demonstrate short-term growth or face the risk of a sell-off of shares. I imagine that in the short-term, applied physics at companies who benefit from academic and national lab layoffs will spike; but with universities and national labs the engines of basic research, there is a chance that fewer new discoveries will be made which lead to inevitable spinoffs.
Mr. Brokaw: You haven’t answered my question. How does science sustain, and specifically what does a President do to secure the nation’s scientific research?
Me: Apologies, Tom – I take this issue very seriously, and like any scientist I can get a little distracted by a detail. The next President will first have to release the freeze on spending growth in basic research. The nation’s stakeholders in basic scientific research – the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and even the Department of Defense’s basic research efforts – all need growth in their combined science portfolio. The President will have to show bold vision for the next decade, beyond even his own Presidency, and set targets for growth in the field. At the same time, science – and my own field in particular – must execute a compelling vision for research which respects the fact that growth is not unlimited and must budget accordingly. Basic research is a partnership between the funding agencies that supply the money, with the consent of the American people, and the scientists who plan to spend that money. That partnership has a basis of trust established through clear goals and priorities. Our military, educational, economic, and environmental goals all require scientific input – better computers for smarter weapons, a solid and opportunity-rich pipeline for students to rise up through the educational system, basic research partnered with applied science to create new industries, and new technology to reduce the cost and ease the deployment of alternative fuels.
Mr. Brokaw: Well, let’s move to the American presidential campaign now, if we can. Over the past few months you’ve teased readers of your blog with a “middle-of-the-road” approach to critiquing the Presidental candidates. You’ve devised some rather esoteric scoring procedures for speeches and debates which seem to favor Obama, but which you yourself have pointed out may be biased in a subtle way. On the other hand, you’ve also defended McCain on several issues where the Obama campaign was shown to be wrong. Are you prepared to make a public declaration of which of these two candidates that you’re prepared to support?
Me: Yes, but let me lead into it this way. Both campaigns have done an excellent job, until recently, of explaining their positions on scientific issues of importance to the nation. Both have demonstrated an ability to see connections between their major domestic priorities – healthcare, the economy, the environment, energy – and issues facing America’s scientific investment. There have been a few developments recently which have, in effect, sealed my support for one of the candidates.
Mr. Brokaw: Elaborate on those issues.
Me: The candidates both responded to the 14 science policy questions posed by ScienceDebate2008. I was surprised to see that there were many issues where one candidate dominated over the other, and some issues where I expected a candidate to be strong but instead where they showed a weak performance. For instance: McCain, a Senator of a Southwestern state, was weak on water supply and water rights; Obama, a Senator from an agricultural state, weak on genetically modified crops. However, only Senator Obama responded to the questions from “Physics Today”, a critical publication within my field which informs many American physicists both on the state of current science and science policy here, and across the world. Ignoring a set of science policy questions from a leading periodical in my field is akin to ignoring questions from “The Economist” or “The New York Times”. I took that quite personally, and it dimmed McCain’s stated commitment to science in this country to miss the importance of “Physics Today”.
Mr. Brokaw: Why is this so important to you?
Me: Well, to make a pun to make my point: physics, today, is more important than ever. Physics shapes the frontiers of biology, computing, mathematics, chemistry, medicine. You name it, and there’s a physicist involved in it. Physics allows us to understand the fundamental mechanisms of a process, or at least appreciate just how complex and unpredictable a system might be. That knowledge allows researchers in many fields to attack a problem in a new way, leading to new drugs, new genetic understanding, new and massive distributed computing. Physics, today, has a synergy with many fields that, while most are still slow to appreciate it, makes supporting physics more important than ever. Ignoring physics now is a bit like choosing to eat food from all but the base of the food pyramid – you can do it, but the long term health consequences, in this case to U.S. scientific research, are dire.
Mr. Brokaw: Is this the only thing which has informed your opinion?
Me: No, there is another item. This was also a recent development. As you know, my wife is also a physicist. The role of women in science, and in particular understanding why so few women attain long-term promotion in the sciences, is extremely important to me. Recently, the candidates were asked to answer questions from The Association for Women in Science and The Society of Women Engineers. While Senator Obama is clear and vigorous in his policy viewpoint on the questions, Senator McCain sticks to a set of vague talking points. At one point, he actually spends more time talking about preventing Title IX from damaging ATHLETICS than about what its enforcement might mean for science. I was appalled. His campaign clearly gave no thought to this issue, tried to say nice things that wouldn’t get them in trouble, and avoided spending serious time on the questions. If Senator McCain cannot take the issue of diversity in science seriously, how can he possibly take the enterprise of science itself seriously?
Mr. Brokaw: So what does all of this mean?
Me: Tom, after a lot of thought on this, and after carefully reading and listening to the statements of both candidates, I am endorsing Senator Barack Obama for President. Science is a fundamental good in our society, and Senator Obama has consistently shown an understanding of its importance to the nation. In the first debate, he seemed to go out of his way TWICE to note that competition in science and leadership in education are critical to succeeding on the international stage, both in defense and diplomacy. Senator McCain mentioned the role of science zero times in all three debates. Senator McCain is a member of the Republican party, which has traditionally “thrown deep” on science issues – that’s good for science. I believe that while Democrats have traditionally not viewed science as one of the social goods that are a pillar of their platform, Senator Obama has displayed a deep understanding of the fundamental role of science in all aspects of society, social or otherwise. This is the kind of President I want making those tough budget decisions come 2009.
Mr Brokaw: And if science doesn’t fare well under an Obama administration?
Me: Then the downward slide continues, Tom, and only confirms my latent pessimism that science will always take a back-seat to other issues even though it’s the reason the political car exists at all. However, I have to judge the next President based on whether they understand the role of science in this nation. Senator Obama consistently points out the connections between science and education and competitiveness; he sees the connection between energy policy, the economy, and defense; he understands that inclusion of underrepresented peoples in science is a process that starts in kindergarten and continues through graduate school; he lays out clear policy points, while also delivering strong rhetoric. He’s demonstrated that he has the best potential to be a science President, much more so than a candidate who lays out his economic policy as an “across-the-board” spending freeze on day one of his Presidency. That’s a person who doesn’t understand the role of government in science, and science in government, nor the fact that science has long suffered and will choke under such a freeze. I want a visionary for President, and Obama has demonstrated through his words and his support for Congressional efforts that he understands the role of science.
Mr. Brokaw: Dr. Steve Sekula, thank you very much for being with us this morning. Appreciate it.
Me: Thank you, Tom.
