The Legacy of Vannever Bush This year marks the 50th Anniversary of the publication of Vannever Bush's report entitled Science: The Endless Frontier. This seminal report to t h e President of t h e United States is widely acknowledged a s the basis for the enormous activity in research that has brought this country to its preeminence in most of the scientific and engineering disciplines. In 1945 Bush wrote: The government should accept new responsibilities far promoting the flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government, for they vitally affect our health, our jobs and our national security.
Bush's recommendation tu the I'rwidmt is clear and to the point. The zovernmrnt has an hligation to develoo the who ar;to become scientists, in contrast to tge intellectual construct called science. The result of the research process is trained people called scientists, not necessarily what these people do or produce: some would claim that the research reHu~tsare s~mplya n added benefit of this education process. Taken a t face value, B u s h recommendation i s a-remarkable statement of faith i n science and the process driven by science. Indeed, i t also says something about the President's faith i n Bush's recommendations. Before World War 11, the pursuit of science was essentially a private concern with relatively few government resources being expended. Those government resources that were available mostly supported research that was ohviously practical, e.g., i n agriculture. Research a t universities was largely funded through private sources, together with modest state resources i n some cases. At the conclusion of World War 11, i t was apparent that achieving a certain level of expertise in science and technology would he important in shaping the future. The year of the Bush report D 1945 D was also the beginning of the Cold War. In 1954, the USSR launched Sputnik, which focused attention on national security and reinforced Bush's argument. Indeed, national security was the prime focus of the Government's support of the sciences until the dismantling of the USSR. The history of the basis of the support of science by the Government has been essentially one of responding to a variety of "organized" human disasters such a s World War 11, the Cold War, and the Korean War. Sputnik dictated that international competitiveness would continue to be laved out in the arena of national securitv. iust a s it was & i n g world War 11. Since the break-UDof the USSR. national securitv is no longer the compelliig reason for the Government Gpport of science and technology t h a t i t once was. The ClintodGore Administration has shifted the rationale for Government support of science to international economic competitiveness, a s outlined on this page last year. In 1945 the war economy displaced the usual rules of economics. In
1995 the situation is very different, and economic competitiveness cannot be enhanced by the Government support of science i n the same way as i t w a s in the past. ~ c i k n c eby itself cenerallv cannot accomplish anything in terms of responding to societal human needs. The encouragement of science for the purpose of creating jobs, a s suggested by Bush, requires collaboration with private industry Invoking science in the improvement and the maintenance of our nation's economic well-being requires a close melding of science with technology, a condition that can only occur with the heln of private industrv, and this is the position that has been taken by the ~ l i n & n G x e~dmini&ation. Scientists who have "aown-up" with the old Daradimn of government support of research, are i n store for a shock; that kind of support will no longer obtain. Some have wondered what the United States did right over the past 50 years, or a least early in the evolution of the Bush-defined era, to achieve its preeminence i n science. A number of factors suggest themselves. Many believe that Deer review is the kev element i n the conduct of most government agencies sponsoring research that has led to excellence. Much of the time peer review is meritbased a n d encourages creativity. However, due to constrained budgets, relatively recently the peer review process has soueezed out second- and third-tier institutions. which has encouraged "earmarking" of some projects, reflectine the erowine tendencv to look a t re"of ~oliticians . search efforts as another form of resource allocation. The decentralization of research h a s also been cited a s a streneth of the American view of fundamental research. This stands in sharp contrast with the philosophy that basic (fundamental) research can be directed toward some predetermined end, a tendency that is increasing during these times when eovernmental research-oriented decisions are driven by economic considerations rather than the "development of scientific talent in our youth." The use of Deer review and the decentralization of research have produced the current university-oriented system that is recomized as the best i n the world. Finallv. ".the co-evolution of an instrument manufacturing industry with the university-based research system i s also considered a key factor in the rise of the American research enterprise to preeminence. The importance of instrumentation, such a s the various forms of spectrometers and computers. in the progress of science cannot be underestimated. Vannever Bush's vision of the importance of the research enterprise for this country is a s valid now a s it was 50 years-ago. ~ e m a i n i faithful n~ to that vision is the problem. Current governmental efforts to improve our international competitiveness based on economic factors appear to deviate from Bush's ~ o i nof t view. because the initiatives focus on the results aH being important, not increasing the pool of talent among our people. JJL
- -
-
-
-
Volume 72 Number 5 May 1995
381
