If it' s so important, why is so little being done?

No one realised that there was a problem.

Appreciation of the threat posed to the ecosphere by asteroids and comets has only come to prominence in the past decade or so. The evidence of cosmic impacts has been in plain view since the invention of the telescope, but the scale of planetary bombardment has only become clear since the advent of the space age. A number of events have occurred in the past few years, such as the discovery of the probable K-T "smoking gun" at Chicxulub and the collisions of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 on Jupiter, that have brought the subject to the world's attention. Past prejudice against catastrophist notions is lessening as the evidence builds up, and the reality of major impacts is no longer in doubt.

Historical Inertia.

Ancient man was quite convinced that cosmic influences had a significant part to play in his way of life and continued well being. This conviction is clearly demonstrated in the stories and myths from around the world concerning conflict and disaster meted out from the skies, usually by omnipotent "gods". This catastrophist view of the cosmos reigned supreme until the Age of Reason when Newtonian principles turned the unknown and unpredictable universe into a benign, mechanical system and Darwinism spawned the concept of gradual evolution over extended periods of time. In the resulting predictable, gradualist cosmos there was no place for catastrophism or major, sudden changes in the global environment. Since the late 1980's the realisation that Darwinian evolution has almost certainly been punctuated by massive catastrophic events, causing major redirection in biological and geographic evolution has led to the breaking of many scientific paradigms. The move from gradualism towards catastrophism is causing a major rethink of many cherished ideas.

Nothing can be done about the problem, so why bother?

Until the dawn of the space age mankind was truly helpless in the face of cosmic bombardment, so there was little to be gained from worrying about the problem. However, the advances in technology that have occurred during the past two decades or so have changed the situation radically. Surveillance technology now allows the detection and tracking of threat objects, while spacecraft technology has advanced sufficiently to allow the interception of such bodies. Much of this has been as a result of the United States' Strategic Defence Initiative, or "Star Wars" programme. Measures to deflect threatening bodies have been developed, involving the use of nuclear weapons, but emerging technologies may provide more "environmentally friendly" alternatives. The problem can be dealt with now, albeit in a fairly crude fashion.

Money.

NEO surveillance, tracking and mitigation programmes cost money. While the first two are relatively cheap, any expenditure needs detailed and credible justification in these days of fiscal stringency. The threat to humankind from asteroidal or cometary impact is not high enough on anybody's priority list for the required funding. In part, this is due to a lack of knowledge relating to the threat, and, in part to the perception that other contingencies are more important.

Self interest.

The blame for inaction cannot be placed exclusively at the door of the politicians. Within the scientific community there is still disagreement, some acrimonious, over the nature and extent of the threat. It is perfectly natural for scientists to disagree, indeed that is the nature of the scientific method. However, few would dispute at least the possibility of a significant threat, and, given the possible consequences, it is not justifiable to oppose programmes to assess that possibility. That would be playing dice with the survival of the human species. Many scientific bodies oppose research into the NEO threat on the grounds that such programmes might divert funding from their particular fields. While this is perfectly understandable from a narrow perspective, it is an abrogation of the responsibility of science to safeguard humankind, or at least to alert it to threats to its well being.

Responsibility.

The evidence for past catastrophic events, and the inevitability of a reoccurrence is incontrovertible, but exactly who should be responsible for doing anything about it? Planetary Defence is a multi-disciplinary undertaking. Astronomers have been at the forefront of the search for, and detection of NEOs, but planetary scientists, geologists, palaeontologists, biologists, physicists and many others have been deeply involved in piecing together the jigsaw that has resulted in our current state of knowledge. But is the problem strictly scientific? Scientists are concerned with the acquisition and interpretation of new data. To study asteroids and comets the researcher needs to study only a representative sample; there is no need to find them all. A planetary defence programme would have to do so. The funding and resources required to detect and track all NEOs cannot therefore be justified on scientific research grounds. Defence is usually the prerogative of the military, but there is some resistance from the defence establishment to becoming involved in planetary defence. The normal reasons for inaction invoke the inability of a single nation to achieve very much, though this ignores the essentially international nature of planetary defence. The weak excuses hide the real reason - money. Defence budgets are stretched to the limit without having a new drain on already scarce resources. So, neither the scientific or military communities are willing to take responsibility for planetary defence. Governments will have to come to some decision sooner or later, preferably before the event.

Thanks to SpaceGuardUK for much of the content of this page.

Redesigned and hosted by Marc Chamberlin.