STATEMENT OF NEIL deGRASSE TYSON, Ph.D.,
ASTROPHYSICIST, AMERICAN MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY; DIRECTOR,
HAYDEN PLANETARIUM, NEW YORK CITY
Neil Degra**e Tyson, Ph.D Astropyshics:
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Hutchison, Senator Boozman, thank you for your attention here.
I want to just preface this by saying I was born the same
week that NASA was founded. And while that specific point is of little relevance to the words of my testimony, I would say it is of great relevance to the feeling with which I deliver these words, having the same life span.
I want to start off with a quote from a famous aviator, French aviator Antoine Saint-Exupery. This quote may be known to some of you, but I think it bears repeating often. "If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't a**ign them tasks and work. But rather, teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea."
So that is a point of view that will matter for what
follows here. Right now, NASA's Mars science exploration budget is being decimated. We are not going back to the Moon. Plans for astronauts to visit Mars or anywhere beyond low-Earth orbit are delayed until the 2030s on funding not yet allocated, overseen by a Congress and a President to be named later. When I think of our golden era of space exploration, the late 1950s right on up through the early 1970s, over that time, very few weeks would go by before there would be an article in a newspaper, in a magazine where a cover story would extol the "city of tomorrow," "transportation of tomorrow," "the home of tomorrow," even "food of tomorrow."
And in spite of this optimism, that was a decade that was
perhaps our most turbulent in a century since the Civil War
itself. We all felt threatened from the Cold War, total
annihilation, in fact. There was a hot war going on, losing 100 servicemen a week. The civil rights movement, a**a**inations, and the like. The landscape was poisoned that decade. Yet one of the j**els in the American crown was our exploration of space. From what I can tell, the people who did the dreaming back then were the scientists, engineers, and technologists. And it is a community of people who were formally trained to discover.
They are discoverers. And what inspired them? Ask them.
Every one, to a person, will tell you it was America's bold and visible investment in a space frontier. Now, I happen to know, and we all have had this experience, exploration of the unknown doesn't always make a priority for people. I can tell you, however, that audacious visions have the power to alter mind states, to change a**umptions about what is possible. And when a nation allows itself to dream big, these dreams prevail in the citizens' ambitions. They energize the electorate.
During the Apollo era, you didn't need Government programs
trying to convince people that doing science and engineering
was good for the country. It was self-evident. And even those
not formally trained in technical fields embraced what those
fields meant for the collective national future.
Remember, that was the climate that birthed the New York
World's Fair, which was all about tomorrow, and the iconic
Unisphere, which donned three rings, evoking the three orbits
of John Glenn in the Friendship 7 capsule.
During that age of space exploration, any jobs that went
overseas were the kind nobody really wanted anyway. Those that
stayed in this country were the consequence of persistent
streams of innovation that could not be outsourced because
other nations couldn't yet figure out how to do what it was we
were doing. In fact, most of the world's nations stood
awestruck by our accomplishments.
Let us be honest. Of course, over that period, we went to
the Moon because we were at war. It is not a secret. To think
otherwise would be delusional, and has lead some people to
suppose we got to the Moon by 1969, of course, we are going to
be on Mars by 1980.
No. Not if you went to the Moon because you were at war.
And after you establish that the Soviet Union is not also going to the Moon, everything ends. But ending the program came with a cost. Yes, war can get you to go to the Moon, even get you to go to Mars. But there is another driver that exists, another driver of great ambitions, and it is almost as potent as the need to protect your security. And that is the promise of wealth. Nobody wants to die, of course, but nobody wants to die poor. Fully funded missions to Mars and anywhere beyond low-Earth orbit, commanded by astronauts who today would be in middle school, would reboot America's capacity to innovate as no other force in society can.
What matters here, in fact, are not spinoffs, although
there are plenty of spinoffs that are fun to read about. NASA,
every couple of years, puts out a document--NASA Spinoffs. I
recommend everyone here review those publications if you
haven't seen them.
