150 



DISCUSSION 



Mr. FuQUA. Thank you very much, Dr. Friedman. 



Should all or some of big science — and you mention in the field 

 you are very familiar with, astronomy, where you have — they prob- 

 ably don't cost the money that SSC's cost, but in big science, should 

 all big science automatically look toward an international coopera- 

 tive partnership, or should that be determined on a case-by-case 

 basis, or should we even bother with trying to involve international 

 cooperation? 



Dr. Friedman. There are very positive benefits from involving 

 scientists from all over the world. The intellectual contributions 

 are multiplied in proportion to the degree of participation. We are 

 now also in an era where the technological capabilities and the re- 

 sources abroad are comparable to ours. 



In the past couple of decades where we conducted missions in 

 space astronomy, we have paid by far the larger portion of the bill. 

 In the Hubble Space Telescope Program, Europe contributes about 

 15 percent. But in the recent IRAS, Infrared Astronomy Satellite, 

 the relative contributions were almost equal. The Dutch and the 

 British almost matched the United States contributions to that 

 mission. 



So you have the advantage of making the scientific competition 

 much broader than it would be on a strictly national scale, which 

 means that you flush out the best ideas and the technological capa- 

 bilities which are sufficient amongst the other nations of the world 

 to make them full contributors to the effort. 



I think where it is important to preserve a national effort is in 

 the smaller science missions where we are looking for real innova- 

 tion, exploration of brand-new ideas which need to be sampled in a 

 preliminary way. It is easier to do that on a national scale. Where 

 goals have been essentially identified as international goals, it is 

 much easier to carry out an international cooperative program. 



If we keep the small science active, we will give the brightest 

 young people in our country a chance to show their originality and 

 creativity much more easily than if they are coupled into big sci- 

 ence on an international scale. 



Mr. FuQUA. Do you think that the United States should have a 

 policy of trying to be first in every field of science? If so, what does 

 that do if we are involved in international cooperation? Aren't we 

 helping other countries to obtain a level that maybe we have? 



Dr. Friedman. I think it's important in all of science to seek to 

 be first. There is no real payoff, comparatively speaking, for 

 second-class science. Whether you can go it alone or have to do it 

 in an international consortium, I think will depend very, very 

 much on the total cost. I refer to the future missions as world-class 

 missions. I don't see how that can be avoided if we go over $1 bil- 

 lion a mission and there is a large agenda of very exciting science 

 to be done. Then we have to look for worldwide participation, and 

 we should strive to be on the first team of whatever effort is gener- 

 ated. 



Mr. Fuqua. How would you describe a field like astronomy? Do 

 you see that field as one that lends itself to international coopera- 

 tion? Do you see that as increasing or staying about the same or 



