There are two different forms of scientific history. The history of science as used for future scientific development lives in academic papers, journals, conferences, and similar; those are preserved as a record of historical development progress. That history is, when functioning correctly, blind to outside issues like this.
On the other hand, there's scientific history as captured by news and popular culture, which focuses on personalities, personal stories, struggles, and development. In that version of history, it shouldn't be at all surprising that people prefer to hide the crazy people and focus on those that can successfully serve as visible PR figures. That doesn't denigrate their contributions, but it avoids making them visible figureheads when they're not appropriate for a figurehead role.
You can complain about outside politics affecting science, but far too often, people like this will bring their politics into their science, such as in interviews and discussions; sweeping people under the rug doesn't just happen because of embarassment about past actions, but for fear of future embarassment. And that future embarassment can then cause problems when trying to get popular support and funding, which makes it entirely rational to focus on the scientists who can safely talk to other people.
>You can complain about outside politics affecting science, but far too often, people like this will bring their politics into their science
This seems incredibly one sided. By removing him, you've already brought politics into science. You're wrong, this isn't about politics in science, it's about "the right" politics or "the approved" politics in science.
You have a point, but it's very defeatist. You're essentially saying "people can get turned off by opposing views. To remedy this, we'll make sure they don't hear any opposing views". The remedy is to expose people to more opposing views, not shelter them.
> This seems incredibly one sided. By removing him, you've already brought politics into science. You're wrong, this isn't about politics in science, it's about "the right" politics or "the approved" politics in science.
Ideally people shouldn't be bringing any politics into science. But as sad as it is, sometimes you have to deal with politics to get your research sponsored, funded, and widely accepted. That's reality; please feel free to tilt against that windmill, and more power to you if you can manage to change it.
Meanwhile, there's always going to be a subset of scientists (and affiliated non-scientists good at PR) who serve as the public face of a project, and like it or not, they'll be selected for criteria other than how good they are at science.
As much as you might wish that to not be the case, rejecting it will not lead to the outcomes you desire.
This is closely related to the issue of presentability and fashion. Many scientists and engineers object to notions of fashion and other social patterns that they rather reasonably believe should not matter; that objection is fine. But that then turns into a kind of is-ought fallacious reasoning, concluding that because those things shouldn't matter, caring about them isn't important, or worse yet that actively opposing them is worthwhile. And thus you have the stereotype of the engineer in T-shirt and jeans no matter the occasion. The rational reasoning says "OK, perhaps those things shouldn't matter, but in practice they do matter, so live with that and learn to use it when it benefits you".
When it comes to portraying science (or anything else) in popular culture, many problems are isomorphic to fashion, and like it or not the rational choice is to be fashionable.
At what point does it become a self fulfilling prophecy? If we continue to cater to people who insist on demanding that research and funding go to the prettiest scientist or the on that has the best power point who is to blame when things like this happen? I think it's better to not be an enabler. Sure, it may be harder and more complicated, but to me it's the right thing to do. We're letting ignorance win when we have we shelter the ignorant.
I agree to some level, especially regarding politics and personality, but go back and look at the article we're commenting on. Does that sound like a person who should be the public face of any project?
By removing vibrant people and bizarre stories from scientific history you are doing science a disservice by deterring the smartest, creative people, many of whole are quirky, from the sterile, close-minded politicized world of science.
The less white-washing the better. We need to know our heros were crazy just like us.
as a sidenote, the article's mentioning of sex orgies in Pasadena house of the rocket science founder brought by association the history of Christian religion - how the group of 14 open-minded in absolutely all respects hippies who got no taboo unbroken got white-washed into 13 saints and 1 god of an extremely conservative/close-minded religion.
The process is pretty universal, and modern science is like a religion in many respects.
> modern science is like a religion in many respects
I'd disagree with that, in that science when practiced purely is inherently self doubting and does not claim to know anything. However as practiced, it can sometimes take on the doctrinaire culture of religion.
As far as the 14 open-minded hippies, do you have some evidence that the disciples engaged in drug-fueled orgies? I'd be curious to read about that.
