EDITOR'S PAGE
Some plain speaking George A. Keyworth II is director of the Office of Science & Technology Policy. Earlier this month he spoke in Washington, D.C.,.at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual colloquium on R&D. The following is a verbatim excerpt from his prepared text. Too many scientists have only one mode of discussing federal funding for science— and that's to predict disaster unless they get more. And like the boy who cried wolf, the scientists often find that their alarms are hardly heard because their arguments for funds during periods of generous growth are hardly distinguishable from their arguments during periods of real constraints. Quite frankly, there are a lot of people in Congress who, observing this kind of behavior, are inclined to view the science community as just additional sets of hands being held out for a share of the federal pie. I don't question the sincerity or even the urgency of the impassioned pleas. Having spent all those years myself in the lab, I know that any good researcher always has more ideas than resources to support them. That's one of the hallmarks of a vital and creative science enterprise. But the community does itself a grave disservice—and at times flirts with provoking harsh rejection—when it communi cates with the public so relentlessly in terms of its need rather than its promise and accomplishments. Why? Because in focusing so strongly on quantity rather than quality, on need rather than accomplishments, the science community often passes up a chance to make real contributions to public debate on priorities—and also makes it much more difficult for people outside the research community to under stand and appreciate the real challenges to our scientific leadership. Please believe me, arguing numbers is a losing proposition in today's climate, and I earnestly urge the science community to recognize that and elevate the tone of the debate. The technical community has an important role to play in decisions to be made in coming years as our society makes the hard adjustments to this new competitive era. It does mean change for all of us. One thing to remember about periods of rapid change—there are no experts, only participants. My own feeling is that the science community can and must be active participants in helping shape our institutions: universities, industry, and government. But the price of credibility is the willingness, at least sometimes, to forgo relentless pleading for narrow interests and offer the kind of perspectives and insights that the community is so capable of producing. Science and technology are at the heart of a world more in flux today than at any time in our experience. They're both the provocateurs for change and the mecha nisms to cope with it and channel it. Yet we scientists too often speak like tacticians rather than like the strategists we can be. We're supposed to be visionary, yet too often we operate with technical or disciplinary blinders on. Nearly 200 years ago Thomas Jefferson wrote that: "I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past." That was wise guidance at the dawn of American history, and it's wiser yet at the dawn of this new age before us. Π
Views expressed on this page are those of the author only and not necessarily those of ACS
April 15, 1985 C&EN
5
