Science a n d the Nation's F u t u r e DAVID
M.
DKLO 1 ,
Department of the Army, Washington 25, D. C.
N o longer can s c i e n t i s t s focus o n research a l o n e , while forgett i n g t h e y a r e c i t i z e n s of a d e m o c r a c y . A s i d e f r o m t h e t r e m e n d o u s effect s c i e n c e h a s o n e c o n o m i c s , d e c i s i o n m u s t b e m a d e b e t w e e n work that s t r e n g t h e n s military defense and research a i m e d a t c o n s t r u c t i n g p e a c e through n o n n i i l i t a r y u s e of s u c h k n o w l e d g e O C I E N C E now enjoys a popular reputation and occupies a place in the public mind unparalleled in history. Research a n d development are words to conjure with. Government, industry, and nonprofit foundations combine to furnish the competent scientist with far more funds than ever before. Fellowships are numerous for promising scientists both trained or in training. The success of war research, climaxed by the atomic bomb and t h e enormous expansion of governmental a n d industrial research following World War II has catapulted scientific research into the billion-dollar class. If the Steelm a n report (Report of the President's Scientific Research Board, 1947) can be believed, it is there to stay. Amazed, confused, and even a little frightened at this metamorphosis of science, the thoughtful scientist questions the significance of his new prominence. He knows that a few spectacular accomplishm e n t s during t h e war will not maintain Ills new position on the national scene unless they are followed b y solid, longlasting contributions which the nonscientist can understand. This means that h e cannot afford to rest on his laurels. N o more can h e return t o the strictly scientific activities so characteristic of prewar years when too often he was almost anonymous to all but a few specialists. Ile also finds that his place in the spotlight of national attention is not an unmixed blessing. It is already yielding a questionable reward of unpleasant publicity and what some scientists interpret a s political sniping. But since scientists have left their ivory towers to engage in t h e rough and tumble of the marketplace, they must expect to receive a few digs in the ribs or to have a toe stepped on occasionally. Fame always brings its trials as well as its rewards. For t h e scientist, it has also defined a clear need for some long-range soul searching as to the future role science and scientists will b e expected to play in national and international affairs. T h u s t h e scientist is confronted with a variety of new problems wrhich seldom 1 The ideas expressed in this article are those of the writer and are not to be construed as the official opinion or policy of the Department of t h e Army.
3680
troubled him when he devoted his a t t e n tion to science alone. Some of these a r e very troublesome to the man who tries to approach t h e m sincerely and objectively. If h e believes in t h e universal availability of scientific truth and publicly supports his views, there is a good chance t h a t some uninformed groups will accuse him of unpatriotic sentiments. If he refuses t o recognize the desirability of the international dissemination of fundamental knowledge, he declines to accept one of the basic postulates of all science. Unfortunately, we cannot escape recognizing the present international situation, which makes it impossible to scatter m u c h of our scientific knowledge broadcast. Until t h e international tension eases, our b e s t hope for peace remains in technologically outstripping all competitors. T h e r e is n o apparent reason to suppose that circumstances will change in t h e early future. Much a s we dislike it a s scientists, in t h e interests of national safety we cannot do otherwise. D u r i n g W o r l d W a r I I our scientists and research and development facilities operated at high pressure. Many scientists willingly forfeited leisure, chosen fields of research, a n d personal convenience. Now m a n y wish to return to the leisurely and unburdened pursuit of fundamental research. B u t modern research is expensive, a n d there are only a few sources of large research funds. So the scientist often finds himself in a dilemma. If he accepts t h e large sums which often support classified research, the results of his work- m a y be unavailable to general scientific progress—perhaps locked in a safe, never t o be utilized. If he refuses t o accept classified contracts, he m a y be forced t o confine his research efforts to a m u c h less p r e t e n t i o u s and less remunerat i v e level. Increased
Chance
of
Friction
T h e disturbed n a t u r e of the modern world poses a n o t h e r basic problem. The work of scientists has shrunk the world a n d increased the chance of friction between nations. Under normal circumstances this shrinkage of t h e world should also increase the opportunities for intern a t i o n a l understanding and cooperation. Unfortunately, the opportunity for demon-
CHEMICAL