"Day science employs reasoning that meshes like gears… One admires its majestic arrangement like a da Vinci painting or a Bach fugue. One walks about it as in a French formal garden…
Night science, on the other hand, wanders blindly. It hesitates, stumbles, falls back, sweats, wakes with a start. Doubting everything… It is a workshop of the possible… where thought proceeds along sensuous paths, tortuous streets, most often blind alleys."
Francois Jacob[1], The Statue Within.
Science and technology as an activity involves questioning, and finding new ways of doing things. I imagine these activities are bound to attract people on the edge of things a little. Having said that, Aleister Crowley was not the kind of person you'd want to be involved closely with from what I can see.
Night Science sounds a lot like Cave Johnson in the Portal franchise.
"Just a heads up, we're gonna have a super conductor turned up full blast and pointed at you for the duration of this next test. I'll be honest, we're throwing science at the walls here to see what sticks. No idea what it'll do."
There are a fair number of tech people I've encountered (mainly in the device driver and security subcommunities) who are part of OTO, Temple of Set, or other "left hand path" type occult groups or practices; a lot more who are just "pagan". Not too far off from any mainstream religions in concentration, which is way different from the general population.
As one of those OTO tech people I was excited to see this here, but a little disappointed that there wasn't any description of what Thelema is about - basically (elevator speech explanation follows) a religion of discovering who you are and being that person. The references to hedonism and the 'darker side of magic' without the context that these are means of self discovery and acknowledging the darker side of existence comes across as sensationalist, at least to me.
Just looked briefly at Thelema. This appears to be yet another cult around a perfect, mystic founding document, like the Bible or Quran. Regardless of what that document contains, how can you justify originating your epistemology from a text in this way? This seems no different that any other religious ridiculousness.
The justification, at least for me, is in the approach that Thelema as a whole takes towards religious experience, and in the experience I've had with the Book of the Law. The perspective of this particular Thelemite is that the Book of the Law is the product of one man's religious experience, and that book has been very useful in the personal and spiritual development of myself and others. I don't think the value of the book is it's provenance, whether that be human or divine. I find that it's value is in the ethics of personal liberty that it articulates and insofar as it serves as a means of my own growth.
There's a phrase you'll hear sometimes in Thelema: "The method of science, the aim of religion." This might appear at first to be absurd, but if you consider religion to be the process whereby we obtain genuine and personal spiritual experiences it makes perfect sense. You experiment, you keep records, you evaluate your results and seek to have the same kinds of experiences. I think that this attitude, when it's present, is what separates Thelema apart from other religions.
As far as I'm concerned, any good is full undermined by a mission statement like "Each is expected to aspire fervently to the Great Work; to dare, with courage undaunted, to perfect that Work;"
It is doctrinaire philosophy, and regardless of any benefits it may bestow on you, on the whole it is just as dangerous to thought, reason, and humanity itself as any other system which undermines rationally based systems of deriving belief.
Sorry, I asked for justification and hoped for better. Christianity and Islam also help lots of people, but on the whole they are designed to erode reason and instill faith, and in doing so are net destroyers of human culture and progress.
You don't have to apologize to me - you're certainly entitled to your opinion. I disagree with you, though given the circumstances that certainly isn't unexpected.
Please bear in mind that the Temple of Thelema (where I assume you found the quote) is one of several Thelemic groups, and do not necessarily speak for everyone. Still I am genuinely curious as to what you find offensive about that particular statement. If you take the Great Work as the perfection of the individual (which I do) I don't see what could possibly be wrong with that.
If you really think that Thelema is designed to 'erode the reason and instill faith' you are mistaken, but you can't be faulted for thinking that for a brief internet search. Any philosophy is complex, and the things that you're most likely to see first are the more sensational aspects, and those do appear superstitious.
As far as justification for my epistemology I didn't offer that because it doesn't exist. Thelema is not the basis of my epistemology, my experience is. Thelema is how I describe and relate to that experience.
In any case, I don't really hope to or desire to convince you - that's not particularly important. Just hoped to express myself a little more clearly, have some dialogue, and try to understand what you find offensive about the quote.
Perhaps you can refer me to a less doctrinaire viewpoint.
I read enough on that site to make it quite clear that the Great Work is the actual book they seem to worship.
Regardless, this still seems rather religious, even if some sects are less so. By reinterpreting "great work" it sounds like so many rationalizations of biblical belief.
