Whenever I give a presentation to the general public, there’s one type of question I always get. Why should we spend money on this stuff? What good does it do? What about people who are starving in this country? What’s in it for me? The answer they’re looking for is typically an argument that this science will lead to something tangible. A better cell phone, draught resistant wheat, self-driving cars. But those kinds of breakthroughs typically come from targeted research, not pure science. The goal of studying gas clouds in distant solar systems is not better cell phones, but a deeper understanding of the cosmos. How could that possibly affect you on a personal level? It affects you in lots of subtle ways, such as increasing political stability in the world. 

The space race began as a fierce rivalry between the two superpowers of the Cold War. After the Soviet triumph of sending the first human into space, the Americans sent 12 men to the Moon. But while tensions between the two countries remained high, there was a growing understanding that collaborative space exploration would benefit both sides. By 1975 the two countries worked together to achieve the first international docking between a Soviet and American spacecraft. This collaboration continues to this day. The International Space Station, for example, involves countries all over the world, and Russian spacecraft regularly ferry American astronauts to and from the station. But why would two diametrically opposed countries collaborate on an expensive science project? One big reason was that it kept political lines open. The US and Russia were still political rivals, but they weren’t politically isolated. Through the space program they developed ways to work together, and this may have played a role in limiting escalation. No one wanted to see another Cuban missile crisis.

The famous 1975 handshake between Russian cosmonaut Aleksey Leonov and US astronaut Tom Stafford. Credit: NASA

There is a political impact to any large science project. I saw this first hand when I visited the Atacama Large Millimeter/Submillimeter Array (ALMA) in northern Chile. Chile is one of the strongest economies in South America, but it is largely a resource economy. Logging and mining exports are its economic pillars, and they are limited resources. So Chile would like to expand other areas such as finance, tourism and technology. ALMA is part of that plan. Part of the agreement for ALMA is that Chile has an active role in its operation and research. Some of the components for ALMA must be built in Chile, which helps strengthen its tech manufacturing sector. The benefit for the US is that Chile picks up some of the cost for ALMA, and it strengthens political and economic ties with Chile.

Big science projects are necessarily collaborative international ventures. In doing them we not only gain scientific knowledge, we learn how to work together politically and economically. And that’s a big benefit.

The post What’s In It For Me? appeared first on One Universe at a Time.

What do you believe? Do you believe in fate? In love? In God? Do you believe in evolution? Global warming? The big bang? 

Our beliefs — those things we hold to be true — are a central part of what defines us. They shape our lives in ways seen and unseen. They form a foundation for our ethics, values, and even our political views.

There is a popular idea among scientists that belief is not a part of science. One does not believe in evolution, one understands evolution, as if the mere comprehension of natural selection ensures one’s acceptance of evolution. If you don’t believe in evolution, you simply don’t understand it. But that’s nonsense. One can understand a concept without accepting its validity, and people can and do choose not to believe in evolution. People believe in creationism. People believe the Earth is flat. They believe there is a divine creator, or that there is no god. Those beliefs are a part of their identity, and we cannot simply declare their beliefs to be invalid. The central freedom anyone has is a freedom of thought.

The reluctance to speak of belief in science stems, I think in part, from the fact that that it is often used by trolls and the like to paint science as a religion. If scientists believe in evolution then it is no different than a belief in the Holy Trinity or the Great Pumpkin, and can be dismissed as mere dogma. In this view all beliefs are statements of faith, made piously in the absence of evidence. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet believe, as Christ admonishes doubting Thomas. Thus, changing one’s belief is a sign of weakness. It demonstrates a tragic loss of faith.

But there are central beliefs (tenets if you prefer) of scientific adherents. A belief that the cosmos has (at least in part) an objective reality, and that humans have the ability to understand that reality, though incomplete it may be. A belief that, despite its many flaws, the scientific method of observation and experimentation allows us to build a confluence of evidence that brings to light an emergent truth. These are not controversial beliefs, and they are held by scientists all over the world, whether they be atheist or devout, and regardless of their political persuasion. Thus, evolution, global warming, and black holes are a part of that emergent truth. Like most scientists I believe them to be true, but it is a conditional belief, supported by the scientific evidence we currently have.

With the recent March on Science this weekend, there has been a great deal of discussion about science and politics. Is science inherently political? Should it be? Or should it strive to be neutral? Individually, scientists can be politically active, and many loudly proclaim their views. As debates over the science march and related issues have demonstrated, even scientists don’t agree on their politics. But one thing they do agree upon is that the cosmos has an objective reality, and humanity is best served when we listen to what that reality teaches us. To my mind, our political discussions should start with those lessons. We should start with a recognition of the scientific evidence we currently have. If we hold that to be common ground, our political debates will still be fierce, but they will lead to the betterment of us all.

At least that is what I believe.

The post I Believe appeared first on One Universe at a Time.