science
New science policy approach needed for 1970s OECD ad hoc group assesses science policy approach in past decade, sets new framework and objectives for future That national science policies must and are undergoing a reformulation has hardly escaped notice. But how they developed in the sixties, why they have foundered, and where they must head in the seventies have now been forcefully brought into focus in a report to be published this month by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the association of industrialized market-economy countries created in 1961. Titled "Science, Growth and Society—A New Perspective," the report is the work of the OECD secretary-general's ad hoc group on new concepts of science policy. Independent experts made up the international group under the chairmanship of Harvey Brooks, dean of engineering and applied physics, Harvard University, and chairman of the U.S.'s National Academy of Sciences committee on science and public policy. Although OECD makes a point that the report represents work of the individuals acting in their personal capacities, the report will nonetheless serve as the main background document presented to OECD ministers responsible for scientific affairs who will meet for the fourth time in October. Broad. The mission from the secretary-general was broad: to identify new problems and trends which are beginning to emerge, and to analyze the resulting implications for society and for the decision-making bodies in the field of science policy and in other fields. The response was equally broad: The group defines science policy to mean policies for the natural sciences, the social sciences, and technology, and its report places science policy within the framework of economics, philosophy, politics, social issues, and international development. Items:
• On economic growth: "If we admit that the realization of the aspirations of society still depends to a major extent on additional economic resources that can be provided only by growth . . . we must also recognize that . . . the use of the economic system to contribute to h u m a n happiness rather than merely material satisfaction presents a challenge to the imagination that the developed countries must begin to take up seriously during the coming decade." • On interaction: "It is urgent that we get a clearer picture than we have today of the complete system of interactions between technical, economic, psychological, and sociological factors that is transforming our societies almost beyond recognition. Thus, an adequate science policy is one of the preconditions for more sophisticated economic policies." • On internationalization: "As we look ahead to the near future, it becomes evident that advances in technology and in the increased application of technology are going to make it necessary for a substantial expansion of the functions to be carried out in an international framework . . . . The locus of decision-making will increasingly move from national to international forums." • On developing countries: "The important point is to distinguish expenditure for the development of research and allied activities in the developing countries themselves, and expenditure relating to the problems of these countries incurred in the research effort of the advanced countries . . . . So long as this responsibility is not recognized as one of the essential functions of science policies of the advanced countries by linking aid policies with policies for scientific and technical action, both nationally and internationally, we are convinced that there is little chance of any great progress." • On social needs: "The diversification and intensification of collective needs and aspirations are among the most lasting and most far-reaching consequences of economic growth. The satisfaction of such collective needs will occupy an increasing frac-
tion of society's attention in the 1970's and beyond, and will thus constitute a growing dimension of science policy." These quotations represent several themes running through the report. Economic growth per se is no longer a sufficient overall objective, the group concludes, and further interventions in the working of the market economy will become necessary. The interventions will affect allocation of investments and the direction of innovation. Central. New tasks faced by science and technology are more complex and multivariant than the old ones and involve economic, social, cultural, and psychological aspects as well as more strictly technical ones. The group sees the interweaving of these considerations—both in resource allocation and in execution—as a major challenge to science policy. No longer, it says, can science policy be restricted to natural science and engineering development. Use and further buildup of the conceptual and knowledge base of the social sciences will be matters of central concern. Moreover, since the problems facing science policy are common to most of the OECD countries, many of them are unlikely to be resolved in narrow national terms, the group says. The power and high flexibility of multinational firms, for example, give rise to problems and conflict between the firms and host countries. This, the group says, is particularly relevant to science policy because, in some countries, the research and development potential of multinational firms practically dominates the pattern of national science efforts. Sectors. For the problem of how to execute science policy, the group notes two approaches. The U.S. system, it points out, has emphasized the sectoral approach, with total resources made available to sectors as a whole— defense, health, agriculture, and the like. This system, the group says, tends to work most effectively when total resources are increasing and social goals are rather stable so that sectors are well defined. Some other OECD countries, on the other hand, have tended to emphasize a centralized approach, with funds beJULY 5, 1971 C&EN 37
$
for I0,000.00 sells the lowest cost calculator ...in the WORLD WANG
When you judge the cost of a calculator you can't just look at the price tag. You must first consider how much it costs to have someone operate your calculator. The lowest cost calculator is the one that does the most work with the least amount of operator time. That's where we come in. Our Wang calculators out-perform anything in their class. And we make more different electronic calculators than anybody else. Our $10,000 system can do some jobs that even a similarly priced computer can't handle. And our calculator doesn't require special operators that a computer needs. Any of our models, even for under $1,000 has the best price/performance ratio in its price range. That's how we got to be the largest United States' manufacturer of electronic calculators. And there are even more reasons why our calculators cost so little to own; like the fact that they never become obsolete. We designed every Wang calculator to be expanded right in your office when your requirements increase. And factory direct sales and service organization assures you that every Wang calculator you own keeps working for you.
Find out how low cost our calculators are. Call any of our offices or call, collect, Mr. Courtney at 617-851-7211.
WANG 38
C&EN JULY 5, 1971
LABORATORIES,
I N C . DEPT. CEN-7
836 NORTH STREET. TEWKSBURY, MASSACHUSETTS 01876, TEL.
(617) 851-7311, TWX 710 343-6769, TELEX 94-7421
ing suballocated to research in support of various sectors. This scheme, the group contends, works better than the sectoral approach when total resources are limited and when social goals are unstable and changing. The group doesn't offer a specific suggestion of proper balance between the two approaches. It does note, however, that although there is no final resolution of the problem, any viable system of science policy must involve some blend of the two. The policy system must also provide for enough of an overlap between the research supported in the two different ways so that there is a continuous flow of information and people between scientific and operating aspects. Beyond such overlap, the group points out, there is the problem of coordination in planning and overall goal definition between the various sectors. For example, planning for transportation, urban development, energy policy, and environmental protection all intersect in land-use planning. Multipurpose. As the complexity of societies grows, multipurpose planning for utilization of resources common to several sectors becomes increasingly important, the group points out. Science, in this sense, is only one such resource. There are strong reasons to believe, the group maintains, that the planning function for common resources of many different kinds should develop within a single new type of staff—an agency with projection, forecasting, and analysis functions, rather than just a coordinating agency for science and technology. Such an agency, it points out, is relatively unknown. In support of its conclusions, the group offers some 30 recommendations—some addressed to OECD itself, some to member countries. Taken together they imply a broad restructuring of science policy and form the challenge facing the industrialized nations in setting new priorities. The groupings of recommendations indicate the sweep of the report: integration of social, economic, and scientific policies; satisfaction of collective needs; assessment of technological progress; education as a collective need; planning for fundamental research; multinational firms and technological progress; development of sectoral policies; international aspects of environmental problems; social sciences and policy; science policy and general planning; and science and underdevelopment. To the extent that the group has accurately defined current trends, they could be the sweep of future science policy itself.