"The Great Work is, before all things, the creation of man by himself, that is to say, the full and entire conquest of his faculties and his future;"
How you do it doesn't matter. Thelema uses a lot of fancy language because it's Edwardian and its founder was a poet.
It's best understood in historical context. The purpose of Thelema was to free post-Victorian society from the social and moral superstitions and fixations which prevented people from really being themselves. It was essentially the first stirrings of the movement which found full expression sixty years later in the "New Age". Crowley referred to it as a "New Aeon"; poetry strikes again.
The essential tenet of freeing oneself from mistaken ideas, choosing a life goal and doing it, is as valuable today as it was then, but you don't have to call yourself a Thelemite to do it. To a great extent, that "meme" is now mainstream.
The 'Great Work' is a term borrowed from Hermetic / Alchemical lore which predates Thelema by at least a thousand years. To understand how it found it's way into Levi's work and into Thelema you need to look back much further and examine to whatever degree you can the Mysteries of the ancient world
It's worth looking into this in more detail. The Book of the Law is rather unusual in that its interpretation is left up to the individual. People also tend to miss the humour.
"The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.
Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.
Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.
All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself."
Thelema and Neo-Paganism in general tend towards postmodernism in their approach. They are generally extremely non-dogmatic and individualistic, and as such they attract scientific types, because they encourage exploration.
I'm attracted to Discordianism and the Principia Discordia, and so I can relate. This book also contains humour and you will need to dive into your own sense of self and sense of reality to make anything of it. I don't know, maybe the overlap could be considered part of "a common mystic framework."
What I appreciate most is the fact that humour is at the center, especially with Discordianism. And this is what I enjoy: mysticism but without the serious undertone, and without the demand to enforce the views upon others.
And there is also "humour by proxy" when every so often you share these ideas with someone who follows "serious mysticism" and claims "you are following a satanic ideology!!!" fnord.
"The men who are willing by this means to become the saviours of their country shall be called the Synagogue of Satan, so as to keep themselves from the friendship of the fools who mistake names for things." :-)
Interesting- I only know a handful of hardware people, and that includes a pagan microchip designer. Is there a reason for those beliefs being more prevalent in those communities?
I don't know if the connection really exists, or why it might, but I am reminded of the connection Neal Stephenson draws between Babylonian Shaman and programmers. Like how programmers utter incantations which have a special power not fully understood by the rest of society, maybe hardware designers create patterns and layouts which have special power. The general concept appeals to them, so they are attracted to ideologies which incorporate similar ideas?
I can't speak to hardware, but there's certainly a certain similarity between occultism/esotericism and creating software - you have to be comfortable thinking about and working with things that, in a sense, don't exist. That doesn't mean they're not useful in their own way. It means that they don't have objective reality in the same way that a lake or a car or a building does.
The description of Magic Engineering in Ra is worked out pretty entertainingly, with people setting up university departments, research programs, companies, etc., to apply magic to things like manufacturing and transportation.
Spoiler alert for Ra (no really, go read the story instead of this spoiler):
Va gur yngre puncgref vg'f funcvat hc gb ybbx yvxr gur ernfba gung "zntvp vf erny" vf abg gung vg'f n shaqnzragny cneg bs gur angher bs gur havirefr, ohg gung vg jnf vzcyrzragrq va gur cnfg ol uhzna orvatf sbyybjvat n grpuabybtvpny fvathynevgl, lrg gung gur crbcyr fghqlvat vg naq cenpgvpvat vg gbqnl qba'g xabj gung gung fvathynevgl unf unccrarq. (Gur choyvp jebatyl oryvrirf gung zntvp jnf nyjnlf n cneg bs angher.)
Gur rknpg ernfba gung gur trareny choyvp vf pbzcyrgryl hanjner gung gur fvathynevgl vf nyernql va gurve cnfg (be gung zntvp vf n uhzna perngvba!) vf fgvyy na rkpvgvat cbvag bs batbvat qvfchgr va gur fgbel, naq V'z dhvgr rkpvgrq gb svaq bhg gur nafjre.
..english letter frequency table based remapping did not help me here (and that was the extent of my effort).. I'm beginning to think that this might have been one of those autoironic fourth wall story-narrative-mocking jokes! Did you just pull a Derrida on me?
