Category Archives: politics

Planetariums Foolish? Not so Much…

It’s a Place of Science Learning, John, Not Uninformed Posturing

So, last week there was a kerfuffle, as they like to say, over a U.S. presidential candidate’s using planetarium funding as a weapon against his opponent. It was silly and, in my opinion, made the guy who complained about the funding look pretty foolish and ignorant (and, as Phil Plait suspected, anti-science). I suppose you could conclude that the candidate hates science education, but I suspect in reality, he had no clue of what he was talking about and just grabbed the first thing he could think of to throw back in his opponent’s face. It backfired, as it should have. Sensible teachers routinely flunk students who wing it like that, particularly in science where there’s little tolerance for making up facts to suit an argument. There’s no reason we should put up with a candidate for president of the U.S. who doesn’t do his homework.

I don’t want to get into the various specifics of the argument, mostly because we already hashed it out over at Phil’s Bad Astronomy Blog. I’d rather talk about what good planetariums are.

I’ve been involved in planetarium show production for a long time, both as a lecturer and as a content creator. To me, a planetarium is a great gateway into the world of science. Astronomy itself is a great entry into other sciences. Point yourself in any direction in the sky and the list of sciences you can use to explain what you see is a long one:  physics, astrophysics, chemistry, biology, atmospheric science, planetary science, geology… just to name a few. And, the beauty of a planetarium is that you can teach all that stuff on the dome, simply by looking at stars, planets, and galaxies.

Sure, you might not end up in astronomy as a career, but a number of scientists cite their first visit to a planetarium as something that got them started in science. In fact, it goes beyond scientists — I recently read about an environmental lawyer who fertilized his interest in science by lecturing at his local planetarium. I guarantee you that a good planetarium production will ignite your interest in astronomy, an interest you can take with you wherever you go.

I remember MY first visit to one when I was in 7th grade. I couldn’t believe such a cool place existed. It took a few years before I got back to one, and even a bit longer before I got into creating shows for such places. I spent some time just before graduate school lecturing in one, sometimes several times a day. It never failed to amaze me how cool the visitors thought the experience was. Oh sure, there were always a few slouches who came in and tried to be disruptive. But, for the most part, the visitors were thrilled to be there and learn something about astronomy.

In the U.S., we need more and better science education — it leads to critical thinking and better-informed citizens, methinks (which, come to think of it, might scare a certain subset of politicians (and others) who thrive on having ignorant voters…)

If a planetarium can help spur kids into studying science and having fun with it, it ADDS to taxpayer literacy in our country, and money spent on education (if done wisely) can come back to us in the form of better educated teachers, more scientists, and involved, engaged citizens. So, I kind of have to wonder: what’s so bad about that?  And, why is attacking a planetarium’s funding (which was a very small amount of money compared to the money that the attacker has wasted or misspent through his actions over the decades as a senator, and certainly is well below the amount he has sunk into all his seven or eight homes) somehow a sign of political virtue?  Especially since there are bigger budgetary oxen to be gored. I just don’t see how huffing and puffing about a planetarium is anything but a nonstarter, unless the candidate is a supporter of decreasing science literacy for all of us.

Imagine That: Science and Politics

Imagine that an astronomer announces the discovery of a new planet in our solar system. Imagine that that planet has life on it and that it may actually be intelligent life. That science is peer-reviewed and other scientists agree that there is a discovery here.

Now, imagine that a non-scientist political appointee to NASA decides that the discovery doesn’t conform to White House guidelines on what science should be, and so he yanks the report and hides it from the media and public.

Imagine that a medical researcher discovers a treatment that can completely cure AIDS. It is tested and seems to work on all patients who have AIDS. Or that the doctor finds a cure for breast cancer.

Now, imagine that a non-medical political appointee to National Institutes of Health decides that the breakthroughs are “controversial” because they doesn’t conform to White House guidelines about what diseases should be treated and which ones shouldn’t. So, the NIH is directed (by non-scientists) stop the research and refuse treatment to people who need the cure.

Imagine that a research team finds a way to create fuels from some commonly available ingredients. The team tests it and shows that it could reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and could also help our economy.

Now imagine that a White House operative decides that this breakthrough is directly athwart political goals and therefore isn’t in the best interest of the business community. And so he yanks the research and hides it.

As far as I know, none of these scenarios have happened.

Yet. But they (or similar ones) will.

Why? The White House in the U.S. is now putting non-science political appointees in agencies to control the science and its outcomes. Why? Partly so that this administration can direct science and hide anything that may be inconvenient or perceived as a threat to its ideology.

Why, that sounds very familiar. Didn’t they used to do that in communist countries? Don’t they still do that in some countries?

We all know what the 800-pound gorilla in the room is here: global warming. Suddenly the reports on global warming are coming out, and even as manipulated as they are by industry heavies, the word isn’t good. In the U.S., the president is largely handicapped by truth and reality, and so now he must put in his operatives to control science’s truths in order to effect some sort of reality that assumes that if they manipulate science, nobody will notice that things are going wrong.

Today’s news stories are pointing to some inconvenient truths about acts of scientific sabotage by the Bush administration. Here are the links.

White House Stonewalling Release of Climate Change Documents

Widespread Interference in climate science”

More reports on interference

Bush increases control over agencies (wasn’t this Congress’s job? —note that some business groups think it’s great…)

Science and Politics
And there are more. These articles all describe a bad precedent of politically motivated ideologues in government interfering in the workings of science, and not in a good way. Would you want the government to interfere in a family member’s chance for a cure? For your ability to travel to your job using clean fuels? For a scientist’s discovery to be announced free of political interference? Think that interfering in science just inconveniences scientists? Think again. It’s not just politics as usual. Unwarranted political interference in science harms us all for the benefit of a few.