But beyond the spinoffs, what matters are the cultural
shifts in how the electorate views the role of science and
technology in our daily lives. Because as the 1970s drew to a
close, we stopped advancing a space frontier. The "tomorrow"
articles faded. And we spent the next several decades coasting
on the innovations conceived by earlier dreamers.
They knew that seemingly impossible things were possible,
and others among them, those who saw what the previous
generation had enabled, witnessed the Apollo voyages to the
Moon, even though they were not a participant. And this is the
greatest adventure there ever was. Yet if all you do is coast,
eventually you slow down while others catch up and pa** you by.
We have got symptoms in society today. We are going broke.
We are mired in debt. We don't have as many scientists as we
want or need, and jobs are going overseas. I a**ert that these
are not isolated problems, that they are the collective
consequence of the absence of ambition that consumes you when
you stop having dreams.
And the NASA portfolio, it is multidimensional. It taps the
frontiers of biology, which we look for life on Mars;
chemistry, physics, astrophysics, geology, atmospherics,
electrical engineering, mechanical engineering. These are the
cla**ic subjects that are the foundation of the STEM fields--of course, science, technology, engineering, and math. And they are all represented in the NASA portfolio. Epic space adventures plant seeds of economic growth because doing what has never been done before is intellectually seductive, whether or not we deem it practical. And when you conduct those exercises, the innovation follows, just as day follows night. And when you innovate, you lead the world, you keep your jobs, and concerns over tariffs and trade regulations
evaporate.
The call for this adventure would echo loudly across
society and down the educational pipeline. At what cost? The
spending portfolio of the United States currently allocates 50
times as much money to social programs and education than it
does NASA.
So the old argument, "why are we spending money up there
and not down here?" is simply false. We are indeed spending
money down here, to the credit of lawmakers who understand the
breadth of priorities that face us.
Consider, however, that the half a penny budget that NASA
receives, if you double it, twice that, as unthinkable such a
step would be to so many, I a**ert that we can transform the
country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary of economic
struggle, to one where it has reclaimed its 20th century
birthright to dream of tomorrow.
And I ask you, how much would you pay to launch our economy? And from my scientific heart, I ask how much would you pay for the universe?
A slightly longer version of these notes have been submitted for the record. And thank you for your attention,
Senator.
Senator Nelson:
Well, of course, you are not only preaching
to the choir, you are preaching to the preachers.
And you have just done it so eloquently, so
incisively, and I couldn't help but think as you were speaking
to be reminded of the event that we just had down at the Cape
on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of John Glenn's
historic space flight. And as Scott Carpenter, who is the only
other living of the original seven astronauts, made his
speech--and you remember that Scott Carpenter was the fellow in the antiquated blockhouse that as John was just about to liftoff said, "Godspeed, John Glenn."
And then Scott ended up being the second one to ride the
Atlas rocket, this time for a lot more than just three orbits,
which John Glenn had done. But in Scott's speech at this
ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary, he recalled a
column that had been written in the New York Times calling John Glenn the last great American hero. And that column had rekindled a lot of what you have just articulated, Dr. Tyson. That this was a heady time. It was. We were in the great space race with the other superpower. So much was hanging on the success of this program. And then during that time that you talked about, the 1960s, not only did we launch Glenn after the Soviets had beat us into space, but then we took over and we took care of business and did it against an extraordinary backdrop. And we were, we were the envy of the world.
And in this column, as Scott is talking about this--was
John Glenn the last great American hero?--he quickly then said
no. We are going to come to this point again because it is
going to be the commander of that mission when it goes to Mars
and lands and returns.
And so, our objective is how do we get from there to there?
Dr. Tyson:
If I may react to that? I think any nation at any time has the capacity to create a hero. It just has to have ambitions with goals set so that one among us then steps forward, accepts those risks. Some of those who go forward don't come back, and this is an understood risk, in fact, of the history of our species. But those who do, who succeed, they get remembered forever.
