I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. While it raised some serious and valid points, I felt that the writer, and people cited, were making more of a problem out of the issue at hand than there needed to be. I would not call it exaggeration, but more that the article was expecting more out of people than they should really need to give. 

As far as science moving into the private sector, my thoughts are that it should be. I feel that it cannot be driven by a bottom line and if it is funded by the government, that would probably be an issue. It would make sense that it is moving more into the private sector because the government already has a lot on its plate. While that sounds like poor reasoning, the government, I believe, should be there to support the people. Not everyone thinks that looking in space for extraterrestrials is a good use of their tax money in comparison to other uses.

The article quotes two prominent physicists, Stephen Hawking and Steven Weinberg. While Hawking thinks, “that discovering a better theory of gravitation would be like seeing into ”the mind of God”(3), Weinberg believes, “the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless”(3). My ideas would lie with Weinberg. However, maybe that is only because I am not a religious person. I think it could it could be looked in each way easily depending on the person. 

Part of this article reminded me of a novel, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. In which scientists were too caught up in believing they, and only they, were correct. The author, Rebecca Skloot, quotes a scientist, in response to the Nuremberg Trials, who said, “When we are prevented from attempting seemingly innocuous studies of cancer behavior in humans… we may mark 1966 as the year in which all medical progress ceased”(Skloot 135). One the next page, Skloot goes on to explain how quite clearly, medical progress did not come to a stop. While I know this is obviously not the same thing as what the article talks about, it does point to how scientists can get too caught up in how things “used to be” that they cannot see how great things could be. My point is that just because there is less support for scientific research than during the Cold War, that does not mean that it is the end, or that people do not care. It would make sense that there is less support! If people are threatened by war, obviously they will be more interested something that could help them.

The article, at one point, also complains about the fact that so few people have the same amount of education as they do. Broad and Glanz write, about a survey conducted, “Its latest numbers show that 90 percent of adult Americans say they are very or moderately interested in science discoveries. Even so, only half the survey respondents knew that the Earth takes a year to go around the Sun”(3). It seems to me they are trying to find an issue where there is not one. In addition it really is not fair for these scientists to expect that everyone share their opinion. 

The Article: