Though some may doubt it, there are definite degrees of sexiness within scientific research. Consider, for instance, the differences between statistics and biology. The former is a useful and impressive discipline, though it can be dry and boring; the latter, on the other hand, is not only a wide-reaching field, but also home to popularly debated, well-known concepts such as evolution and embryonic stem cell research. In other words there's science, and then there's science (said in a sexy, come-hither whisper).
And, while I'm sure there are many types of science that deserve to be recognized as being sexy and important, one of the most heartbreaking is space exploration. It's weird, too, because in the abstract, we like space quite a bit. As kids, many of us dreamt of one day becoming astronauts; many of the top-grossing films of all time are set in space; and most can't deny awe when looking longingly up at the stars on a crystal clear night and uttering the (satisfied sigh) someday."" But, in the concrete, it appears we really don't care.
After all, the space shuttle Discovery landed earlier this month after a particularly harrowing mission and most of the world couldn't have cared less. Unexpected problems in the International Space Station, such as a faulty joint littering metal shavings and two tears on a solar array, resulted in harrowing spacewalks and ingenious solutions of which any organization should be proud.
According to the New York Times, NASA's administrator Michael Griffin went so far as to say, ""It's way beyond anything that has ever been done by human beings before, anywhere.""
All in all, pretty dramatic stuff, right? Well, not so much. I mean, heck, did you know any of this happened? It wasn't exactly front-page news anywhere. In fact, I only knew because an astronomer friend told me. If we don't really care about missions as dramatic as these, we certainly won't care about the run-of-the-mill, non-perilous missions, right? So why are we so apathetic about actual, concrete spaceflight when we're so into high flying science fiction?
While the scientist in me protests, the rest of me hastens to point out that, in fact, NASA stuff is usually pretty boring these days. Sending men to the moon and colonizing bases on Mars is just plain cool, but studying the effects of zero-gravity on certain plant life? Most people only have so much time to read the news, and they can't be bothered with stuff like that.
Of course, the inner scientist part of me adds that the lack of cool science coming out of NASA can largely be blamed on federal funding cuts, totaling billions of dollars over the next four years. Without funding, NASA can't do the awesome, sexy stuff we want them to like searching for life on Jupiter's moons, investigating dark energy and bringing back samples from Mars - all projects that had to be scrapped because of the budget cuts, according to the Times. It seems to be one of those vicious cycles.
But, like some of the best space movies, there might be a new hope: private space flight. I've been hearing for years about how stuff like the X-prize, which offers $10 million to any private organization that can build a working spacecraft, will bring the private sector to the exploration of space. As much I've always liked NASA and hope it turns it all around, that seems less and less likely of late. Even though private spaceflight hasn't taken off yet (so to speak), without government restrictions and taxpayer accountability, it'll be free to do all kinds of cool things, at least in theory.
Maybe by then we'll start caring again. My astronomer friend tells me we need another Cold War, that nothing lights a fire under our collective butt like competition. I just think we need to remember that deep down we actually like this stuff, even if right now it isn't as exciting as we'd like. Besides, sometimes the sexiest thing of all is the anticipation of what great things may come, if we play our cards right.
Want to talk (sexy) science with Bill? E-mail him at science@dailycardinal.com.