stration of the latter has not been p r o vided on a world-wide basis. Despite world conditions, the scientist who participated in national defense d u r ing the past war, either in or o u t of uniform, m a y wish t o return to scientific work for its sake alone. B u t if he h a s a strong sense of national d u t y , h e cannot fail to question whether t h i s is justified during the present tense international situation. Should he spend his working y e a r s on military projects and n o real crisis occur, has he sold his scientific birthright for a mess of military pottage? Y e t if his work has helped t o strengthen our national defense during a perioi of i n t e r national tension, has h e not ma le a distinct and constructive contribution t o · world peace? Even more bothersome ar:; questions concerning t h e role which organized science should play consciously in national life. Should it stand aloof or engage in specific activities which will embroil scientists collectively in complex political, economic, and social problems? Some American scientists are beginning to recognize t h a t their wartime elevation to national prominence entails specific added responsibilities. T h e y a r e finding it ethically impossible t o focus o n research alone to the neglect of their duties a s citizens in a democracy. Collectively they possess peculiar training a n d skills which form a valuable national asset. I t is their individual responsibility t o make sure t h a t the nation lias a n opport u n i t y t o utilize the information which they possess, and to m a k e it available in terms which can be u n d e r s t o o d b y t h e nonscientist. T h i s is not easy t o accomplish, and to m a n y scientists it represents an entirely new a n d different concept of scientific responsibility. I t is n o wonder then, as one scientist p h r a s e s it, " t h a t we are just now trying t o find our soul." Our British colleagues have been somewhat more articulate b u t seem little less confused. Science
and Modern
Civilization
I t m a y be t h a t some of our u n c e r t a i n t y springs from the complex nature of t h e modern world. Science has had so large a share in t h e creation of modern civilization, and is so thoroughly entwined i n its w a r p and woof, t h a t any disturbance of this fabric is bound to ruffle t h e even progress of scientific life and t h o u g h t . I t seems indubitable t h a t t h e amazing development of our technological society has progressed only a s rapidly as fundamental science has supplied the ideas and
AND
ENGINEERING
NEWS
applied science h a s furnished t h e processes and machines. A c e n t u r y ago t h e invention of t h e IBessemer converter, the first use of coke for s m e l t i n g iron, a n d the birth of t h e petroleum industry set the stage for subsequent developments. T h e enormous technological expansion which soon followed w a s made possible particularly by the application of basic chemical and physical discoveries. Atomic* fission, with all of its unexplored potentialities, has marked the end of one era a n d the genesis of another. W h e t h e r scientists have created t h e m e a n s for their own elimination, only t h e wisdom of statecraft ar&d t h e u n p r e d i c t a b l e course of international polities m a y determine. Regardless of t h e outcome, scientists as citizens should not stand idiy b y while others actively d e t e r m i n e o u r destiny. For this process, in the 20th century-, all the scientific assistance which can be mustered .is needed If scientific t r u t h is restricted to the laboratory o r to a -niali circle of specialists, it cannot be utilized for this l a r g e r overriding purpose Science
Affects
Economics
I n the United States i n particular, the application of science has assisted materially in t h e creation of a delicately balanced and complicated economic structure. As a result, science impregnates or seriously affects almost every facet of national life. The science of today itself has m a n y facets. Few individuals are e x p e r t in all. T h u s , a m a n may be a world authority in a narrow field, his technical contributions completely u n d e r s t a n d a b l e to only a few colleagues. Another may specialize in the administration of research, others in the application of science to t h e military art, to education, or t o n a t i o n a l affairs. T h e fact t h a t a m a n is an excellent researcher does not m a k e him c o m p e t e n t to speak with a u t h o r i t y in the broader fields; the converse is likewise t r u e . In t h e last analysis, the w o r t h of science t o the nation will be determined r>y the- sum t o t a l of individual contributions in ail of these areas, and perhaps many m · e. E v e n though t h e i r po ntial contributions may be considérai e, either individually o r collectively, sci ntists cannot expect to b e greeted with bouquets and open a r m s . T h e practical side of our world usually accepts new ideas gingerly, if at all. until t h e y have proved their worth. This applies as well t o individuals. T h e first great step toward acceptance is po:-ession of a common vocabulary, and the second i s a d e m o n s t r a t i o n of competence. Awareness of this w *poIyality T? of science has c o m e upon u s most strongly* since the last war. Coupled with it is a newrealization of t h e lethality of science, which now l a b o r s as diligently to devise m e a n s t o t e r m i n a t e o u r racetime quickly*, as it does to prolong our world as a good place in which m e n niay r live longer. Perhaps this division of function also has V O L U M E
26,
NO.
