EDITORIAL
Don't chop research funds ruthlessly Budget pruning should be done rationally, not for emotional political appeal
s the world grows smaller through communication, awareness of the tragedy of the human condition grows greater. Men and women with a sense of responsibility want to attack the problem and to solve at least part of it. Money is needed—a great deal of it. But more than that, intelligence, balance, and forethought must go along with the money. And sometimes political unpopularity must be faced as part of the cost. Our society appears to have worked itself into a corner from which delivery is likely to take massive spending. But the spending should not be done in such a way as to ignore the value of thoughtful investment for the long term. This means intelligent investment of both brains and money. In dealing with the present war our Government has adopted a draft policy less politically unpopular than it might have. There would have been greater uproar had more consideration been given to the nonegalitarian investment of brain power in the interest of long-term goals. In the matter of reducing our spending there are threats of actions that might be politically popular but show little of the responsible long-term view we need in our leadership: There is, for instance, talk in Congress of heavily cutting investments in scientific research. One announced intention would cut the National Science Foundation budget 50%. Cutting budgets is needed. Certainly our economic system is not in good balance, for there is
A
danger of rapid inflation, and reduced spending and increased taxes are being called for. Perhaps there has been some fat in research support and perhaps some third-rate people have been supported. Perhaps some university departments getting funds are not getting better. Certainly many scientists and some administrators have aroused antagonism by assuming or adopting an untouchable attitude for support of science. But budget cutting should be guided with great care where moderate investment now might build solutions to severe problems that would arise 10 to 25 years hence. There is danger in making, under the emotions of a wide-open political campaign, dramatic statements and commitments that might appeal to the public, most of whom do not feel involvement. But most of the public today benefits in one way or another from research investments of 15 to 25 years ago—through nutrition, health, and materials and services we now take for granted. The United States has developed science and technology into a resource that has become the envy of the world. In decisions about funds for the support of scientific research our legislators and administrators ought to look at these things from the point of view of investment in the future, rather than emotional appeal in a political campaign.
APRIL 29, 1968 C&EN 5
