WALTER J . 3IL’RPHY. EDITOR
A
W
Factual Basis for Science LegisI at ion
E AITL.II.D the philosophy behind the fact-finding approach t:tken by tlip Sational Rescarch Council’s I’anc,l on the Nation’s Potential for Bmi? Rescarch i n Chemistry i n carrying out the function indic:ttetl Iij- its name. T h e first requirement, for a sound s t x t on any integrated national science program is a n assessment of ~ 1 i : i t we nom have in t h e way of personnel. 1al)oratory space, and equipment, vieiyed from the perspective of the desired objective of the program. T h e September 12 issue of C h e m i c a l nrld E n g i n e e r i n g A\-eios carries an account of this panel’s quc4onnairing work from its inception in August 1947 under the Office of Siival Research sponsorship. T h e change in emphasis and interest during the life of the panel, and t h e fact t h a t different groups have answered the severd questionnaires sent out, does iiot permit reliable correlation of t h e questionnaire answers reporled in the Cc*ES article. However, t h e panel’s work demonstrates t h a t impreasive. highly pertinent d a t a can he collected. It is most appropriate t h a t the real needs and bottlenecks be identified if we are to design an effective nat,ional science program. We hope t h e panel will proceed along these lines to develop a solid base of fact and considered est’imate in the chemical field. Results of such a survey could not b u t be a potent aid t o those entrusted with any future administration of t h e proposed national science foundation. An even broader benefit could come from this fact-finding study, for i t could spark a most healthy resolution of similar problems in other fields t h a t the Sational Science Foundation would administer. T h e carefree, off-the-cuff “guesstimates” sometimes offered so freely-in round millions or tens of millions of dollars-might not look so well when received side-by-side with carefully collected and documented facts demonstrating needs and resources in t h e chemical field. T h e need for a scientific approach on t h e question of science foundation funds is pre-eminently important because it is so tempting t o consider federal funds “easy money.” A scientific boondoggle would be far worse than no science foundation a t all. Prest,ige of the scientific professions would be hurt, money would be inefficiently used, and the mass of ill-conceived and poorly executed research either would be left t o rot in dusty, never-used files or, worse still, might pollute t h e reservoir of knowledge now preserved in the permanent literature. Yet a third benefit t o come from a down-to-earth listing of specific projects in the chemical program is a clarification of what really should be classified under the much-abused term “basic research.” We cannot help b u t think t h a t policing t h e basic research program, t o keep it just that, will prove one of the most, troublesome and challenging tasks of its administrators. We have ventured our own definition of basic research, in the hlarch 1918 editorial in this journal, as akin t o t h e mapping of a n area rather than t h e more linear trail-blazing charact,er of applied research. K h e t h e r or not this definition becomes t h e accepted basis for tlie design of the science program, t h e preliminary survey activitier will serve t o clarify t h e matter for those participating.
T h e selection of pcrsonnel for conducting thi of basic research also has some interesting ramifications. \]‘I) are inclined t o classify as basic research the esse!iti:il routitic, mapping of many areas in the chemical spectrum t h a t rcni:iiii unexplored, not became they are beyond present techniques a i i t l skills of modern science, b u t merely because the data have no obvious practical application. Literally millions of manhours of laboratory work would be nectwar’y to plug t h e g:aps so apparent from even a superficial scanning of :my 1i:arirltiook oil chemistry. T h e talrnt requircd t o Iwllcct inforination of this type can be quite modest. Only w h r ~ i i:tn cffort, is musterwl to discover any underlying law governing such d a t a is the sp:ir!i of scientific genius needed. \ l h t is the best distrihutioti of talents for greatest progress? Last spring’s graduates show thtit, supplj- of technical maupon-er has re:iched or wrpa.sscd ( l ~ n i : t n d , a t least quantitatively. IVithout wise control the t)asic sc.ii*tice program might selectively attract tlie lower rankirig pr:iclu:atcs -a process t h a t could lead t o a scientific \W.i if allowed t o go too far. B u t perhaps :t real need can he m r t in providing, through a massive program of d a t a collect,ing liy rssent ially routine methods, the raw material that can lead to n c v funtiamental laws. Maybe Science’s army could ne11 use a few more privates. Inseparably tied u p in the whole issue of effective perscirint~l utilization is t h e problem of equipment for carrying out t h t x research itself and also for adequatelv training t.liose who will conduct i t . T h e second need is a very real one f x i n g our colleges and universities after nrarly two decades of w:ir an11 depression. Probably the most, drnm:ttic revolution in tools of technology in t h a t period has occurred in the ficld of analyt,ical chemistry. T h e school of today that, trains its s t u d m t s sol in the classical disciplines of gravimetric :tnd volumetric anal? turns out a graduate ill eyuippetl indeed t o cope with t h e specntrophotometer, electron microscope, infrared equipment, and x-ray techniques that are commonplace in the modern indust rial analytical laboratory. l l a n y schools inherited windfalls through the generous war surplus disposal policies, b u t few thus obtairicsrl a balanced equipment resource. Government subsidy t o modernize equipment used in student laboratories is a poor s d l stitute for direct purchase where t h e schools can manage, but i f they are financially incapable of keeping their equipnient u p t o date with their own resources the whole science research progr:ani will inevitably reflect t h e lack. I n such :in instance i t may I i c only common sense t o provide for purchase of training equipment. Many most worth-while questions can be ansn-ered, at Itba.*t partiall>-,1 ) ~ .the discuesion forum on basic chemical research heltl tiy the panel a t the Xtlantic City meeting of the AMERICAS CHEMICAL ~ O C I E T Y a few days ago, especially if followed Iiy :t conclusive fact-finding survey. We hope t o be spared the painful sight of a science foundation program erected on t,he inc*ongruously unscientific base of half-baked hypotheses :tntl unsupported assert,ions.
2079
