Leon Lederman (The Scientist, Nov. 29, 1993, page 12) apparently feels that anyone who didn't support the superconducting supercollider (SSC) lacked the "reasonable science savvy" to "vote correctly" on the matter. This sounds like the tired old argument: "You must not understand the issue or you would agree with me."
No one is going to argue that the knowledge the SSC could provide is not worth obtaining. But just because something is worth doing does not mean that it is worth doing at any cost. Why isn't it reasonable to consider what could be done with those billions of public dolars? Yes, it would be nice to support particle physics, but what about cancer research, or the fight against crime? Just because I apply a cost-benefit analysis to the question of how to spend our limited tax dollars and come up with a different answer from Lederman's should...
Interested in reading more?
Become a Member of
Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?