EDITORIAL
Support Versus Seduction of Basic Research Talent Confusion between science and technology is distorting public understanding of federal support of research
A
few weeks ago, Dr. Max Tishler, in his Industrial Research Institute Award address, expressed grave concern over the effect of present use of government funds in research in the universities. Dr. Tishler, president of the Merck Sharp & Dohme Research Laboratories division of Merck & Co., and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, was emphatic in stating that much top talent in our universities is being wasted on short-term objectives. He urged that government research and development directed at specific problems be separated from the campus. Unless university research scientists devote more time to teaching future scientists, he said, the wells of discovery will dry up, and "science will no longer be able to grow at the pace the nation expects and needs in an era when the postponement of discovery may mean the twilight of freedom." Dr. Tishler said that during the decade of the fifties only 7 cents of every federal research dollar went into basic research for the purpose of increasing the store of knowledge. Source of his figures was the National Science Foundation. Using the same source, he said that in 1958 American industry also spent 7% of its research budget for basic research. Admitting imperfections in the figures because of the problems of definitions of basic research, he declared the implications were obvious. The American people, says Dr. Tishler, in the belief that they are putting $9 billion a year of their tax money into the support of scientific research, are being misled. This is indeed a matter for serious concern. We find little disagreement with the idea that
since fruits of technology are nourished from the reservoir of new scientific knowledge, it is in the interest of our national welfare to feed that reservoir. The source stream is basic research. Science and technology have achieved great public standing, and now exercise world-wide influence on public views of political power. Space achievements have become the symbol of scientific and technical power. The decision has been made that our Government will spend great sums to make sure that the U.S. does not stand second best. This decision should be supported —under critical observation of the efficacy with which money and energy are spent to achieve that goal. But in the excited atmosphere now existing there is very serious confusion between science and technology. Progress is even being made with a Congressman's proposal to set up a national "science academy" to train scientists and engineers for government positions ( C&EN, June 5, page 40). There might better be more Congressional attention to what part of government research and development funds is actually being spent to support the true purpose of universities. The Government should find ways to get its technological work done without distracting our academic intellectual resources from the pursuit of knowledge.
JUNE
12, 1 9 6 1
C&EN
7
