You hit what you aim at

I appreciate President Obama's proposal to elevate scientific research and research and development as national priorities. Their importance cannot be overstated.

Technology won World War II, the Cold War and the Persian Gulf War, has improved health care and prolonged peoples' lives, and it has provided us with the highest quality of life any humans have ever known.

My observation is more related to the approach we take. Obama said he wants the U.S. to invest 3 percent of its GDP in science. If I were the one making the statement, I'd set a goal of results, not spending.

During the 1940s America's greatest minds rushed to achieve a nuclear bomb, not to spend a pre-set dollar amount. When racing Hitler's inventors to The Bomb, the money we spent was irrelivent. Had Hitler beaten us to nuclear-force weapons, "We spent a billion gajillion dollars on it!" would have been no consolation.

John F. Kennedy is not remembered for challenging the nation to spend billions of dollars on NASA. He's remembered for challenging the nation to land a man on the moon. If the goal had been to employ 400,000 people and spend $25 billion, it could have been achieved without the dramatic victory of Apollo 11.



My point is not to criticize Obama's language but to point out a fact of human nature. For the most part, we are industrious, intelligent, creative and resilient. If a goal is set, we can probably reach it. The goals we set should be measured the right way.

When I first took up running as an exercise regimen, I set a goal of running for 12 minutes three times per week. And I achieved it. Each time I ran the distance I managed got a bit shorter, but my timed goal was met. So I altered my goal, and instead began running at least 1.5 miles at each setting.

You'd be surprised how much faster a man runs when his goal is to run a distance, and not for a minimum time.