And I would a**ert that I would claim that the conversation
needs to be taken to a new place because, apparently, the
argument that science is important or the argument that
exploration feeds the energy of our DNA, I have not seen that
be as successful as it should have been over these years when
NASA comes back to the White House and to the Congress, hat in
hand looking for money. But what I have noticed is that NASA, as an engine of innovation, not simply by the innovation that occurs within the agency, but by the culture of innovation that it spreads into the land, it is that culture that is responsible for economic growth. And so, if people see NASA as a charity agency for the satisfaction of some engineers and scientists, they are not understanding the actual role that NASA has played in the growth of this Nation, in the economic growth of this Nation.
So this half a penny on a dollar, I say take it to a penny.
Find that other half a penny somewhere. Recognize that penny on a dollar, penny on a dollar as an investment with a return that will so outweigh that one penny that you put in that you would be kicking yourself wondering why that investment wasn't made earlier.
And I am not talking only about spinoffs. And there are
great spinoffs from power tools without cords and perfecting
Lasik surgery, making it cheap and affordable and precise, and
the grooved pavement. The list is long. There are low-tech
solutions and high-tech solutions.
My concern is without that as a driving force within our
culture, everything else we do are just band-aids. Oh, we need
more scientists? Let us train some more teachers. That is a
band-aid.
Oh, we need more jobs on shores? Let us try to bring factories in and incentivize them. That is a band-aid. The moment the culture wants to innovate and we recognize that, that penny on a dollar becomes an investment, and it is not simply an investment in our identity, which it is, in our character, in our pride, it is all of the above. But what I have found in my read of the history of cultures, that if you can find an investment that returns economically, you take it. You do it.
And the pathway from the investment to the returned dollar
takes a little longer than an elevator ride to explain how you
get that. Innovations take place. Patents are granted.Products
are developed. The culture of innovation spills over. Everyone feels like tomorrow is something they want to invent and bring into the present. That is the Nation that many of us in this room grew up with, and that is the culture that so many who read about it want to resurrect going forward.
And so, without this, we just move back to the caves because that is where we are going to end up anyway as the rest of the world pa**es us by.
Senator Nelson:
You have very accurately articulated our character as a people. We, as Americans, have always had a frontier. We have always been pressing that frontier, and as a result, we have always been explorers and adventurers. We don't want to ever give that up or else we deny our character as a people. Senator Boozman?
Senator Boozman:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I want to echo that you are very articulate and, I think even more important, very enthusiastic about the subject.
It is easy to tell that this certainly is a pa**ion, and we
really do appreciate that. We need a lot more of that. With regard to America's scientific and technological workforce, a substantial portion is foreign-born and American-educated. In previous interviews, you mentioned that America is beginning to lose our technological workforce conduit as the rest of the world is catching up and providing technology opportunities for this workforce to leave America. How can we in Congress encourage or create more or better opportunities to retain our edge? And I guess what are your recommendations for the Committee? How can we specifically help you in that regard?
Dr. Tyson.
Other than doubling NASA's budget.
I think a bit about the foreign-born nationals getting graduate degrees in the sciences and engineering here, that has been going on basically since the 1980s. There might
have been a trickle of it in the 1970s. But it happened in
large measure in the 1980s and 1990s. It is still going on.
In the early days, we were simply the best opportunities.
We had the best science, the best engineering, and their home
countries did not. And so, it was expected that when they came
here, they would stay, and nearly all of them did. I don't have a problem with that.
So much of our national character and identity was enriched
because of how open our shores were to the creativity of
immigrants that come through for the past century and a half.
So that became a boon to our Nation intellectually because we
were getting the smartest people in the world.
But what happens back in their home countries? They begin
to develop. The countries recognize what we had recognized for
so long that investments in their infrastructure and in their
own science and technology creates opportunity. My great fear was that we would now educate them, and then they would go back to their home countries, and we would lose the contributions they would have made had they stayed. That
is, in fact, already happening.
The third stage in this is they become the professors, the
educating cla** in their home countries, and then they never
have to come here at all. By the way, that was the state back
before the Manhattan Project. Most of the principal scientists
of the Manhattan Project that were here in this country were
foreign nationals, all educated in European countries. We did
not quite have the physics infrastructure to sustain that kind
of intellectual capital to actually engage the Manhattan
Project.
