r@fermat.UUCP (Richard Schroeppel) (08/30/89)
In space-digest v10 #2, John (edstrom%UNCAEDU.bitnet@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca) reprints a 1964 editorial from Science, reporting the results of a survey of the attitudes of the AAAS membership toward the space program. The results of this survey should be interpreted in the proper context. Some additional information: (1) The reason for joining AAAS is to receive the magazine Science. The main subject matter of the magazine is biological sciences, and I think the membership is mostly biological scientists. (The editor works hard to achieve more balance; every year he makes a plea for more non-bio submissions. They have had special issues on Jupiter, chemistry, and materials science. But the typical article is "Osteoclastic Bone Resorption by a Polarized Vacuolar Proton Pump".) Polling the AAAS membership is not the same as polling a cross-section of all American scientists. Presumably, physicists, chemists, astronomers, mathematicians, archeologists, and electrical engineers were underrepresented in the poll. (2) The mid 1960s were an era of easy money for the biological sciences: there was a period of exponential growth in federal funding, and people who were receiving more and better federal grants might be inclined to be generous toward other endeavors. The situation today is roughly level funding for bio-science, and more effort preparing longer, more complex grant applications that are more likely to be rejected. A $300M shuttle mission could instead fund perhaps 20,000 grad-student-years. We should not be surprised if the space program is unpopular with other contestants for federal research money. Rich Schroeppel rcs@la.tis.com