Blandford replies: First, in remarking about the ubiquity and diversity of extrasolar planets, my (unstated) point was that the field of astrobiology had been greatly enriched by these discoveries and that the options for life developing elsewhere in the universe had been increased, not decreased. More important than what I think, though, is that many young people and universities had invested in this field. I apologize if I conveyed the opposite view.
Second, when I wrote this piece, NASA was a very different organization from the one it is today. For example, I think its mission statement—“to improve life here, to extend life to there, to find life beyond”—distorted the science program. Now, NASA’s stated mission is “to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research,” which, to me, is a better description of what NASA should be doing.
Third, I stand by my assertion that choices will have to be made between proceeding with exciting missions like the Space Interferometry Mission and the Terrestrial Planet Finder, and with equally compelling investigations drawn from cosmology and high-energy astrophysics. I believe the scientific community should be heavily involved in these choices rather than sidelined as NASA has chosen to make it this past year.
