National Observatories: Contention Continues

Abstract

McCray replies: I am pleased at the interest my article generated. Both William Howard and Cameron Reed bring up excellent points.As Howard suggests, one feature that distinguishes American astronomy from its counterparts in other countries is its long tradition of private, state, and philanthropic support, which continues to this day. Unlike many other areas of science—nuclear physics, for example—optical astronomy’s private patrons continued to provide generous support even after the federal government became an important postwar patron. The complementary and often competitive relationship between the private and public observatory systems in the US continues to be a powerful force in the community. An indication of the importance of that relationship is the ongoing debate over how to fund and build the next generation of giant telescopes (see Physics Today, Physics Today 0031-9228 56 8 2003 22 https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1611344. August 2003, page 22 ). One is struck by the similarity between optical astronomy and the private–public race in the 1990s to decode the human genome. As J. Merton England’s book A Patron for Pure Science: The National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945–57 (NSF, 1982) shows, NSF saw astronomy as an especially promising area in which to invest in large-scale science facilities. Given the monopoly that the Atomic Energy Commission had on the funding of big accelerators for high-energy physics, fields like astronomy and multidisciplinary endeavors like Antarctic exploration and the International Geophysical Year offered a way for NSF to invest in postwar big science.Although making the national optical observatories dominant may not have been NSF’s stated purpose, the decision to not pursue that goal certainly raised eyebrows in the scientific community. It is hard to identify many areas of postwar science in which national research facilities were of lesser size, scale, or power compared with their private counterparts. During numerous interviews for my recent book Giant Telescopes: Astronomical Ambition and the Promise of Technology (Harvard U. Press, 2004), astronomers frequently mentioned that, in the 1970s, the national telescope’s 4-meter mirror on Kitt Peak was smaller than that in the privately owned 5-meter telescope on Palomar. The situation—indeed, the same ratio—persisted with the two 10-meter Keck telescopes versus the two 8-meter Gemini telescopes. Reed makes a salient point. Whether to close smaller observatories in favor of building new and bigger facilities is a critical issue in the formulation of US science policy for astronomy. Such decisions are made more difficult by the productivity of smaller telescopes and their role in training students. As Reed notes, perhaps the best system is one that favors “democratic meritocracy.” The continuing challenge facing the science community would appear to be how to achieve that ideal.© 2004 American Institute of Physics.