WHY should governments invest in science? In some fields it makes obvious economic sense. Research at California鈥檚 top public universities helped create the semiconductor industry in Silicon Valley, for example. It is less clear that investment in astronomy or particle physics has produced anything like this kind of return. It has unquestionably produced great insights into the nature of the universe, but is that enough?
This is a good time to ask such questions, since scientists on both sides of the Atlantic are reeling from severe funding cuts (see 鈥�Physics reels as the financial axe falls鈥� and 鈥�World Lines: The end of physics鈥�). Last month, Congress slashed $94 million from particle physics and fusion programmes, while in the UK an 拢80 million funding deficit could force the country to withdraw from some crucial international physics and astronomy projects.
The shortfall in the UK stems from accountancy errors rather than direct cuts 鈥� science funding as a whole continues to rise 鈥� but it has left British researchers jittery about the government鈥檚 long-term commitment to science in general. When Gordon Brown was in charge of the nation鈥檚 finances he pumped millions into science, but often asked for spending to be justified in economic terms. Will that be his mantra as prime minister too?
Advertisement
We can only hope not, and that politicians will see the value in science beyond a cash return on investment. Astronomy and particle physics experiments probe some of the most profound issues in science. They also generate technological spin-offs and create a highly trained, specialised workforce, but if they had to be justified on purely economic grounds, they could disappear altogether.