Science
AAAS seeks greater science policy impact Association's president, Margaret Mead, describes new thrust of programs, outlines her views on status of science in U.S. Richard J. Seltzer C&EN, Washington Few scientists have won what is per haps an ultimate accolade of American popular culture—citation in a comic strip—as did Dr. Margaret Mead ear lier this month in Garry Trudeau's "Doonesbury." But then, few scientists generally enjoy the public prominence and media attention that does the charismatic anthropologist, author, and commentator on contemporary so cial issues, who was confirmed by a re cent study as one of the foremost "visi ble scientists." Now curator emeritus of ethnology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, the husky-voiced 74-year-old grand mother is still indefatigably circling the globe for field research and lectures (at the moment on her way to Iran, Kenya, and South Africa). Next month, Mead concludes a year's service as president of the Amer ican Association for the Advancement of Science (and becomes board chair man). During her term of office, AAAS has sought, despite financial difficul ties, to play a greater role in formation of science- and technology-related poli cy, to advance science internationally, to assist disadvantaged scientists, and to further public understanding of science. As she pointed out in a recent interview, it has been a period both for "establishment of new directions" and for consolidation after internal reorgan ization. Joining her for the interview was William D. Carey, who is complet ing his first year as AAAS executive of ficer. AAAS was founded in 1848. Its two best known activities are weekly publi cation of Science magazine and organi zation of enormous annual meetings, dubbed "the world series of science" by journalists. AAAS has been characterized by some observers as "traditionally stodgy and uninfluential." Mead objects vehe mently to such an image. If ever true, it has been unjustified for years, she says. Like many other scientific so 26
C&EN Nov. 24, 1975
cieties, AAAS has moved toward a more "activist" posture, both outward ly (involvement in public affairs) and inwardly (democratization under a new constitution and bylaws in 1973, in cluding election for the first time of of ficers by democratic ballot of all mem bers). AAAS is thus, as one onlooker puts it, "trying to transit from being just people who subscribe to Science to something very much more." (Many subscribers feel no involvement with the association, Mead admits. How ever, they join AAAS because member ship, including Science, costs $25, compared to $50 for nonmember sub scriptions.) The AAAS constitution sets triple objectives: advancing communication among scientists, encouraging applica tion of science to the promotion of human welfare, and improving public understanding of science. Special focus of activities in the 1970's is "the chief contemporary problems concerning the mutual relations of science, technology, and social change, including the use of science and technology in the promo tion of human welfare." The association thus is trying in creasingly to provide government at all levels with high-quality, nonpartisan scientific advice. One method is a growing number of appearances at Congressional hearings to testify on such science-related issues as peer review and national science policy and organization. Several "invit ed statements" have been requested by Congress. (A Congressional aide points out that AAAS is considered represen tative of the "broad-based views of the scientific community.") However, AAAS does not lobby, in accordance with its "501(c)3" tax status. Another method of providing scien tific information is a series each year of Congressional science seminars in co operation with the Brookings Institu tion. And a Congressional science fel low program, begun in 1973, places sci entists and engineers on Congressional staffs for a year. Carey notes that AAAS is beginning to aid state governments. "I think we're going to do more of this, because the profile of legislation in state legis latures is changing drastically toward technological problems, which these legislatures are very poorly equipped to cope with." Relations with city govern ments are "still very minimal." AAAS also is stepping up organiza tion of task forces and issuance of
ο ο .c CL
w ζ LU
Mead: establish new directions "white papers" assessing public issues. The most influential study so far, a 1970 investigation of the effects of her bicide defoliation in Vietnam, helped persuade the Administration to end such use, Carey relates. A report this year deals with scientific freedom and responsibility, including "whistle-blow ing." Carey hopes for one to three AAAS white papers a year. For example, "we're now contemplating unleashing an annual critique of the federal R&D budget." Also being considered is an analysis of government regulation, and whether it may be discouraging tech nological innovation. AAAS also is moving into the "inter professional" area. A AAAS-American Bar Association National Conference on Science, Technology, and the Law has been set up, and Carey hopes for similar efforts in business, journalism, and other fields. AAAS's increasing public policy ori entation is emphasized by the rare nomination of a nonscientist ex-Con gressman to run for president-elect this year—Emilio Q. Daddario, director of Congress' Office of Technology Assess ment. (AAAS membership is open to nonscientists.) The new AAAS thrust has hardly met with unanimous approval. Some members complain of too much public affairs and not enough science in Science and the annual meetings. (In deed, the pendulum swings back to more science at the 1976 meeting.) Others cite the public affairs activities as their chief interest. AAAS tries to balance the two sides. Controversy also has been aroused by statements the association has adopted
