Have you ever wondered why, in the 20th century (namely the 1960s), there were so many more scientific breakthroughs than there are now, in the 2020s? To name a few:
we discovered the aftermath of the Big Bang (the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation);
we sent people to the Moon and back 6 times;
we developed the Standard Model of Particle Physics, a theory that explains all the forces in nature (except for gravity) at the level of Quantum Mechanics;
We had the first Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).
In comparison, today's breakthroughs in science, although spectacular in their own right, don't seem to reach that bar. In this post, I want to explore why that is the case.
Firstly, let's see what major historical events were happening in the mid- to late-20th century. The first thing that comes to mind (at least for me) is the Cold War. Now, is there any relationship between the Cold War and scientific breakthroughs? Surprisingly, yeah.
In order to have scientific advancements in a specific area, that area needs to be funded. The more funding it gets, the more breakthroughs are expected.
So let's look at NASA's budget in the 1960s and compare it to today's budget. That ought to give us a sense, right? In 1966, NASA's budget accounted for almost 4,5% of the total federal budget of the USA. Nowadays, though, it accounts for a pitiful half of one percent.
This same trend is true for pretty much every scientific agency that is owned by a state.
Now, why was NASA getting so much funding in the 1960s compared to the 2020s? You guessed it: the Cold War. The whole point of it was for one state to threaten the other and show off its military power by sending missiles (or rockets) into space. The reasoning behind it was that if you can send men to the moon, you can send bombs to Moscow.
This brings us to the title of this post. War and scientific advancement are not only related but very much rely on each other. If you fund the physicists, you get bigger and better weapons, and you win wars. If you are not in a war, you don't fund science, and you don't get fancy weapons to show off.
I hope the reader can also see the danger of this relationship. Scientific breakthroughs are needed for society to advance, be it during wartime or peacetime. Just look around you and appreciate the amount of ingenuity that led to every single gadget you own. Most of those devices were derive from principles developed by people who didn't imagine how it would influence your life. And yet, here you are reading this post on an electronic device based on the principles of Quantum Mechanics.
Science must be funded according to its importance in society, and not according to its relevance in a particular conflict. If people understand the role science plays in their lives, they'll elect people who can make a difference in directing the funding towards the understanding of the natural world.