Following are my comments on the remarks from various members of the
audience during the panel discussion, “Societal Connections of
Planetary Exploration and the Search for Life Elsewhere,” held on the
evening of Thu 15 Mar at LPSC 32. Ten audience members spoke for
anywhere from a few seconds to several minutes at microphones set up in
the seating area. I will comment only on those for which I have a
response or a suggested follow-up.

Bob Nelson of JPL noted the ironical ranking, in public opinion polls,
of physicians, scientists, and engineers at the top of public
confidence, while many “leadership” professions, especially elected
officials, rank near the bottom. He drew a contrast between political
processes and scientific processes, and stated that political processes
are directed toward economic gain. He noted that certain terminology,
eg “theory,” has a very different meaning among scientists than among
politicians. Bob suggested several things to do: visit your
congressional representative; visit a newspaper editor; ask a scientific
colleague with whom you are debating to discuss the matter in a public
forum.

I would be interested in seeing polling data ranking public confidence
in various professions; if anyone can cite a source, please post it
here – though I will not be at all surprised if Bob’s assessment is
entirely correct. It would be most interesting to see if there is a
trend in the public’s perception of scientists over time.

The whole area of how the political process works vs how the scientific
process works is well worth a discussion thread in this forum.

I would caution us in imputing drastically different motives to people
outside the scientific community, however; in the largest sense,
researchers’ desired gains are “economic” as well. Having said that, I
thought Bob’s suggested activities were excellent ideas, and will
shortly be posting specific requests to this list to ask subscribers to
tell their stories of any such experiences.

In response to a question from Jeffrey Muerch (? – affiliation unknown),
panelist Kelly Beatty of Sky & Telescope magazine stated that scientists
should seek to persuade people who make decisions about TV that science
is not “soft” news, it is “hard” news.

Again, as with Kelly’s prepared remarks, I thought this was among the
most cogent suggestions of the entire event.

Bernard Foing of ESA then rose to express his concern that the
discussion was beginning to crystallize around the relationship between
scientists and television coverage. He stated that at the recent LUNEX
convention in Paris, they got prime-time TV, but this is only a start.
Connection with the public is a much deeper topic, requiring engagement
and participation. Non-science academics should be brought in. It
might even be appropriate to invite members of the public to make
presentations at LPSC on their research priorities.

I think that Bernard’s remarks convey just how wide the topic I hope to
see discussed on SCoPE-L can be. It would be easy for us to concentrate
on American TV news coverage of American planetary science – and indeed
this may occupy most of our bandwidth here. But I want to explicitly
state that the purpose of this discussion group is a global one. As
moderator, I happen to know that quite a few of the people signing up on
SCoPE-L are outside the US. I expect their insights to play a crucial
role in the development of, to quote myself, “a widely shared set of
ideas among planetary scientists about what should be done to improve
and maintain their relationship with the wider public.” That
relationship exists, and needs tending, all over the world, including
some pretty unlikely places; see the latest issue of Sky & Telescope for
an astonishing and hopeful article about amateur astronomy in Iran.

In response to another comment from Larry Friersen (?), possibly of the
University of Houston, Kelly Beatty noted that primary school students
now have Internet access and huge competition for interests, so focusing
their attention on science may be becoming more difficult.

I was intrigued by this comment and would appreciate any substantiating
data on how children’s interests have trended over time. Are the old
standbys, space and dinosaurs, no longer guaranteed attention-grabbers?

David Criswell of the University of Houston then pointed out that the
issue of addressing needs on this planet vs searching for life elsewhere
is a legitimate one. Do planetary scientists and exobiologists address
human needs? Or are they too specialized?

As with the discussion of political processes, how to relate planetary
science to existing human needs is another excellent topic for a
discussion thread in this forum.

Clifford Carley (affiliation unknown, formerly of Houston Space Society)
stated that while the attendees at the panel discussion would rather
know than believe, the public would rather believe than know.

I regret to say – especially since I have been unable to find any
contact information for him and am therefore criticizing this statement
without his knowledge – that I do not agree and do not consider it a
constructive suggestion. Statements of the us-vs-them, dualistic type
will be tolerated on SCoPE-L, but they will not be welcomed by me.
Improving the relationship between planetary scientists and the public
will be brought about by exploiting commonalities, not by insisting on
contrasts. (Or, as panelist Jeff Taylor of the University of Hawaii
remarked, “When you said the believers are all out there – you should
have been in that Mars session this morning.”)

Richard Herd of the Canadian Geological Survey stated that presenting
space to the public as a frontier, with all the economic opportunities
attendant thereon, is an obvious tactic, especially in the
entrepreneurial American culture. He uttered the one applause line of
the entire event when he urged a return to the Moon. He also drew an
analogy to the colonization of North America, noting that scientific
laboratories will in effect provide much of the infrastructure of the
new frontier.

Since this could not have been – from my perspective – better phrased if
it had been an actual ASR put-up job, all I will add is that I am
personally grateful to Richard for saying it.

Liz Fuller of Brown University stated that Kelly Beatty’s point during
his prepared remarks about ignoring the adults is hugely important, and
suggested approaching screenwriters to improve the quality and quantity
of space exploration-themed movies.

One of the requests I will be posting to this list will ask subscribers
to tell their stories of any experiences with Hollywood types.

Jennifer Anderson, also of Brown, suggested that we educate K-12
teachers, especially thorugh interacting with education departments at
universities. The objective should be to make science teaching more
interactive and inquiry-based.

I note that several such programs exist (see the “Resources #2”
posting), though their use is confined to perhaps 10% of public school
students in the US. Again, I would be most interested in hearing tales
of interactions among planetary scientists and future teachers.

The closing comment, by moderator Bruce Jakosky of the University of
Colorado, was that there is no end product of the forum, and that indeed
discussion had just started. This began, for me, the train of thought
which led to SCoPE-L.


Jay Manifold
Vice-President, Research & Development
Applied Space Resources, Inc.
<jmanifold@...>
************************************************************************
http://www.appliedspace.com/ W E ' R E G O I N G B A C K !
To subscribe to ASR's "InnerResources" newsletter and receive other
mission reports, send email to <ListServe@...>, subject
"subscribe InnerResources" (without quotes)
************************************************************************
Moderator, SCoPE-L Societal Connections of Planetary Exploration List
To join SCoPE-L, browse http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCoPE-L and select
"Subscribe" in the right-hand column, or send a message to
<SCoPE-L-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>.