Bøker
Fornuft og romfart
av Eugene B. Skolnikoff
Norsk romvirksomhet har en lang og lite allment kjent historie. Forskningspolitikk har bedt professor Eugene B. Skolnikoff ved MIT å omtale en viktig bok om norsk romvirksomhet. Bokomtalen av "Making Sense of Space" gjengis her i Skolnikoffs egen språkdrakt.
John Peter Collett (ed.): "Making Sense of Space; The History of Norwegian Space Activities", Scandinavian University Press, Oslo, 1995.
This handsome book memorializes the history of the space activities of Norway as that small nation has attempted to find its appropriate role in the new technological endeavours of our age. It is a fascinating story, told with grace and perspective by several different authors, but edited and obviously strongly influenced by the editor, John Peter Collett.
The chapters start with the focus on geophysics on the part of Norwegian scientists in the 19th and early 20th centuries, in contrast to the emphasis on chemistry and physics in most other industrial states including neighbouring Sweden. The choice played well to Norway's natural advantages of geography, providing the nation with a strong and comparatively unique international reputation by the time of World War II.
The postwar developments, stemming first from the enormous boost to scientific research provided by the experience and developments during the war, and then by the Cold War are traced in succeeding chapters. The interest in developing a space capability, the early steps, the difficulty in deciding whether to go along with Europe or to emphasize relations with the US, the refusal to join the European Space Research organization (ESRO) for 25 years, and finally the nation's adherence to the European Space Agency (ESA) are laid out in some detail, always with acute description of the issues and personalities involved.
What is of greatest interest to this reviewer, who has had only glancing contact with Norwegian science policy over the years, is how the same themes that dominated policy debates in larger countries, especially the US, occurred repeatedly in Norway. The scale was different, and the issues were often displaced in time, but there was much more similarity than might be expected given the disparity in size.
For example, the issue of defence vs. civilian orientation of the space program was an important factor in the early years. The first agency to dominate space activities - the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment - preferred a military rationale for space activities and cooperation with the US military. That preference faded in favour of a more civilian orientation when difficulties over the motive for space activities merged with the Soviet Union. In the US as well, the issue was an important part of the debate in creating NASA. The US was able to do both; Norway had to make a choice.
Another issue faced by Norway was whether the costs of membership in ESRO should be justified for its likely scientific returns, or for foreign policy benefits. The Foreign Ministry believed the latter, but in a pattern fully commensurate with similar decisions in the US in recent years, the Finance Ministry took a hard line on the costs and gave less weight to the views of the Foreign Office. In that period, a related question was whether to view science as national or international, whether it should be seen as a "tool for the nation-state" or as an international enterprise in which all participants would benefit. The more nationalistic view won at first, with Norway deciding to stay out of the European Launch Development Organization (ELDO), presumably for other reasons as well. Norway finally decided to join the successor agency, ESA, in 1987, and its program is now well integrated into European space activities. But, of course, the relative independence has not disappeared, as Norway has continued to refuse to join the European Union.
Even the earlier years of Norwegian science, Robert Marc Friedman reports how scientists such as Kristian Birkeland and his supporters argued in favour of a polar expedition in order to "maintain its (Norway's) honour". Science then, and now, was seen as an important aspect of a nation's status in the world, and its right to be "named as one of the civilized nations".
Norway with its limited population and financial resources has always had to face the issue of how to deploy those scarce resourced. Though in all countries resourced are "scarce" and allocation issues dominate political debates, it is undoubtedly true that Norway has had to make harder decisions over the years than most of its European neighbours and certainly the US. But, the pressure on resources has now become the common concern in all western countries, and we see today many of the same questions being urgently asked that Norway has always had to grapple with: What is the contribution of a program to the economy? How will the nation benefit in the short-term? What will it do to the nation's competitiveness? In Norway, these issues were always near the top of the governmental debates. In the US, they are now equally at the top of the agenda.
Norway today has perhaps the most satisfactory situation of any of the OECD countries, with a small population, a major source of revenue from oil, and an apparent consensus to seek only moderate economic growth. Moreover, it has a strong scientific reputation, not only in space, but in other fields its citizens and government have decided to support. Even in the 1950s and early 1960s when this reviewer worked in the science office in the American White House, I can remember the respect with which Robert Major, the long-time managing director of the Royal Norwegian Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, was held among his colleagues in Europe and the US.
This volume gives some of the background that explains why Robert Major and his compatriot science-statesmen were held in such esteem, particularly in the entirely new area of human endeavour that developed with such speed and drama after World War II. It is an inspiring and interesting story, not substantially different from the history in other nations, but perhaps more easily seen in this excellent collection of historical essays.
Review by Eugene B. Skolnikoff, Professor of Political Science, MIT.
NIFU STEP / Fagbladet / Innhold / Redaksjonsarkiv / Nr. 3/1996 / Fornuft og romfart
Sist oppdatert 14.09.2004 av Bjørn Magne Olsen