This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Culture

Dear NASA: Some Things Are More Important Than You

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 3, 2015
Filed under

Keith’s note: CRISPR was leading Pluto in the Science magazine poll until NASA decided to skew the results by using its 13.5 million follower Twitter account to tell people to vote for Pluto. No doubt the mission’s PI will be jumping up and down and crowing about how popular Pluto is when in fact NASA stuffed the ballot box.
In case you are wondering what CRISPR is, in a nutshell, it is a revolutionary process whereby genetic information can be edited – added, deleted etc. with extreme precision. Its potential for correcting genetic errors that cause disease and developmental problems, its potential to develop new genetic therapies, and its potential for genetically modified organisms for agriculture is truly immense. CRISPR and allied technologies has the potential to affect the lives of everyone on Earth. New Horizons, on the other hand, is just one of many things that happened in 2015 that certainly add to our overall knowledge – but with little direct potential to materially impact everyone’s quality of life. New Horizons was not a “breakthrough” as this poll seeks to discuss. CRISPR is. For NASA to be trying to use social media tip the scales in a decidedly unscientific online poll is deceptive. There are better things NASA could be doing with its social media prowess than this.
Just because NASA can use its social media presence to make a loud impact does not necessarily mean that it should automatically do so – without exercising some strategic thought to decide if it is truly the best use of that power. NASA should focus on explaining the whole #JourneyToMars thing, spreading planetary climate change information, education, advanced technology, etc. and let the biomedical “breakthroughs” have their day in the sun.
New Horizons will never save a single human life. CRISPR will.

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

24 responses to “Dear NASA: Some Things Are More Important Than You”

  1. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Spoken like a true biologist, Keith. And correct– the whole CRISPR thing has received scant coverage but can’t be overstated.

    Can’t blame NASA for the rah-rah though. In fact I’d be disappointed if they didn’t.

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      Went and voted for CRISPR. It hasnt gotten really a lot of informed coverage but the importance – and implications and risks as well – cannot be overstated.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        Indeed. As NASA looks to create plants for life support systems, understand adaptations to microgravity, and look for medical treatments to deal with various physical effects of space travel, no doubt CRISPR will be in their toolkit.

    • Yale S says:
      0
      0

      CRISPR is a fascinating technology that is the ultimate double-edged sword, both razor sharp.
      It is to be seen if the benefits outweigh the risks.

  2. Chuck Wayland says:
    0
    0

    And the “lymphatic system in the central nervous system” is far more important than either CRISPR or the (totally irrelevant) Pluto stuff.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Huh?

      • Chuck Wayland says:
        0
        0

        The discovery of the connection between the lymphatic system and the central nervous system has the potential to revolutionize the understanding of some diseases, including Alzheimer’s, and to open up new avenues for potential treatments / cures. I think it should be the clear winner. At worst, it should be second behind CRISPR.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          I can accept you argument in that regard.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          As far as I can tell about the only thing limiting true inheritable gene manipulation was the accuracy of the tool.

          Certainly this lymphatic extension is important. But before I pass, and I am 66, mommies and daddies will be ordering blue-eyed babies. Or whatever. That trumps everything in my view.

  3. lnbari says:
    0
    0

    Yes, would expect NASA to promote the NASA work….

  4. Joe Denison says:
    0
    0

    Regardless of the importance of CRISPR it was actually first developed a few years ago. New Horizons actually flew by Pluto this year.
    I voted for Pluto BTW. It is currently leading CRISPR 29% to 25%.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      New Horizons was started in 2006 when it was launched so it is not eligible either. It is decade-old technology. CRISPR was leading Pluto until NASA decided to skew the results by using its 13.5 million follower Twitter account to tell people to vote for Pluto.

      • david says:
        0
        0

        It only counts for 2015 because it got there in 2015 rather than be lost in space. I only cast my vote because you posted it Keith and the results of the planetary encounter have defied expectations. lol

      • Joe Denison says:
        0
        0

        New Horizons isn’t the “breakthrough” Keith. The flyby of Pluto and the return of the flyby data by New Horizons is the “breakthrough”, which happened in 2015.

        Why shouldn’t NASA cheer for its own work? If NASAWatch was in the running for an award I would bet you my group’s Raman Spectrometer that you would be promoting your work.

        BTW if Science didn’t want the public’s input they shouldn’t have had a vote. They did though. Remember that this is a “People’s Choice” award. The editors will pick their favorite regardless of the public input.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          Lets see: NASA (part of the Federal government) uses its social media power to get people to vote for a spacecraft that takes pictures and will never save a single human life – clearly implying that this is more important than other things including a stunning new tool that promises to revolutionize healthcare. I do not see other government agencies engaging in this ballot box stuffing.

          • Joe Denison says:
            0
            0

            The question being asked is, what is your “choice of most momentous scientific discovery, development, or trend of 2015?” That is not the same thing as asking, “which of these scientific discoveries will save the most human lives.”

            If the latter was asked then CRISPR or the Ebola vaccine should be the winner but that is not the question. Medical science and biology are not the only sciences.

            Also from that tweet NASA isn’t telling anybody to vote for Pluto. They are telling people to vote for their choice and that Pluto is a finalist.

            Are they not supposed to tell people that Pluto is a finalist? I bet if they had done that you would have lambasted them for not telling people.

            You are being too nitpicky with this Keith.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            I have made my opinion clear. Vote for Pluto. Have a nice day.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Come ON, Keith! You can’t have it both ways! NASA is doing what they can to popularize what they do with the tools available- and the tools are quite limited for a variety of reason.

            It’s not NASA’s job to deprecate themselves after a review of the other candidates any more than it is Mr. Trump’s job to point out his many failings, suggesting another candidate as better suited to be President.

            Or maybe I should use my newspaper column to tell a potential client that another firm might do a better job on a project? Not exactly the same, but still. (and as if I ever believed that to be the case of course).

            I’m thrilled that NASA did something right- and this definitely is something right.

            I voted for CRISPR, though.

  5. david says:
    0
    0

    For some reason I can’t see the list of candidates

    • Todd Austin says:
      0
      0

      It seems to be some sort of plugin – tiled images across the bottom of the screen at:

      http://news.sciencemag.org/

      I’m not seeing a text-only version, sorry.

      • david says:
        0
        0

        Thanks, I tried it from Work computer Windows IE and Firefox but was able to case my vote from my Mac powerbook. New Horizons is the only choice here with the possible exception of the Ebola Vaccine but there seems to be some long term side effects from what I read.

  6. majormajor42 says:
    0
    0

    Well, at least Keith now thinks NASA has “social media prowess”. An unintentional compliment I’m sure.
    Other than that I agree with him and will not vote for Pluto. It is not a “scientific breakthrough”.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      You apparently do not read NASA Watch very often.

      • majormajor42 says:
        0
        0

        I’m not imagining things. You actually have used that exact phrase before, a few times in your positive opinion and a few times negatively as a search shows:

        “the same agency that loves to brag about its unrivaled social media prowess.”

        “Despite all of NASA’s SUPPOSED social media prowess”

        I don’t think you really mean “prowess”. I’m not sure you think NASA PAO has “skill or expertise” in social media.

        So when you say: “There are better things NASA could be doing with its social media prowess than this.” Instead of prowess I think you just mean popularity or presence.
        And that I can’t argue with.