155 



Dr. Friedman. The situation differs rather strongly in different 

 scientific discipHnes. I take pride in being an astronomer, and I 

 admire my colleagues all over the world, and I think they come up 

 with brilliant concepts of what the future holds for astronomy. 

 They are all in tune with each other's thinking. 



To a large extent, just as this country supports astronomy for its 

 intellectual goals, the same situation holds abroad. When we get to 

 areas of geophysics, then the situation becomes much less clear. Po- 

 litical elements become important. Questions of societal benefits in 

 a very practical and early-return category become the first ques- 

 tions in deciding how to go ahead. 



When we talk about the greenhouse gases, what they do to cli- 

 mate, and we talk about acid rain, we are dealing with a subject 

 that is very fractionated, which the science, for all the effort that 

 has gone into it, is still kind of fuzzy, and in which political and 

 private sector considerations are as important as the goals of un- 

 derstanding the science. 



So what we do, and what we don't do, and how long we take to 

 do things is a mix of what scientists think they can accomplish, 

 what the political system wants to support, what the societal bene- 

 fits arena urges on governments to do, and so on. 



So these two areas, astronomy and global problems in geophysics, 

 with great societal impact, are very different. And how you get 

 support for them is a very different matter. 



Mr. FuQUA. Dr. Friedman, we are going to have to take a short 

 break. We have a vote on the floor, and we will be right back. I 

 think Mr. Walgren and Mr. Lujan may have questions to ask of 

 you. So if you will tolerate us for a bit. 



Mr. FuQUA. The task force will resume. 



Mr. Lujan. 



Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I went out to vote a little earlier than the rest of them did, and I 

 guess the discussion had moved into science for the sake of science, 

 whether it is a noble goal to achieve a whole bunch of Nobel Prizes 

 or whether out the other end has got to come out something in the 

 area of spinoffs. I would like to pursue that a little bit because I 

 think that is central to the point of science policy, whether we do it 

 for one reason or the other or a combination of both, whether it is 

 worth knowing where a star is only for the sake of knowing it or 

 whether it is because it is going to give us some benefit that we can 

 guide ourselves in a particular direction, whether it is like the 

 three Magi to find Christ, or to find a pot of gold at the end of the 

 rainbow, or whatever. 



Would you expand on that some, the two purposes and how they 

 fit? 



Dr. Friedman. The easy way to answer your question. Congress- 

 man Lujan, is to take a retrospective look at what has happened in 

 the past. If we take the Sun, for example, at the turn of this centu- 

 ry, scientists had no idea what makes the Sun or any other star 

 shine. They talked about chemical burning. You take a pile of coal 

 as big as the Sun and light it up, well, it will burn up in 2,000 

 years. So that certainly could not be the source. And yet that is 

 where they were hung up. 



52-283 0-86 



