hemical
S
ngmeenng. News
WALTER J. MURPHY, Ediior
Science and Government—A Program for A c t i o n JLN HIS scholarly address "Science and Government," delivered before the 123rd National Meeting of the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY at Los Angeles last month, L. A. DuBridge reminded his audience that while democracy and science flourish in the same climate, they also face a basic conflict. The basic conflict is one that has been in the making for a t least the past half century, but it has been recognized b y the masses as a major problem only since the advent of t h e atomic bomb. It is very true, as the president of California Institute of Technology pointed out, that in a republic many, many people are concerned with the acts of government while on the other hand very, very few people are directly concerned with science. The problem expressed in a few words is "How can the very many be made to understand the contributions and the problems of the few?" The AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY is deeply concerned with this problem and a large part of the Society's work is directed toward informing the public of the contribution of the chemist and the chemical engineer. This is being done with a dual purpose in mind. Quite naturally members of the profession wish to b e recognized personally for t h e things they do for humanity. Such a feeling is quite understandable. There is still a more important reason however. Science is creating a tremendous impact on just about every facet of h u m a n activity and momentous decisions are being made involving such relationships frequently by groups and individuals who do not fully understand the role of science in modern society. Our educational efforts must not only be concerned with our professional interests, but we must strive i n every way possible to acquaint the m a n on the street with the true significance of science so that our country may continue to reap the maximum benefits from a thriving science and technology. W e agree completely with Dr. DuBridge w h e n he says the problem is particularly critical in America i n 1953. Space does not permit us to comment on all of the proposals made by Dr. DuBridge to bring about a better understanding of science and technology on the part of the American public. The full text of the address appears in this issue, pages 1384-90, and we urge careful reading of his thoughtprovoking comments. W e do want to list several preliminary and exploratory steps suggested by him in an effort to bring
VOLUME
3 1, N O .
14
APRIL
6,
about a better understanding of science and technology in government circles: (1) The Secretary of Defense should appoint a top-notch scientist or engineer to b e scientific adviser to the Defense Department. This man might also serve as chairman of the Research and Development Board—in fact, the present chairm a n of that board would b e an excellent selection. But in his capacity as adviser h e should be supplied with funds and a special staff so that he could collect information, obtain advice, and engage special groups to carry o u t short-term investigations or studies. (2) The chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission should be a member or alternate member of t h e National Security Council. (3) T h e National Security Council should appoint a Science Advisory Committee with a full-time chairman or executive officer to advise it continuously on the scientific and technical elements which enter into the problems before it. This same committee could give further study t o the broad problem of science and government and recommend additional measures to b e taken from time to time. W e doubt that any scientist or technologist will disagree seriously with these proposals. W e just wonder—should additional steps be taken? The United States Government has gone into science to the tune of over $2 billion a year. Science and technology today are deeply involved in our economy and, of course, constitute a major part of national defense. The editors of this publication have suggested on more than one occasion that Congress establish an advisory board of leading scientists and tech nolo gists to assist it in framing legislation dealing with scientific matters and, of course, there is the possibihty of creating a new cabinet post—that of Secretary jf Science. If modern government, certainly the U. S. Federal Government of 1953, finds itself directly involved in science and technology in a big and apparently growing way, then w e must overhaul our present inadequate machinery of government to bring it in tune with current realities. W e cannot accomplish such an objective by passively sitting by and doing nothing more than protesting against existi n g inadequacies. Messages like that of Dr. DuBridge must b e brought to the attention of the public, to members of Congress, and to leaders of the administration in Washington. We can all participate in this educational program.
1953
1383