So we not only tapped foreign nationals, they were all
foreign educated. Once we developed that infrastructure here
and that intellectual foundation, we became the target for
people to become educated from all around the world.
I would say that when a nation--not to sound like a broken
record here, but when a nation dreams big and has fully funded
projects visible to everyone, where a frontier is getting
advanced daily, innovations attract smart, clever people. The
prospect of innovation attracts them.
And dare I say if you stand up in front of an eighth grade
cla** and say, "Who wants to be an aerospace engineer so that
you can design a plane that is a few percent more fuel
efficient?" that doesn't really work as well as saying, "Who
wants to be an aerospace engineer because we need a plane that
will navigate the rarefied atmosphere of Mars?"
You are going to attract the very best of those students. And the solutions to that problem in every case I have ever
seen have improved life back here on Earth. And so, if you don't have the projects on the other side of the educational pipeline, why should anyone even do it? Why should anyone even stay? You can't just say, "Become a scientist because we need more scientists." You compel people to long for the open seas. And when you do that and the open sea is in reach because the Government has declared that that is the next frontier, everything falls into place, everything. We have seen it happen already. It can happen again, this time without the tandem military budget that was required in the 1960s to conduct a Cold War and a hot war. Imagine what that return will be going forward.
Senator Boozman:
Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And again, thank you very much for your testimony. Senator Nelson. We are singing from the same hymn book. In your talk about a lot of the value that NASA provides by inspiring and motivating children, which you have made that case very, very strongly, in these tight fiscal times, how do you make that value better understood by the average American person?
Dr. Tyson:
That is the multibillion dollar question. That is an important question. I mean, I am trying. First of all, I can tell you, based on my life experience-- and I am sure, if you reflect on it, on your life experience as well--you never actually have to train kids to think scientifically. They are always experimenting, always. They are turning over rocks. They are poking at objects that the adults don't want them to poke at.
And we spend a lot of our effort as adults squashing that
creativity and that exploratory drive that every child has
within them. So when I am asked what do we do to excite
children, my first answer is, first, get out of their way
because that will be a natural part of their curiosity as a
child.
And the real problem with the science literacy and the
embracing of what science and technology will bring is not, I
don't believe, in that next generation. It is in the current
generation of adults who far outnumber children, who vote, who
run the country.
I am not going to turn around and say the country has problems because we are not training our children. I am going to say the country has problems because not enough adults understand what these arguments are. And I would like to believe that no one wants to go to the poorhouse. So the economic argument needs to be lifted above all others. It needs to be lifted above the DNA argument, the urge to explore argument. That it is in even, with due respect, Senator, the legacy of Americans as explorers. I just have not seen that work on the soup line when someone can't feed their home, and they are working with a foreclosed--can't feed their family, and they have got a foreclosed home.
But the prospect that tomorrow they will be wealthier than
today, that works. It works every time, and it transcends
partisan politics. Because at the end of the day, we are a
capitalist democracy. We have all kind of bought into the idea
that tomorrow we should be wealthier than we are today.
And so, if we make the economic argument above all else,
there may be a chance that people will understand the actual
role that NASA has played and not the one that the dreamers say about it because I think NASA should be fully funded because I am a scientist. But I don't require others to feel the same way. When it comes to money, that is something we can all agree on.
Senator Nelson:
Well, you have said it pretty well. Science literacy is going to be our future, and somehow we need to translate that into overcoming these obstacles. And you have laid out the case as good as anyone. Now we have just got to keep on keeping on to get the message through.
Dr. Tyson:
And I will say if you want to do the homework, check out the GDP per capita in the 1960s into the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. It is in the 30 percent across that decade, the 10-year rise in the GDP per capita. Just watch it drop as the decades unfold, and that is us coasting on it. And if you average the 1990s with the 2000s, it is basically flat. And so, the future--as goes the future of NASA, so, too, does the future of this Nation.
Senator Nelson:
And with that poignant thought, thank you.
And the hearing is adjourned.