SSC Debate: Backers See Spin-Offs, Foes Cite Priorities

[Editor's note: The recent vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on whether to spend $110 million to start building the superconducting supercollider turned out to be a breeze for proponents of the Texas project (see story on page 2). But even with the outcome of the House vote known, the debate offers a fascinating look at the arguments both sides are expected to use throughout the coming decade as Congress wrestles with funding for the $6 billion accelerator. Supporters, in an effort to blunt criticism that the project is merely an expensive toy for a handful of high-Energy physicists, make broad claims for its practical uses, particularly in medicine. They also argue that it is essential to the preservation of U.S. superiority in science. Opponents stress that the project is prone to mismanagement, that it would drain funds from other research fields, and that the government's limited resources would be better spent on small-science projects that are more likely to benefit society. The question of foreign participation is a sticky one: Both sides would like to see other countries share in the huge cost of the project, but neither side wants the U.S. to sacrifice the technological spin-offs from the SSC. Following are excerpts from the June 28 House debate on an amendment offered by Rep. Dennis Eckart (D-Ohio) to strip all construction funds from an appropriations bill to fund the SSC in the 1990 fiscal year that begins in October.] The Forces At Work The purpose of the SSC is to force basic particles to collide so we can better understand the four basic forces of the universe-the weak force. the strong force, gravity, and electromagnetism. The debate over the SSC serves a similar function. Our funding priorities collide, and that shows the forces at work in the Congress. We have the weak force: apathy and ignorance. It says the SSC is too big to really understand, so let's just go with it. Then we have the strong force, interested constituents and lobbyists that stand to benefit from the SSC and who are calling members to advance their own special interests through support of a science project. I urge my colleagues to resist that force. Then we have gravity, the arguments that pull us back to earth and make us realize there are serious policy questions at stake here. I believe that force argues against putting money into site work when there are still open questions about the project and more urgent science priorities. And finally, there's the equivalent of the electromagnetic force, that sees science as a single unit, not as a series of programs scattered throughout appropriations and budget accounts. And I think that, when we look at science as a whole, the SSC does not jump out as the most urgent item.- Rep. Sherwood Boehiert (R-N.Y.) The Fight To Be No.1 If we can be successful with the SSC, we will revolutionize knowledge in the world. We will revolutionize technology in the world, and we will get the leadership that this country demands and needs. Are you going to throw it away because we do not have the money? This is the time for us to say to every member, including the appropriations committee, as we try to allocate the resources of this country and we talk about the needs of the American people, and we talk about the needs of human beings: We have got to be in a position to make the investment in the areas where it is going to make a difference. It [the SSC] is going to make a difference in science, space, technology, and education. That is where the new jobs are going to come from. That is where our competition is going to be in the world. That is how we are going to fight in the global economy.-Rep. Robert Roe (D-NJ.) Boarding The Bandwagon This is a big project, make no mistake. President Bush wants this project. [Secretary of Energy] Admiral Watkins supports the SSC. Secretary [of State James] Baker and Commerce Secretary [Robert] Mosbacher have said that they will negotiate commitments from foreign governments. But what kind of hand will they have if we fail to provide construction money?- Rep. Ronald Coleman(D-Texas) The Wrong Basket Building the supercollider would be a super mistake. It is proposed that we put all of our research eggs in one 53-mile research basket. In today's Washington Post, Energy Secretary Watkins says that 'I find in the Energy Department a culture of mismanagement and ineptitude.' Mr. Chairman, it is this same culture of mismanagement and ineptitude to which we now want to turn over the expenditure of $6 billion of taxpayers' money in a program that may leave this federal government with yet another white elephant. This is the first vote in what will probably be a series of votes on determining the science priorities of this nation. The preoccupation with big science over little science will prevent the funding of 100,000 National Science Foundation grants covering a wide variety of investments in the science and education infrastructure of this nation. The trickle-down effect of this program is one that should not be lost on us all. The supercollider will deny our ability to fund those projects which make a difference.... If this project is so good, why are [foreign nations] not doing it themselves? Because the fact of the matter is that the development of the SSC will have America eating its science seed corn.-Rep. Dennis Eckart (D-Ohio) A Bigger, Better Fermilab Admiral Watkins says that, in building the SSC, America would not only maintain its leadership in the important area of physics research, but also reap significant benefits. He is talking about economic benefits. He is talking about over 100 universities in this country participating. He is talking about keeping our best scientific minds here, and inspiring more of our young people to enter science. We know that significant benefits have accrued already. We know that from the small, four-mile tunnel at Fermilab, with the approximately $1 billion we have already invested [in the Tevatron]. We have the Magnetic Resonance Imaging, known as MRI. Thanks to Fermilab, we can now build a three-dimensional X-ray. Think of the surgery that will be eliminated thanks to this technology. Think of the cost and the pain and suffering that is eliminated simply by having a three-dimensional photograph and not having to perform exploratory surgery. I think that this $1 billion was a good investment. Now we are saying, 'Let's get together with these other countries and build an even bigger Fermilab.'-Rep. Tom Bevill (D-Ala.)

SSC Debate: Backers See Spin-Offs, Foes Cite Priorities

The Scientist Staff

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of