The Tensions between Science and Democracy That American Society has benefited directly from technology cannot be seriously contested. The relationship between technology and the basic sciences is reasonably well established although it is not necessarily clear in the minds of citizens. The nature of this relationshipthat a modem society needs atechnological base that is rooted in sciencesuggests that society and science should be in harmony. However, the results of a recent survey conducted by Sigma Xi of its membership indicates strongly that the basis for such harmony does not, in fact, exist. The profile of the typical scientist that emerges from the Sigma Xi survey is revealing. Generally, scientists are "strongly motivated" individuals who choose their careers for powerful internal motives; for example, they are "intrigued with the search for truth and knowledge" or they simply are "curious". In an interesting contrast with scientists who claim strong internal motives, another large group follow a path of least resistance; for them "science was easier andlor more fun than other fields". Two of the least important reasons cited for becoming a scientist was the potential to "become famous for research" or "to achieve greater wealth than possible through other careers". Thus, as a rule, scientists tend not to be terribly ambitious for conventional rewards; they are driven more by curiosity than by social concerns. They are fascinated by nature not so much for its usefulness as for the intrinsic challenge. This part of the profile is the first indication of possible areas of tension between science and a democratic society. A direct conflict exists between the profile of the scientist described above and his or her image as perceived by the puhlic. The latter can be deduced from the second presidential debate before the last election where both candidates evoked the idea of "scientist as saviour". When asked to give examples of contemporary heros who should inspire youth, both candidates mentioned (different) scientists whose accomplishments were focussed on curing diseases. Discovering a vaccine that saves lives is undoubtedly a great accomplishment that may make the public (and scientists) feel good about scientists, but the process is not necessarily sci-
ence. The seed of the disameement on the nature of science is revealed in the results ofthe Sigma Xi survey. Over 95%of the scientists in the survev believed that science "connotes a process or procedure for &aking inquiries about our w o r l d bv making this their overwhelming choice,. they . were explicitiy rejecting another choice t h a t science is a "'thing', an institution, a factory that produces useful knowledge from labor, capital, and ;aw dita9'. Since the 1950's n&erous surveys have repeatedly shown that only about 10%of Americans think of science as a method of inquiry. Thus, American tax-payers and the scientists they support are as far anart as thev can be on this verv fundamental idea. This great gap in perception may be at the root of other problems. suchas the inflated exnectationsandawe that the public has of science. The surve;reinforces the tension when the average scientist's first choice for the use of public funds was "untargeted, individual grants", whereas more practical foci for spending public funds were rated consistently low by scientists. Another item in the Sigma Xi suwey illustrates the tension in a different way. Scientists now consider their biggest problem to be a lack of public understanding, and other data suggest that public understanding of science is on decline. A series of questions in the Sigma Xi survey addressed the issue of the usefulness of basic research. The gist of the answers to these questions suggested that most scientists think they know better than the average citizen how to assess the benefits of research; indeed scientists think they would best sewe the people by defying the popular will. This is indeed a tension-filled situation with potentially ominous repercussions. The last time the "public will" was violated, the United States lost a president. Traumaticas that process was, there was a t least a clearly specified remedy. If the United States lost its science, that realization would take several generations, a period of time that would probably nreclude recovew. Surely scientists ought to be sufficiently clever to make the ~ u b l i csee the "error of its wavs"-or is i t an error? JJL ~
~
Volume 66 Number 3 March 1989
185
