editorially /peaking What is Good Science? Bv the loaic of some in federal government policy-making
~OIRS. ."mod icience must meet three criteria: excellence, per~~
~~
~
tinence. and appropriateness. Federal science policy does nut nnoear to trt aimed at the. health ut'sci~nceand itr instituriuns but rather a t getting the best possible immediate return on an investment in science and technolow. From this point of view, excellence, pertinence, and appropriateness take on potentially ominous implications regarding the identity of "good science." It is easy to imagine g o d science being defined in terms of its relevance and importance to national objectives. This year the objective may behealthy economic growth, next vear national defense, and the following year some other problem that is not perceived as such today. While we may all agree that current national objectives may be (momentarily) worthy, decisions based solely on these kinds of premises have the potential to initiate a sequence of events that will ultimately diminish our capacity to produce any kind of science. Changed perceptions of the nations' needs by policy-makers could impact heavily on science. What is considered "good science" and encouraged today could fall from favor tomorrow. We are in serious trouble when our leaders helieve that science can nrovide a solution to a technological problem in the time frame normally allocated to the ac&plishment of "national objectives." We will have a crises of major proportions if those in charge of establishing such a relationship nersist in believinp that it will bear the desired fruit. It 15, perhaps, natural that m a n ' interest in science aud its technoloaical , - omsequences has evul\.ed to the point u h e r ~he sees it as a useful and necessary enterprise for keeping the modern world going. Unfortunately, however, the current mind-set in government circles confuses science with technolow and research with development. Apparently many are eage.r-anC happy tu encourage tw hnology trsnsf?r, hut fen seem interested in trying to understand the relatiunship hetween science and technology and especially the critical need to support science for its own sake. Rather interestingly, the American public seems to he out of step with its elected leadership. A recent Harris survey indicated that 82%of those polled said that scientific research is an endeavor worth supporting even if i t brings no immediate benefits. We may he witnessing the beginning of an era where "doing science" will require some specified level of clear relevance to he acceptable-probably first a t a fiscal level followed shortly a t the intellectual level. Our ability to do science for its own sake seems to he slipping away, partly because of the complexity of what we feel needs to he done and partly because of the way in which we think it should he done. Currently accepted requirements for "good science"-clear relevance and impor-
..
tance national ohiectives-are obviouslv flawed if we are . - ~to -~to be guided by history. Volta would not have gotten very far if he or any of his contemporaries had to argue that the study of twitching frog legs was critical to anything. Yet, in its own wav., Volta's work laid the foundation for much of our electronically oriented society. History is replete with numerous such examples and similar situations are undoubtedly occurring today. For example, who can judge the importan-in the currentlv acceuted sense of that word-of a study of the chemistry orsea squids? We know that there are those in positions of authority who tend to deride research which "sounds" funny to them; we also know that charlatans can be found throughout the current system which is designed to foster and support scientific research. Both of these groups would gain material advantages should the proposed criteria for identifying "good science" become firmly established. And the course of classical science will be severely impeded. Experience has shown repeatedly that some discoveries which initially appear totally irrelevant to human affairs suhseauentlv have .. ereat . nractical imnortance. In contrast, the pr,~cticalimpurtanre uf scientific work can easilv be overestimated. Thus some historians t)el~e\.ethat metallurrs nus largely invented to facilitate the making of ornaments. The important point here is that the detailed usefulness of new knowledge cannot be predicted with any degree of assurance. T o insist that the only science worth encouraging is that which has a clear relevance and importance to specific goals today is the height of folly. That policy will surely guarantee a future with an inadequate fundamental knowledge base. While encouraging relatively short-term solutions to important prohlems, such policies will also discourage doing science as an end in itself. We cannot afford to continue to insist that the only science which is "good science" is that involved in meeting national objectives. While it might he true that other definitions of " a o d science" are less orecise and more difficult to apply, and perhaps less ohviousliimportant, uis-a-uis specific&&, we must he prepared to encourage some of our brightest minds to pursue "&npractical" science without regardto its practicality. I t is this "impractical knowledge" that is the ultimate underpinning of our current technology. The basic problem is that we cannot see the details of the important relationships, mainly because we cannot know-or agree upon-the character of the problems that will form the basis of future national obiectives. There is one certaintv however: we shall never have the fundamental knowledge-a.hare\w it is to form thc basis of solutions to future nrul~ltmsif it is not o w m ~ t t e dI U be discovered. Good science is the means b; which new JJL knowledge is made known. ~~
~
~~~
~
.
~~
~~
Volume 61
Number 2
February 1984
91
