This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/16/tax-spending-pluto-prisons-stephen-hawking
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Pluto will always beat prisons when it comes to tax money | |
| (about 3 hours later) | |
| The two headlines were next to each other. “Prisons worst for 10 years”, and “Snow on Pluto”. The juxtaposition may seem unfair, but how to react? Presumably to the first with anger, and the second with excitement. Compared with the remorseless grime of humans, astronomy offered an escape, a cause for joy, a vision of futurity. Stephen Hawking congratulated the Pluto team. “We explore because we are human beings,” he said, “and we want to know.” | The two headlines were next to each other. “Prisons worst for 10 years”, and “Snow on Pluto”. The juxtaposition may seem unfair, but how to react? Presumably to the first with anger, and the second with excitement. Compared with the remorseless grime of humans, astronomy offered an escape, a cause for joy, a vision of futurity. Stephen Hawking congratulated the Pluto team. “We explore because we are human beings,” he said, “and we want to know.” |
| The trouble is that those baffled by Britain’s obsession with incarceration might say the same. Each week we tip more people into prison and treat them a little worse. We know it is a waste and doesn’t work, but don’t know why or what to do about it. | The trouble is that those baffled by Britain’s obsession with incarceration might say the same. Each week we tip more people into prison and treat them a little worse. We know it is a waste and doesn’t work, but don’t know why or what to do about it. |
| Related: Pluto photographs thrill Nasa scientists after nine-year mission | Related: Pluto photographs thrill Nasa scientists after nine-year mission |
| Criminologists might cry that they too are human and have questions for answering. All they claim is that these answers might deliver a social dividend out of all proportion to snow on Pluto. The conundrums of crime and punishment have baffled society’s finest minds for centuries. Few millions are available to research them. | Criminologists might cry that they too are human and have questions for answering. All they claim is that these answers might deliver a social dividend out of all proportion to snow on Pluto. The conundrums of crime and punishment have baffled society’s finest minds for centuries. Few millions are available to research them. |
| Ask people how they would allocate research between astronomy and criminology and they shrug their shoulders. Come on, they say, don’t be a killjoy. It is wonderful getting to Pluto, even if it cost a billion. It is like the Olympics or finding a Higgs boson particle under a Swiss mountain. We should always be intellectual hunter-gatherers. Only as hitchhikers to the galaxy will we crack the imponderables of life on Earth. | Ask people how they would allocate research between astronomy and criminology and they shrug their shoulders. Come on, they say, don’t be a killjoy. It is wonderful getting to Pluto, even if it cost a billion. It is like the Olympics or finding a Higgs boson particle under a Swiss mountain. We should always be intellectual hunter-gatherers. Only as hitchhikers to the galaxy will we crack the imponderables of life on Earth. |
| This is not a real answer. How should we – or politicians on our behalf – prioritise these challenges? The surface of Pluto has televisual appeal, but should it rank it above the maladies of the human brain or the control of monetary flows in an economy? We spend trivial sums on them. | This is not a real answer. How should we – or politicians on our behalf – prioritise these challenges? The surface of Pluto has televisual appeal, but should it rank it above the maladies of the human brain or the control of monetary flows in an economy? We spend trivial sums on them. |
| The two grandest projects of modern science have been in aeronautics and particle physics. Space travel was initially driven by geopolitical rivalry. Putting a man into orbit “proved” the superiority of Soviet communism, while putting a man on the moon was America’s retort. | The two grandest projects of modern science have been in aeronautics and particle physics. Space travel was initially driven by geopolitical rivalry. Putting a man into orbit “proved” the superiority of Soviet communism, while putting a man on the moon was America’s retort. |
| In 1993 the US congress chose a new space station before a new particle accelerator, largely for its glamour. It cost 10 times more and spread contracts over many more states. “Nothing of scientific importance has come of it,” said the American physicist Steven Weinberg, comparing the value of manned against robotic space flight. | In 1993 the US congress chose a new space station before a new particle accelerator, largely for its glamour. It cost 10 times more and spread contracts over many more states. “Nothing of scientific importance has come of it,” said the American physicist Steven Weinberg, comparing the value of manned against robotic space flight. |
| Back in 1966 Nasa’s budget was $43bn (£28bn) in today’s money. It’s down to $17bn now. The Pluto expedition cost only $720m. Yet even it has to dress up in public relations, complete with theatrical countdowns, shrieking staff and Hawking congratulations. | Back in 1966 Nasa’s budget was $43bn (£28bn) in today’s money. It’s down to $17bn now. The Pluto expedition cost only $720m. Yet even it has to dress up in public relations, complete with theatrical countdowns, shrieking staff and Hawking congratulations. |
| The truth is that space has conceded glory to particle accelerators. The gigantic Large Hadron Collider has long been a pet project of Big Science. It cost $6bn to build and almost $1bn a year to operate. The cost of “finding” the Higgs boson has been estimated at $13bn. And for what? | The truth is that space has conceded glory to particle accelerators. The gigantic Large Hadron Collider has long been a pet project of Big Science. It cost $6bn to build and almost $1bn a year to operate. The cost of “finding” the Higgs boson has been estimated at $13bn. And for what? |