As a child, I would go to the library and bring home stacks of books on UFOs, magic, cryptozoology, and the like. I am always amused by the fact that so many of my colleagues in software development were just like me and claim to have had similar interests. Maybe a coincidence but I think there is definitely an underlying interest in arcane subjects.
I don't find it at all coincidental that software developers write and speak in 'code'. Software development literally is esoteric - "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number of people with a specialised knowledge or interest". Given there are 7 billion people on the planet, there's a lot of software developers kicking around at the moment, but they still represent a tiny fraction of the population. I think we tent to forget are concepts in the IT world that are so highly abstract they seem like magic to the average person. I'm a metal fabricator by trade, every day my mind boggles that we have tamed electricity to be able to fuse metals flawlessly. The number of things that have to come together to support the modern world is "magic" to me in a romantic sense.
Engineers, software developers, hardware developers, technicians, and trades people have literally assembled this world (the built environs) from dust (raw materials in general).
I'd chalk it up to the geek tinkering mindset. Geeks like to tinker, and Neo-Paganism and other non-mainstream religions provide a nice framework for experimenting with your own set of religious beliefs.
From the summary it seems that Parsons was more one of the people involved in early rocketry rather than a central and driving figure. It is possible that this is much ado about nothing - the author of the book (as well as the person writing about the book) is using Parson's colorful personal life as titillation and is playing up their connection with the rocketry program to sell the book (Otherwise it's just a story about another eccentric bohemian in Pasadena).
Parsons still has a crater on the moon named after him. Very interesting story though. I think Parsons is more renowned in occult circles than in scientific circles. His legacy remains in both.
The article evokes some doubts - particularly statement "JPL... first government-sponsored rocket lab in history". According to article, that happened in "late 1930-s", but already in 1933 in USSR rocket groups GIRD and GDL were combined into a research institute.
A highly recommended "Ignition!" (http://www.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf) - a history of liquid propellant research by John Clark briefly describes genesis of JPL, mentioning Malina and Theodor von Karman. According to that, GALCIT was "Malina's group" (if I remember correctly).
That's a shame really. Recording history shouldn't be motivated by politics and other peoples' sensibilities being offended. Regarding Aleister Crowley being 'The Wickedest Man on Earth', not even close. If you've ever read M. Scott Peck's 'People of the Lie', then you know what I mean.
That was a title Crowley took for himself, as he enjoyed being a notorious figure. His actual behavior, though, amounted to little more than being a sex maniac and saying blasphemous things during a much more socially conservative era. His 'autohagiography' makes for entertaining reading if you can get past the turgid Victorian prose.
As for Parsons, the Wired article is being a bit clickbaity. In the last paragraph: Wired.co.uk contacted JPL and we asked whether Parsons had been written out of the history books. Historian Erik Conway said: "Jack Parsons is included in history books and other venues, and in fact, his role is discussed in the JPL-involved standard history, JPL and the American Space Program by Clayton R. Koppes. Parsons was one of the original founders of JPL. He was the team's chemist and developed the first castable solid propellant used to power aircraft."
I agree, and I'd even upgrade your "a bit clickbaity" to "very clickbaity". I happen to work at JPL, and elements of the Parsons story are generally known to people at the lab. I just don't think they're that interesting. Certainly, complaining that the oddball philosophy of one of the four founders is not featured in the lab tour is ridiculous. People come on the lab tour to see robots and rockets, not to talk about occult side-interests.
If you want interesting side stories, how about Qian Xuesen, who was also one of the original handful of JPL founders, and who was hounded from his position and went on to found the Chinese rocket program. (Discussed on HN previously, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6905862). That's a historical figure who has actual significance, not just odd/occult tendencies.
The other interesting back story, besides Wehrner von Braun, is that of the principal founder of JPL, Theodore von Karman, who was a Hungarian Jew who left Europe in 1930. Von Karman was the first Director of JPL. Another founder with a back-story of considerable significance.
As context for future readers, the submitted HN title was the same as the actual title of the article: "Occultist Father of Rocketry 'Written Out' of NASA'S History". Definitely link-bait, although unedited primary-source link-bait.
(dang: Leaving notes when changing titles is great, thanks!)
