Category Archives: Opinion

Opinion

The Future of Tree-based Science Knowledge

2 Comments

Is Grim. What Replaces It?

I had lunch and dinner recently with former colleagues of mine back from when I worked at Sky & Telescope. The topic of conversation came around (as it usually does) to the fact that tree-based dissemination of knowledge (via magazines and newspapers) is giving way to knowledge being made available via electronic means (Web, Internet, etc.).  This is causing all sorts of changes in the print/info industry, not all of it good. I know that S&T, for example, has downsized its staff (or rather, the parent corporation that owns S&T is ordering those downsizes), and that similar layoffs are occurring at newspapers and magazines everywhere. I have to assume that this is because of a number of factors: migration of advertisers to online business models, migration of readers to online sources of information, cost of labor (money to pay writers and editors for print publications), and cost of equipment and buildings to maintain print products.  In short, money’s tight, people and equipment cost a lot, and it’s often cheaper to put the news out online. How you make money from that is the big question that I suspect gets rocketed around the executive suites of news organizations a lot.

At our place we decided that we didn’t need to get a daily newspaper, so we stopped getting it. We still get a few magazines, but have cut those back quite a bit, too.  Because I’m a science writer, I already have many, many good sources of information online, and don’t need to get print subscriptions to journals (I have electronic subscriptions).  In short, I get a lot of my news online and rely on fewer print pubs to give me more in-depth looks.

I thought about all this when I got the news that another friend got laid off from a job as a science writer at a magazine. I notice that science writers in general have been getting the boot a lot.  For example, Miles O’Brien was summarily shoved out at CNN (thus depriving the network of a good, qualified science writer/reporter).  What sort of message do these layoffs send to other writers? To the public?  That science isn’t important enough to be covered? That years of experience in science writing isn’t worthy of treasuring in a news organization?  (But sports ad nauseum, politics up the wazoo, opinion columns that are sometimes thinly disguised propaganda for political or business interests, and bra and panty ads are more necessary to a modern civilization than an understanding of the technology and science we use every day?)

For the sake of our societies as well as the science writers whose collective wisdom is being thrown on the junkheap of progress, I hope that as we move to an electronic-based information model, some of the people who are now being left in the dust as print media collapses will bring their voices online.  We can’t afford to lose them.

Opinion, politics, politics and nasa, politics and science

Cautionary Words about NASA’s Future

4 Comments

From One Who Knows

My friend Alan Stern (formerly the associate administrator for science at NASA until earlier this year) has a very pointed, harsh, and ultimately truthful opinion piece in the New York Times today. In it he says “A cancer is overtaking our space agency: the routine acquiescence to immense cost increases in projects.” He goes on to explain just how and why NASA’s budget processes aren’t working and why HUGE cost overruns on the few programs NASA is planning to do in the future may well be threatening that future. These are important missions, but they are running way over budget, threatening the existence of the agency at a time when it can’t afford to have its budget slashed (but, instead, needs guidance from an honest administration about how best to run its budget to the best science at affordable costs (and no, I’m not suggesting the failed “faster, better, cheaper” approach)).

There are, of course, many factors that affect mission costs, as Alan points out. Some can’t be helped, others can. But, there remains the issue of political will to do the right thing. In that regard, one paragraph of his piece really stood out:

As a scientist in charge of space sensors and entire space missions before I was at NASA, I myself was involved in projects that overran. But that’s no excuse for remaining silent about this growing problem, or failing to champion reform. And when I articulated this problem as the NASA executive in charge of its science program and consistently curtailed cost increases, I found myself eventually admonished and then neutered by still higher ups, precipitating my resignation earlier this year.

It turns out that the politics of the outgoing administration played into many NASA decisions that affect the science and technology advances that NASA routinely delivers. On the one hand, the Bush administration put people in charge who had little knowledge of science, and fostered a poisonouse atmosphere at the top.  Money was sluiced in by pork barrel politics in order to help Congresscritters and Senate folk who have NASA bases in their districts. There are countless other examples of mismanagement and bad decision-making by folks at the top of NASA.

Of course such politics has always infested NASA decision-making at some levels, but it seems that the worst political interference has come in the past eight years, done by anti-science zealots who were determined to gut one of the few government agencies that has (for the most part) routinely done good things for our culture, our economy, and U.S. technology dominance. I have many friends who work for (and with) NASA and they are good, solid folks who want to do the best science they can. The processes that threaten NASA’s overall budget will almost certainly affect them and the work that they do. I want to see that they get what they need to do the best job they can, unaffected by the political horseplay that has inflicted that cancer that Alan refers to.

I am hoping that a new administration and a morally courageous Congress and Senate can see their way clear to stop playing politics with NASA and help the agency grow back to do what it does best. As I’ve said in other places, screwing with NASA is like eating your seed corn. Once you’ve done that, you have nothing left to grow. Alan Stern gets that — the rest of us who support NASA and space exploration should make sure our Congresscritters and Senatorial folk understand it, too.