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 not brand me as scientifically illiterate. Perhaps the fact that he feels it does shows that it may be the scientists who are out of touch--not the politicians.
STEPHEN B. CHRISTENSEN
Dow North America
Midland, Mich. 48667
