Special Report From New Orleans: A Look At All That Jazz From The AAAS Meeting

[Editor's note: The interdisciplinary nature of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held last month in New Orleans, offers a perspective on the status of science in the United States that is not available at the typical scientific meeting, where most discussions are centered on a single discipline or specialty. For the benefit of those who were not in New Orleans - as well as those who were present but otherwise occupied - here's a sampling of some of the things you missed.] A current profile of the Soviet Union's economy bears a remarkable resemblance to the economy of the United States during the Depression, says James Beniger, a communications professor at the University of Southern California. Beniger made his comments during a symposium on the "informatization of Soviet society," in other words, what it would take to bring that country into the modern information age of computers, high-speed telecommunications, and the like. Beniger's assessment is based on a model that divides a nation's economy into four sectors - agriculture, industry, service, and information - and looks at what percentage of the total is derived from each sector. The current Soviet profile, he says, shows industry with one third of the total, agriculture and service at about one quarter, and information with the smallest portion, about one fifth. The developed countries that match that profile most closely, says Beniger, are West Germany in the 1950s, Argentina in the 1960s, and Chile in the 1970s. The U.S., by contrast, derives about half of its economy from the information sector and a scant 2% from agriculture. AAAS officials knew that attendance at this year's meeting in New Orleans, despite the arrival of Mardi Gras over the weekend, would have a hard time matching the previous two gatherings in San Francisco and Boston, cities that are saturated with scientists. They were right: This year's registration of just over 4,000 was down by more than one third from the past two years. But they weren't expecting a rain check from the New York Times, which for the first time in memory did not send a reporter to the meeting. The Times' science editor, Philip Boffey, who has attended more than his share of such gatherings, says that his decision was based on the fact that "it's not really a breaking-news meeting." Boffey dispatched an editor "to scout around for ideas for future stories," but there was a near blackout of news in the paper from New Orleans: Not until two days after the meeting ended did the Times even run a wire service article based on the meeting. Ironically, first-year AAAS Executive Director Richard Nicholson told a press conference that, even before he came to AAAS, he "could always tell when the AAAS meeting was going on because I'd read front-page stories about it in the Times and the [Washington] Post." (The Post sent two science reporters, but none of their stories appeared on the front page.) The problem is hardly insoluble, however. The nation's scientific press corps continues to turn out in strength (about 500 reporters were registered in New Orleans), so scientists need not go very far to find a willing audience for their latest findings. And the situation is certain to improve next year, when AAAS meets in media-infested Washington, D.C. Man may have gotten to the moon, but an invisible challenge may be a greater threat to long-term space voyages than even budget cuts. Harmful radiation presents the greatest obstacle facing scientists preparing for the next generation of space exploration, says Francis D. Moore, Moseley Professor of Surgery at Harvard. In low-earth orbit, the magnetosphere shields astronauts from the brunt of galactic cosmic rays. But outside that shield astronauts are at much greater risk, Moore told participants at a symposium on using space for biological research. The risk comes not only from chronic exposure, he said, but also from sudden, high doses of radiation from solar flares. Most journeys into space have been in low-earth orbit. And Apollo missions, which went beyond the magnetosphere, were very short, especially compared with interplanetary itineraries. Yet a recent government study has raised concerns about the threat to airline crews from radiation. Even the best protection cuts the radiation level by only 40%, leaving the astronauts exposed to levels much higher than is considered safe, says Moore. And those levels (for astronauts) are 10 times what is allowed for nuclear workers, and 100 times the accepted exposure for the general public. Moore wants NASA to develop unmanned spacecraft that will travel to Mars and the moon and bring back samples for testing. And he urged the agency to go ahead with its plans for a satellite with insects, bacteria, and other organisms that will remain in space for up to three months. "Until those data come in, we should emphasize the details and public acceptance of unmanned exploration, even if this is a bitter pill to take," he says. A few years ago, the political buzzword for obtaining federal support for science was competitiveness. But times change. Now it's education. That's clear from a talk by Roy Schwitters, director of the new Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) lab outside Dallas, during a symposium on particle accelerators of the future. Schwitters reminded his audience that, despite past political wrangling over the site and present debate over the eventual cost of the world's biggest accelerator, the lab's primary goal was to create the world's premier high-energy physics laboratory. But sharing top ranking was, in his words, "our desire to create a national resource for science education." It wasn't very long ago that supporters of the SSC were telling Congress about the technological "spinoffs" that could be expected from the collider. And there is still heated debate about whether other nations will "steal" U.S. technology if they are allowed to participate in building the magnets and other components of the machine. But scientists have long been skeptical of attempts to sell the SSC on that basis. And with the current groundswell of support for bolstering science education, it's no surprise that SSC officials have seized upon the latest buzzword to rally support for the $7 billion, proton-proton collider.

Special Report From New Orleans: A Look At All That Jazz From The AAAS Meeting

The Scientist Staff

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of