COLUMN: In the eye of the beholden

From Yoni Slonim's, "Taking My Turn At Bat," Fall '97 From Yoni Slonim's, "Taking My Turn At Bat," Fall '97 In the recent hubbub over Comet Hale-Bopp one voice has been mysteriously absent. In an open letter, Alan Hale, the co-discoverer of Comet Hale-Bopp, has tried to spread the word on what he feels is the abysmal state of scientific inquiry and opportunity in America. He writes, "[As] I'm sure is true for many of you, I was inspired by the scientific discoveries and events taking place during my childhood to pursue a career in science only to find -- after completing the rigors of undergraduate and graduate school, -- that the opportunities for us to have a career in science are limited at best and are which I usually describe as 'abysmal'." Hale also argues correctly that the media has shown a reluctance to discuss this issue. It is nothing new that the media would rather discuss how the members of Heavens Gate spent their money during a trip to SeaWorld than what the future holds for scientific research. However, his argument is lacking in trying to describe what is wrong in the world of science. Hale thinks what America needs is a change of attitude. He feels, "unless there are some pretty drastic changes in the way that our society approaches science and treats those of us who have devoted our lives to making some of our own contributions, there is no way that I can, with a clear conscience, encourage present-day students to pursue a career in science." It is as if by the fact alone he has devoted his life to something "good" that we as a society should support it. What if I want to devote my life to becoming a clarinet player? If I'm not good enough and if their is no audience for me to play for, what right would I have to demand respect? Yes, I understand Hale probably thinks science is above the market. Science for science's sake. Maybe this is true. However, his is the wrong way to go about arguing the case of continued monetary support of the sciences. Yes, science is very important to us as a country and more importantly as human beings. Almost all would agree that research which led to such things as vaccines for polio and smallpox were tremendous. The question arises when research doesn't reach such grandiose heights. What Hale should be arguing is research -- even those experiments which fail -- is very important. It is not the intentions of science to achieve which will garner it support. Rather, a clearer understanding and openness of its objectives is needed. For instance, what would Hale say about the repeated "errors" of the space program. Within the span of a few weeks a space mission and an attempt to fix the already flawed Hubble space telescope failed with tremendous costs imposed on the taxpayer. What is the public supposed to think? Are we to be satisfied by intentions? An argument such as Hale proposes that "we're human beings trying to make an honest living and perhaps make a contribution or two to society while we're at it," will not convince many. A similar flawed debate is taking place on Capitol Hill where the now invigorated and trimmed down version of Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has started his battle cry once anew. Gingrich's ax is swinging again. For a change he is targeting subsidies to the arts. In support of Gingrich's renewed attack Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) said, "Tax dollars should not fund pornographic, blasphemous or offensive art,"(New York Times, 4/11). In other words, tax dollars should fund art but not that which someone (from my guess Doolittle) deems offensive. Again, wrong argument. This is not about offensive art because that decision will always be subjective. For instance when was the last time a Republican came out against the public funds that go to such programs as "Prairie Home Companion?" Neither side ever will because they wish to support art only with the caveat that they get to decide what qualifies as such. The only one who seems to have the guts to bring out what this debate should revolve around is Gingrich. In telling language Gingrich argued "this is not about money, this is about an elite group who wants to define that art is good," (Times, 4/11). Exactly. This debate focuses on whether or not arts are for the public good. Does it deserve public funding? It is easy to get away with saying a box with Jesus immersed in urine does not deserve public funding. However, this type of argument will always devolve into personal tastes, probably that of a judge. What we need to debate in the open is if art is good. The only problem for Newt is when to put this simply -- "Is art in the public good's interest?" -- he probably loses. Yes, there is art that "fails" as there is science that doesn't "work." But that shouldn't be the litmus test for our support. Rather, we need to stop bickering about individual cases and discuss the real issues.