much to d o with our current uncertainty of t h o u g h t a n d concept. For organized science a p p e a r s to be just as d i v i d e d in its viewpoint a s are t h e individuals who compose it. Disorganisation
of
Scientists
In the past science and scientists have traditionally been concerned with the prosecution of research a n d t h e applications of research results to the progress of national health a n d industry. More recently, they have assisted materially in national defense. R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of some fields of science have also worked assiduously* to enhance and clarify standards of education i n t h e specialistic fields which t h e y r e p r e s e n t . T h e r e h a v e also been some a t t e m p t s t o establish cooperation a m o n g t h e m a n y scientific societies t o work o u t common p o i n t s of •view on occasional i m p o r t a n t problems, usually of a. t e m p o r a r y n a t u r e . In general, however, science has lacked either a focal point for cooperative action, or agreement as t o the common goals toward which it should strive. T h u s , science as a whole h a s lacked a d e q u a t e leadership, is divided within itself, and has not been i n a position to perforin its entire responsibility t o the nation. A s a result, it has failed to exert real national influence in trie a r e a s which concern it most and in which it i s most qualified to speak. It seems reasonable to assume that scientists would welcome a specific opportunity for discussion of this basic problem which faces all science. F o r this reason, four areas in which i t is believed t h a t organized science should assume fundamental n a t i o n a l responsibility are listed below* and discussed briefly. The resolution of a common p o i n t of view and constructive effort in these areas should b e of signal service t o the n a t i o n ' s future. I t is recognized, of course, t h a t there is an immense gap between decision to a s s u m e responsibilities and t h e future actuality. T h e areas of responsibility are:* 1. T h e entire field of education 2. National defense 3. Statecraft, both national and international 4. A t t a c k o n t h e n a t i o n ' s broad economic-geographic p r o b l e m s which result from increase a n d centralization of p o p u l a tion and diminution of easily exploited natural resources. Education M o s t of the current attention g i v e n to education by o r g a n i z e d science is specialistic. I t involves the t r a i n i n g of scientists, t h e accreditation of science d e p a r t m e n t s , t h e establishment of a p p r o v e d curricula, a n d scattered a t t e m p t s to -'seH" popular science to t h e public. M o s t scientists agree t h a t the teaching of science a t b o t h high school arid college levels leaves much t o be desired for all but the potential
50 . . D E C E M B E R
13,
1948
specialist. Adult education is still in i t s infancy. N o considerable body o!" science has devoted i t s b e s t e(Torts to general science education in its broadest sense. Yet this is possible a n d desirable a n d would be of benefit t o the entire nation. For, despite t h e fact that p o p u l a r coverage of science in magazines a n d newspapers h a s never been as a d e q u a t e as a t present, science is n o t influencing national t h o u g h t a s it should. N e i t h e r the philosophy underlying scientific thought nor its long-time effect on h u m a n life and progress h a s b e c o m e an integral part of our national thinking. For example, consider some of the s t r a n g e conclusions p r i n t e d about the use of atomic energy or the peculiar political jockeying surrounding attempts t o use some of our v i t a l resources conservatively. So long a s we are a democracy, our ultimate s t r e n g t h will b e dependent on the comprehension of national problems by the average voter. So many of these modern problems spring from or i n v o l v e scientific m a t t e r s t h a t intelligent selection of our proper congressional representatives, who in their turn will be prepared to make sound a n d realistic decisions, can be made only by a thoroughly informed citizenry. I t is u n t h i n k a b l e therefore that we should allow a single potential citizen to g r a d u a t e from our high schools or colleges w i t h o u t some carefully i n tegrated b a c k g r o u n d in the relation between science a n d his f u t u r e as a citizen of t h e United S t a t e s . More particularly, we cannot afford a citizenry which does not possess a basic comprehension of t h e present and future potential of science, both for good a n d for evil. National
Defense
T h e nature of modern warfare now forces science t o play a major role in national defense. T h e weapons a n d devices used b y m o d e r n a r m i e s have been a n d will be perfected through the applications of scientific research a n d development. Hence, t h e military services d e pend on the efforts of scientists, b o t h i n a n d o u t of uniform, t o maintain their technological s t r e n g t h in competition writh potential enemies. During the d e c a d e prior t o World W a r I I restricted research b u d g e t s m a d e it difficult for t h e a r m e d services to maintain an adequate liaison with science. A t the same time, scientists as a whole lacked t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o r the interest which, would have m a d e them cognizant of t h e role science could play i n warfare. Also, t h e technological activities of the a r m e d services were a n d still are hindered b y a n organizational s t r u c t u r e designed for waging war rather t h a n for peacetime prosecution of research a n d development. T h e situation t o d a y is far b e t t e r . Kesearch budgets are large and cont r a c t s with civilian agencies a r e continuing t h e working liaison established with 3681
