e d i to ri a l
The Cost of Chemical Analysis in Space T
his Editorial is prompted by the U.S. government’s recent announcement of the goal of sending humans to the Moon and then to Mars. I challenge this idea with a question: “Why go?” Is it for the sake of national identity or pride, or so that we can claim superiority in technology, as in the Cold War “race to space”? Is it to provide a financial reason for the existence of a Texas-centric space technology industry? Is it to lift the human spirit, or to advance ideas about the ideology of where life began? Is it done because the U.S. public sees it as a giant itch that just has to be scratched? Is it for scientific understanding of important questions that are unanswerable without human attendance on Mars? This last answer seems to be the one pushed to the forefront, which is important to our readers because with or without human attendance, many questions involve analytical chemistry. Interesting first analytical steps were taken recently on Mars with the robotic conveyers Spirit and Opportunity. The major analytical chemistry question thus far addressed, “Was water there in the past?”, appears to have been answered by data from an IR emission spectrometer, which provided information about mineralogy by detecting patterns of thermal radiation; a Moessbauer spectrometer, which detected jarosite, an iron sulfate mineral associated with possible previous water exposure; and an alpha particle X-ray spectrometer, which indicated the presence of sulfur and other elements, mounted on Spirit. This is standard rock analysis, but it was conducted at a distance using an impressive degree of robotic ability. This striking analytical data, and some spectacular photography, cost about $0.8 billion. The mission is billed as a prelude to one that will seek to identify substances that will either support human existence on Mars or be toxic to it. The prospects for future expenditure are also notable, especially if one does not ignore the debt-laden state of government finances. Here I point to an important juncture in U.S. science based on the 1945 document “Science: The Endless Frontier”, prepared by Vannevar Bush at the request of President Roosevelt. (It can readily be accessed by a Web search. Bush was a faculty member at MIT and later the president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington.) Phrases like the following are found in it: “Progress in the war against disease depends upon a flow of new scientific knowledge. New products, new industries, and more jobs require continuous additions to knowledge of the laws of nature, and the application of that knowledge to practical pur© 2004 AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY
poses.” There is also, “Science can be effective in the national welfare only as a member of a team, whether the conditions be peace or war. But without scientific progress no amount of achievement in other directions can insure our health, prosperity, and security as a nation in the modern world.” And, “If the colleges, universities, and research institutes are to meet the rapidly increasing demands of industry and Government for new scientific knowledge, their basic research should be strengthened by use of public funds.” The document recommended the founding of a National Research Foundation, which subsequently became the National Science Foundation (NSF). Bush’s recommendations were in effect a social contract between the scientific community and the public: “You support our scientific endeavors, and we will strive to make discoveries that will enrich your lives.” What a success that notion has been! The impact of scientific discovery by NSF-funded and other federally funded investigators on the public welfare has been enormous, and science retains a large measure of public good will because of this contract’s success. A substantial fraction of it today is associated with the disease-fighting successes of the NIH. I believe that the moral commitment in Bush’s document remains a part of the fabric of the public’s relationship with science, including the belief—which I think is appropriate—that the public deserves an explanation when it disagrees with the way its money is spent in the name of science. And so this Editorial asks if the presence of humans on Mars is sold as important science, then what is the benefit to humanity? How does the cost of any benefit weigh against the benefits of alternative investments in science, such as fusion power? If the answers are lacking, then a serious erosion of our social contract has occurred. My deep concern is that continued profligate spending on projects that are billed as “science” yet lack true scientific and ultimate public value degrade the public’s support for science in general. This ultimately filters through the legislative process in a way that has financial consequences. I believe that a demand by both scientists and the public for an explanation of the benefits, to them, of humans on Mars deserves a response. The cost of chemical analysis in space may be too steep.
A P R I L 1 , 2 0 0 4 / A N A LY T I C A L C H E M I S T R Y
109 A
