Pale Blue Dot ( PDFDrive.com ) (1)

ON OCTOBER 12, 1992—auspiciously or otherwise the 500th anniversary of the "discovery" of America
by Christopher Columbus—NASA turned on its new SETI program. At a radio telescope in the
Mojave Desert, a search was initiated intended to cover the entire sky systematically—like META,
making no guesses about which stars are more likely, but greatly expanding the frequency coverage.
At the Arecibo Observatory, an even more sensitive NASA study began that concentrated on
promising nearby star systems. When fully operational, the NASA searches would have been able to
detect much fainter signals than META, and look for kinds of signals that META could not.
The META experience reveals a thicket of background static and radio interference. Quick
reobservation and confirmation of the signal—specially at other, independent radio telescopes—is
the key to being sure. Horowitz and I gave NASA scientists the coordinates of our fleeting and
enigmatic events. Perhaps they would be able to confirm and clarify our results. The NASA program
was also developing new technology, stimulating ideas, and exciting schoolchildren. In the eyes of
many it was well worth the $10 million a year being spent on it. But almost exactly a year after
authorizing it, Congress pulled the plug on NASA's SETI program. It cost too much, they said. The
post-Cold War U.S. defense budget is some 30,000 times larger.
The chief argument of the principal opponent of the NASA SETI program—Senator Richard
Bryan of Nevada—was this [from the Congressional Record for September 22, 1993]:
So far, the NASA SETI Program has found nothing. In fact, all the decades of SETI
research have found no confirmable signs of extraterrestrial life.
Even with the current NASA version of SETI, I do not think many of its scientists would
be willing to guarantee that we are likely to see any tangible results in the [foreseeable]
future . . .
Scientific research rarely, if ever, offers guarantees of success—and I understand that
—and the full benefits of such research are often unknown until very late in the process.
And I accept that, as well.
In the case of SETI, however, the chances of success are so remote, and the likely
benefits of the program are so limited, that there is little justification for 12 million
taxpayer dollars to be expended for this program.
But how, before we have found extraterrestrial intelligence, can we "guarantee" that we will find
it? How, on the other hand, can we know that the chances of success are "remote"? And if we find
extraterrestrial intelligence, are the benefits really likely to be "so limited"? As in all great
exploratory ventures, we do not know what we will find and we don't know the probability of finding
it. If we did, we would not have to look.
SETI is one of those search programs irritating to those who want well-defined cost/benefit ratios.
Whether ETI can be found; how long it would take to find it; and what it would cost to do so are all
unknown. The benefits might be enormous, but we can't really be sure of that either. It would of
course be foolish to spend a major fraction of the national treasure on such ventures, but I wonder if