on some issues. For example, in 1972 it condemned continued U.S. participation in the Vietnam war and urged immediate withdrawal—a move some members attacked as "political" and outside AAAS's scientific realm. The AAAS policy-making council also has condemned actions by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific & Cultural Organization) against Israel, and has scored Soviet bars to free emigration of scientists. And earlier this year it deplored discrimination against homosexual and other "sexual minority" scientists. What kind of issues should a scientific society like AAAS take a position on? Both Mead and Carey apply the tests of relevance to science and avoiding member polarization. However, stresses Mead, a social activist herself, the real question is "what is our membership competent to take stands on? We are an association for the advancement of science. I'm personally unenthusiastic about natural scientists' pronouncements on subjects about which they are incompetent. And there's been a terrible tendency, especially in the 1960's, to politicize every group on any subject. I think that tendency's more or less passed. Anybody in AAAS can join 40 other organizations to do other things that they want to. We have enough on our plate as it is." Another area of increased AAAS activity is international science affairs, including participation in international organizations and aid to science in Latin American and other developing countries. One example of hemispheric cooperation involving AAAS: publication starting early next year in Venezuela of a trilingual journal, Interciencia, devoted to use of science and technology for development. There also is a small program of exchange visits with Znaniye, AAAS's closest counterpart in the U.S.S.R. The association has tried for contacts with the People's Republic of China, so far without success. And next February's bicentennial meeting will focus in part on international science. AAAS also is dealing increasingly, Mead says, with such "transnational" problems as human settlement, environment, food, climate, and energy. Among other AAAS programs are science education and promoting equal science opportunities for the handicapped, women, and minorities. The association also does much to improve public understanding of science. One project to upgrade science writing, for example, is a mass media intern program (G&EN, Oct. 14, 1974, page 18). This program held a successful first session last summer, and now is recruiting graduate students in natural and social sciences for next summer. Another program, regional seminars for decision makers, is being held nationwide, bringing together scientists, engineers, and local and regional policy makers to discuss such pressing topics
as energy planning and radioactive waste management. As for internal AAAS matters, financial difficulties caused by inflation, recession, lower revenues than expected, and what some term "overexpansion," sent AAAS's budget into large deficits in 1973 and 1974. Cuts in programs and personnel and reduction of Science pages were necessary. Carey expects the 1975 ($7.5 million) and 1976 budgets to be in the black, but finances will continue to be difficult. Indeed, membership is still dropping—from 133,364 in 1970 to 120,149 in October 1974, and 116,446 this September. (The figures include foreign members—9577 in 1975.) In a press release in 1972, AAAS called itself "by far the largest and most influential group of related scientific organizations in the world," citing
in particular its 284 affiliated societies and academies. The influence is still limited, some observers believe. Even Dr. Roger Revelle, AAAS board chairman, said earlier this year that the association is not having "the impact on development of national science policy that it should and might." However, Mead and Carey believe that the association's impact is growing. Publication in Science, symposia at national meetings, and new and ongoing AAAS programs are surfacing important issues and educating the public and policy makers about them. And Carey recalls from his work on science and technology budget matters at the White House, "policy makers read Science very, very closely and seriously. I think it has a considerable impact on the climate of opinion and policy toward science. " D
Scientists' image: remote from life From their vantage point as top elected and staff officials of the American Association for the A d vancement of Science, Dr. Margaret Mead and William Carey paint a somber picture of the current status of science in the U.S. Science is still very much "under attack," says Mead, and efforts must be increased to "pull together the very much dismantled house of science," particularly with regard to science advice for government. And it is a "time when the value of knowledge and the respect for knowledge is being discounted every day," adds Carey. The beginnings of this situation could already be seen in the 1950's in a AAAS survey by Mead and Dr. Rhoda Metraux of the image of scientists among high school students [Science, 126, 384 (1957)]. There was in particular, she notes, "the notion of the scientist as remote from life. You know, the kids thought science was concerned with things that were dead—dead rocks, dead stars, and dead dogfish. They thought scientists lived in deep laboratories which you couldn't see out of into the air, experimenting on people and animals. They either talked about nothing but science, and drove other people crazy—or they didn't talk at all, and drove other people crazy," she chuckles. "And they never kissed their wives or went on picnics." This "very unpromising picture" was influenced in part by the recurrent portrayal in movies, books, and other media of "the mad scientist." For example, she recalls, Look magazine sought to publish some drawings of "mad scientists" made in the high school survey. "I said they could only do it if they would publish a picture of an ordinary sci-
entist" as well. So the magazine "found a fine young biologist, crewcut, with children, a dog. They asked, 'would that do?' and I said that'd be fine." And then, she wryly relates, "they photographed him covered with butterflies, from head to foot! And he let them do it!" The results of such negative images of science and scientists are plain to see now, Mead continues, particularly with the impact since then of environmentalism, consumerism, opposition to the Vietnam war, and other movements. "A lot of those people who were in high school in the mid-1950's are in influential positions today." And their picture is of "the scientists as inventing dangerous technology, and the scientist who was inhuman, who was not concerned with human affairs." Another finding of the survey was "a general notion that science was too great. So kids in school thought, 'if I'm not Einstein, I'm nobody.' We'd lost the sense of a scientific enterprise, in which all sorts of people have an important place. And we were playing up the geniuses too much. I think that's still probably true." How can these images be changed? The only way is for scientists to work closely with the mass media, Mead stresses. For example, the weekly television program " N o v a , " produced with AAAS help, has done "an enormous j o b , " she thinks. "We don't have this house-of-magic-showing stuff we had in the past. That was a continuous problem—treating science like magic. The more that the media can show what is actually done—and show real scientists instead of these figments of mythology—the better."
Nov. 24, 1975 C&EN
27
