INNOVATION TALK:CELEBRATIONS OF the life and times of astronaut Neil Armstrong following his recent death bring to mind one of the ironies associated with his lunar landing.
The technologies developed to launch Armstrong and his fellow astronauts into orbit and on to the moon had a parallel application – the delivery of “mutual assured destruction” through the launching of nuclear warheads in response to any attack.
Living in the US at the time, reminders of this duality were ever present.
Televisions were set up at school so we could watch in awe as history was made with the launching of the Mercury and Gemini spacecraft. Meanwhile, down in the basement we looked nervously at the stockpiles of tinned food and medical supplies, essentials stacked to the ceiling for use in the event of a nuclear attack.
We were all schooled in how to “survive” nearby explosions by closing windows and doors before taking shelter under a table. Certainly a life-saver. We were taught to look for the yellow and black nuclear symbol affixed to large buildings indicating they were a safe place to take shelter should the button ever be pressed.
That was how real it was for a child born in the US in the 1950s. We were too small to make the connection between the “good” rockets used for space travel and the “bad” rockets used to carry ballistic missiles. And yet if you want to make good rockets there is no spur like having a military that requires the bad rockets first.
Nothing drives research, basic or applied, like the strategic demands arising from the military. The top 20 contractors for the US Department of Defence were granted almost $44 billion (€35 billion) worth of business to conduct research in 2010 so there is no shortage of money despite the recession.
Clearly the top 20 would have a strong aerospace bias, hence the top three being Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. But also there in the top 20 are university-based centres including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Lincoln Laboratory and the Applied Physics Laboratory at Johns Hopkins, probably better known for its outstanding medical research.
Similar demand for expertise – and the money needed to fund it – arises if a government wants something accomplished through the conduct of research. But this isn’t necessarily military related. The US department of energy recently awarded a contract to California-based company Nvidia to develop a computer that can run 1,000 times faster than the fastest supercomputers. Another from the department relates to improving safety at wind farms.
The US will spend $436 billion on research during 2012 according to estimates from the Battelle Memorial Institute. Europe meanwhile will spend about $338 billion, with the world spend during 2012 estimated at $1.4 trillion. You can do a lot of research with this kind of money floating around.
Much of the US spend will flow into companies, but the government there is also the largest single funder of university scientific research, according to the US National Science Foundation. While a lot of this will have a military edge to it, much of it will not, and instead will flow into medical research into cancer, diabetes and obesity, into energy supply and computer technology.
Those committed to Irish neutrality will celebrate the fact that we have no military-industrial complex, no war machine whose edge is honed through contact with university-based research. And yet we still aspire to become a country where world-class research happens, where discoveries are made and benefits arise through research.
But given we have decided not to build a war machine, this then means that State expenditure on research effectively becomes “discretionary”. There is no imperative to invest, no urgent nationalistic requirement to sink money into a project pursued as much for political gain as for science.
The US space programme was just such an imperative, set in motion by John F Kennedy, or George W Bush’s declaration that it was high time to land humans on Mars. One worked, the other didn’t, but the attendant research would have served two masters, one wearing a uniform the other a space suit.
So maybe it is time for the Government to announce Ireland will launch a rover to Mars or land an Irish astronaut on the moon. If it captured the public imagination then the Government could ramp up the €150 million a year it spends on research each year without annoying the electorate. Or maybe it should just invest more money in research anyway to help achieve the dream of becoming an international centre for research excellence. All it would take is a bit of vision.