Pascual Jordan, one of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics along with Dirac, Heisenberg, Pauli and Born had his name essentially written out of the history books because of his association with the Nazi party which really amounted to overlooking what the Nazis were doing and saying some positive comments about the Nazis. I don't like what Jordan did. Heisenberg is a less controversial figure which some people claimed had skeletons in his closet regarding the Nazi party. Nothing really came of it and Heisenberg's reputation has been untouched except a few still hold questions regarding his conduct. I'd like to know if this issue was ever cleared up. Heisenberg is still (rightly) remembered as a chief architect but Pascual Jordan whose contributions equal or exceed Pauli is almost entirely written out.
On the contrary, there's a certain thread of the skeptic movement that attacks anything that isn't "scientific" enough. It's basically a kind of fundamentalism. Fundie positivism?
In today's modern first world prejudices? All of them are offended, since he has dares NOT believed in a unprovable negative.
It should always be okay to have faith in something and believe that other people are wrong. Not to belittle the one you see as wrong BUT sadly this is always lost in us all.
Much like how many of us atheists play the same game of non-golf pretty much most of our waking and sleeping hours. :D
Though, there is a good joke there.
Mr. Sartre goes to a a cafe and requests a coffee with no cream. The waiter comes back after a moment and asks Mr. Sartre if, since they have no creamer, he would prefer to have his coffee without milk.
> "A lot of people would be shocked to find out that the space programme was founded by a man who held orgies in his Pasadena mansion."
If we had to kick every eccentric out of science there wouldn't be anyone left to invent anything. Might as well write Newton out of the history books too for 30 years of failed attempts at alchemy and occult research.
I think people here were too quick to buy the OP theory that JP was "written out of NASA's history". Quoting the first comment on the article:
"Parsons was mentioned frequently in a recent JPL-produced documentary on the early days of the space age and the founding of the Lab. And, his name sits on engraved plaque in a central area of JPL that commemorates all the members of the "suicide squad" involved in the first rocket test firing. I suppose your headline makes sense seeing as he died several years before NASA was founded so he may not be in a NASA history book. But wrong to say he's written out of JPL's early history."
Blame someone of our present time for some misbehave must generate more clicks than just pointing out how prejudice harmed someone's carreer on government decades ago, which seems to be the real story here. Good that the HN title was edited for a less sensationalist one.
It's fascinating how scientology was formed out of Hubbard stealing his wife, scamming him out of money... and then his ex wife and hubbard founded scientology - using a bastardized version of Thelema as a means to control and bilk money out of 'thin' personalities that are looking for help and validation. Quite a use of the occult!
>>> "A lot of people would be shocked to find out that the space programme was founded by a man who held orgies in his Pasadena mansion."
Still wondering how the heck that would ever find its way into an academic book about NASA or the JPL considering how people are up in arms about anything that goes into text books these days.
I wonder why Wired magazine has been wading into "deep politics" more and more recently. I mean the German and Occult underpinnings of NASA is a significant can of worms for a publication with a mainstream readership to be opening.
In fairness, Parsons's occult history isn't particularly new, shocking, or politically dangerous ground in 2014.
It's not mainstream knowledge, by any means. And I'm sure a lot of folks are reading about it in Wired for the first time. But Parsons's backstory has been covered pretty extensively -- most recently as a significant side chapter (or two) in "Going Clear," the NYT-bestselling book about L Ron Hubbard and Scientology. Prior to that, Parsons figured prominently into "Barefaced Messiah," another Scientology history, written in the late 1980s.
For the record, "Going Clear" and "Barefaced Messiah" are fascinating reads. I recommend them. It's unfortunate that Parsons, a man of legitimate and numerous accomplishments, has been so thoroughly overshadowed by the con artist L Ron Hubbard. But Hubbard had a much better knack for publicity.
I also highly recommend the semi-fictional experimental film by Craig Baldwin, Mock up on Mu. It's half-composed of stock footage from old sci-fi films, and dubbed live action portrayals, and explores a near future where Parsons and Hubbard have to confront each other after both having faked their deaths. Fun and terribly under appreciated stuff.
Prior discussions of the Parsons story are not confined to Scientology history.
It was covered (in 2 or 3 pages IIRC) in Mike Davis's 1990 book "City of Quartz". This book was widely reviewed and widely discussed, and was re-issued a couple of years ago.
