This month marks the 50th anniversary of an obscure milestone in the Cold War. On Sept. 20, 1963, in a speech to the United Nations, President John F. Kennedy P’83 proposed a joint lunar mission with the Soviet Union. The man who had ascended to his Camelot on the platform of the space race then suggested far-reaching cooperation with the U.S.’ main nemesis, a country it had been pitted against for the allegiance of the Third World ever since 1945.
Unlike land, “(s)pace offers no problem of sovereignty,” Kennedy remarked. “Why, therefore, should man’s first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition?”Fifty years later, even in the absence of a militarized conflict of ideologies, this spirit of international cooperation to push the boundaries of scientific knowledge has been lost entirely. All areas of life, material and immaterial, are now defined in terms of ownership and monetary value. Putting national interest first stifles innovation and development, and a constant cost-benefit analysis precludes true experiments of thought and production. It would serve us well to take the conciliatory sentiments and the willingness to take risks of 1963 as a blueprint for new cooperation between rivals, whether they be domestic or foreign. Under the nomer of protectionism, countries, and by extension, their universities, are harming their knowledge economies more than aiding it.
Take academia and research. In the 1960s, it cost the United States 50 cents per American per week to fund the Apollo project, and in later years, critics condemned the billion-dollar launch that did not bring the nation any monetary gain. The scientific advancements that stem from research as part of the lunar project are often disregarded. In other words, the end product is seen as more important than the process. The space effort, as Kennedy acknowledged, was largely “an act of faith and vision,” an experiment in thought, technology and innovation without any certain benefits.
Universities are currently reluctant to undertake such sweeping projects. Payment is crucial. A Florida task force infamously recommended lower tuition for science degrees over the humanities last year. In the words of the committee, given the lower job prospects for humanities students, “you better really want to do it, because you may have to pay more.” Even Oregon’s pioneering tuition-free education trial, a groundbreaking step in making higher education available to all, ties participants to a 20-year payback plan. In contrast, Scandinavian countries do not charge tuition fees to citizens of the European Union, no matter the intended major.
Competition between universities to attract the most and brightest minds of the nation and globe also has economic ramifications. Rankings are important, and attracting a preeminent faculty with lots of publications is, sadly, one of the main factors to secure a top-10 position. A high-profile superstar professor does more for enrollment than do five equally qualified professors that could teach smaller sections. Universities are competing for the small segment of established academics, often seeing back-and-forth traffic in terms of hires — even President Christina Paxson and former President Simmons — whereas the National Science Foundation reports that for about 40 percent of PhD graduates “nothing” awaits upon graduation. This is a vast base of knowledge that is lost because structures for cooperation are not firmly in place. Many graduates end up taking jobs overseas out of necessity.
On a more concrete level, the focus on “us” before “them” is hard to step away from in terms of production as well. China has a near monopoly on rare earth minerals and is exponentially curtailing their export. The minerals are central to the development of a wide range of technologies such as missile guidance systems, electric car batteries and solar panels. This does not only harm the manufacturing industries of other countries, including the United States, but also impedes environmental initiatives that would benefit the globe. Logically, if American businesses will not be able to obtain the needed ground materials to produce sustainable technologies on a mass scale, there is no impetus for these companies to invest in them either.
Similarly, the U.S. government observes that cooperation with Europe in energy diplomacy remains very problematic due to dependence of Europe on Russia. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remarked that “the role that energy plays in nearly every relationship that we have in every region of the world (is crucial).” In other words, the world is divided along lines of dependence. Energy dependencies reverberate in foreign policy, research and development and economic relations. Knowledge is not shared, but hoarded to ensure maximum economic revenue for individual countries or powerblocks.
We can all play our part. Kennedy’s example shows the importance of an individual’s willingness to cooperate. Many years later, Khrushchev’s son Sergei revealed that the Soviet chairman had decided to accept the president’s offer after several weeks of contemplation. It was not to be. Before Khrushchev and Kennedy had the chance to make concrete plans for cooperation, Kennedy embarked on his fateful trip to Dallas, TX. His successor Lyndon Johnson discontinued the conciliatory efforts, and the Cold War continued to dominate global policy for twenty-five more years. Cooperation cannot just be the vision of one man in order to succeed. It has to be the norm of all individuals, a standard to aspire to. Only when the “I” and the “you,” the “us” and the “them,” disappear will innovation reach its full potential.
ADVERTISEMENT