| Scientists answer understandably that all discovery is a voyage into the unknown. This week Cern announced the finding of a “pentaquark”, the smallest known component of the atom. Through such advances, we are told, we may be able to map the glue that holds matter together. If we cease to explore, we lose the possibility of such advance. | Scientists answer understandably that all discovery is a voyage into the unknown. This week Cern announced the finding of a “pentaquark”, the smallest known component of the atom. Through such advances, we are told, we may be able to map the glue that holds matter together. If we cease to explore, we lose the possibility of such advance. |
| British taxpayers have tipped £34m a year into finding the Higgs boson. Even getting Will Self to perambulate the collider’s course could not overcome his commendable scepticism. No one can at present assess Cern’s extravagance against other claims on scientific research. Do we just give them the money because they asked? | British taxpayers have tipped £34m a year into finding the Higgs boson. Even getting Will Self to perambulate the collider’s course could not overcome his commendable scepticism. No one can at present assess Cern’s extravagance against other claims on scientific research. Do we just give them the money because they asked? |
| The answer is that someone has to make responsible choices. Science wants to spend taxpayers’ money. What goes to one area of research denies it to another. Even the crude Treasury rule of thumb, that everyone gets what they got “last year plus or minus x”, implies some normative assessment of value. | The answer is that someone has to make responsible choices. Science wants to spend taxpayers’ money. What goes to one area of research denies it to another. Even the crude Treasury rule of thumb, that everyone gets what they got “last year plus or minus x”, implies some normative assessment of value. |
| Back in the 1980s, when universities were on a roll, Whitehall demanded that all research justify itself by some measure of output. This spawned a cottage industry of publication lists, citations and impact assessments. There were howls of academic rage. Scholars were shocked at having to validate their research so publicly. Could the taxpayer not accept their word as scholars? The answer was no, because someone had to choose one scholar’s word against another’s. Money was not an abstract noun. | Back in the 1980s, when universities were on a roll, Whitehall demanded that all research justify itself by some measure of output. This spawned a cottage industry of publication lists, citations and impact assessments. There were howls of academic rage. Scholars were shocked at having to validate their research so publicly. Could the taxpayer not accept their word as scholars? The answer was no, because someone had to choose one scholar’s word against another’s. Money was not an abstract noun. |
| Britain’s science research budget has stalled at £4.6bn. But Osborne has been careful to ringfence headline projects | Britain’s science research budget has stalled at £4.6bn. But Osborne has been careful to ringfence headline projects |
| The winner in the end was our old friend, the lobbyist. Big Science and medicine had the best tunes. Social science got clobbered, as did the humanities. Value lay in who could wave the biggest shroud, shout loudest and find the sexiest television presenter. That was the way to win cash. | The winner in the end was our old friend, the lobbyist. Big Science and medicine had the best tunes. Social science got clobbered, as did the humanities. Value lay in who could wave the biggest shroud, shout loudest and find the sexiest television presenter. That was the way to win cash. |
| Britain’s science research budget has stalled at £4.6bn since 2010. But George Osborne has always been careful to ringfence the headline projects, the “Crick of the north” in Manchester, the “synergistic air-breathing rocket”, yet another Whitehall super-computer, this time for the Met Office. (Nobody lobbies better than Big Computing – or delivers worse.) | Britain’s science research budget has stalled at £4.6bn since 2010. But George Osborne has always been careful to ringfence the headline projects, the “Crick of the north” in Manchester, the “synergistic air-breathing rocket”, yet another Whitehall super-computer, this time for the Met Office. (Nobody lobbies better than Big Computing – or delivers worse.) |
| Meanwhile the biggest threat to medicine, antimicrobial resistance, has had just £275m in research since 2007, as yet with no success. Does such failure suggest a lack of value and therefore a cut? Of course not. But where is the research into how to assess the value of research, and thus enable priorities to be evaluated? | Meanwhile the biggest threat to medicine, antimicrobial resistance, has had just £275m in research since 2007, as yet with no success. Does such failure suggest a lack of value and therefore a cut? Of course not. But where is the research into how to assess the value of research, and thus enable priorities to be evaluated? |
| These are questions democracy is bad at answering. It cops out. It delegates the task to politicians, experts, those who “know best”. In other words, it leaves power to decide, and power has its own priorities. It really does mean those who shout loudest get most. | These are questions democracy is bad at answering. It cops out. It delegates the task to politicians, experts, those who “know best”. In other words, it leaves power to decide, and power has its own priorities. It really does mean those who shout loudest get most. |
| Related: Time for radical action on our failing prisons | Letters | |
| Astrophysics will always beat criminology because it is better on television; similarly medical research will beat education research. Particle physics will beat the study of the brain, irrespective of the relative social benefit. | Astrophysics will always beat criminology because it is better on television; similarly medical research will beat education research. Particle physics will beat the study of the brain, irrespective of the relative social benefit. |
| Hawking is right, we explore because we are human. But who holds the map? His exploration lobby is outer space. There are greater depths to be explored – to unimaginable gains – in the mysteries of the human mind. But who will lobby for that? | Hawking is right, we explore because we are human. But who holds the map? His exploration lobby is outer space. There are greater depths to be explored – to unimaginable gains – in the mysteries of the human mind. But who will lobby for that? |