That's where I first read the Parsons story, and I've seen it a few times since then.
"Prior discussions of the Parsons story are not confined to Scientology history."
True. I'm just pointing it out because it's a big vector by which a lot of mainstream audiences are likely to have discovered Parsons and his extracurricular activities. Especially in recent years, with "Going Clear" coming out and hitting the charts. My point was mostly that this stuff is not fresh scandal, hot off the presses.
Oh, it's all good. I upvoted yours, as well. :) I have a tendency to respond with supplemental information to a lot of my replies, and from time to time, it can come across as defensive. It's not meant to be.
Titillating 'secret history' isn't really the same thing as "deep politics", it's just cocktail-party conversational fodder. If you didn't know of NASA's roots in the Third Reich's military rocketry programs then you weren't paying attention in history class - especially true for readers of Wired's UK edition, since the vast bulk of German rocketry efforts were targeted on London after the Luftwaffe was defeated in the Battle of Britain. You can't live in the UK for any length of time and not be aware of this.
Reading GR gave me a chance to be ultra geeky one evening in one of my fluids classes by correctly identifying a lump of crumpled metal as an A4 fuel pump.
I went to college in Bedford which is next door to an RAE R&D station where they brought back captured Nazi tech – and half the course worked at twinwoods.
Though I never got to go round the black museum at Cranfield where they had loads of v2 bits - I did see the sad TSR2 they had there though
Prejudice takes many forms, and those who forget their own personal responsibility for the destructive effects of judgement, incur the final injustice. The people we choose to 'hate' and 'despise' - for religious, political, industrial, or .. other .. reasons - end up being a part of the universe that we isolate ourselves from.
The universe is bigger than you. Get over it. Make friends. Prejudice against the lives of others is a little step closer to the grave.
Bravo. There's also something to be said for persuasion through friendship and tolerance. E pluribus unum and all that. There are many different textures in a good melting pot.
I imagine a world where the vast, arbitrary .. human .. distance between magic and science are embraced by the world at large, and not shunned by the ruling technocratic order. What if, in fact, we could discuss the vast magick order here on Earth so comfortably well that one day, we do it on the Moon?
I wonder if we will go to Mars with purely scientific purposes in mind? I hope not.
"We have been to the moon, we have charted the depths of the ocean and the heart of the atom, but we have a fear of looking inward to ourselves because we sense that is where all the contradictions flow together."
-Terrence Mckenna
I imagine a world where the vast, arbitrary .. human .. distance between magic and science are embraced by the world at large, and not shunned by the ruling technocratic order. What if, in fact, we could discuss the vast magick order here on Earth so comfortably well that one day, we do it on the Moon?
I wonder if we will go to Mars with purely scientific purposes in mind? I hope not.
Personally? No, my hatred has been of use to me in the past. I doubt I'd be where I am today if I'd not hated where I was.
And while !Me might have been okay with staying there, provided she didn't hate it, !Me would be far less the sort of person I want to be than I actually am. She'd lack many of my pleasures. The absence of hatred is not by itself the presence of joy.
Of course, hatred can also cripple you, rather than push you to grow: The unrewarded genius who consoles themselves that it's the world that's stupid in not respecting their genius, rather than themselves for not putting the effort in.
But that's a matter of context: honesty, self-knowledge, self-confidence, knowledge about the world. Simply because some hatreds are unproductive hardly renders the emotion itself malign, no more than joy is malign simply because some people find it in the destruction of others.
It's entirely appropriate, this is a well-known exception to the general rule, much like the omission of an apostrophe on the possessive 'its.' Try reading it aloud and you'll see why.
On the other hand, there's scientific history as captured by news and popular culture, which focuses on personalities, personal stories, struggles, and development. In that version of history, it shouldn't be at all surprising that people prefer to hide the crazy people and focus on those that can successfully serve as visible PR figures. That doesn't denigrate their contributions, but it avoids making them visible figureheads when they're not appropriate for a figurehead role.
You can complain about outside politics affecting science, but far too often, people like this will bring their politics into their science, such as in interviews and discussions; sweeping people under the rug doesn't just happen because of embarassment about past actions, but for fear of future embarassment. And that future embarassment can then cause problems when trying to get popular support and funding, which makes it entirely rational to focus on the scientists who can safely talk to other people.