editorially /peaking
Many scientists feel that the Federal government's influence on the structure of science in this country since World War I1 has been beneficial. While that point of view may generally he valid, there are persuasive arguments which sueeest that in some instances Federal assistance has ultimately been detrimental to the well-being of certain aspects of science. For the sake of discussion, consider three areas which more-or-less reflect legitimate professional interests of chemists: basic research;develop&ent research, and science education. I t should he noted, however, that many chemists do not recognize, by necessity or temperament, the distinctions implied by this division. In the mid 1930's there was considerable discussion withim the American scientific community concerning the nature of the relationship that should he established with the Federal government. An earlier effort by the Federal government to encourage the private sector to assume the major responsibility for financing applied research and development was not generally successful. The debate was drawn along classical lines. One group argued that involvement with the government woula endanger existing traditions and lead to compromise and loss of independence for science and scientists. The - -~ onoosine " view held that science and scientists were central to economic and social progress, and that aggressive Federal support of "scientific work" was essential to the nation's future welfare. In 1934, the latter view prevailed within the American Association for the Advancement of Science when that group passed a resolution endorsing Federal supnort for scientific work. A half century later the basic issues before us are still remarkably similar. I t is clear, however, that the American taxpayer's generous support through a fairly complex web of Federal aants. hroucht this countrv's science to a preeminent positiony~he<i&ity of channels available fdr financing science insured that very few good ideas failed to find support somewhere within this structure, even though it could not be descrihed as a coherent national science policy. In the present environment of retrenchment, this free-wheeling approach to the support of science needs careful rethinking. Basic &search and development (applied) research are virtually indistinquishable in the minds of many chemists. Yet, there is a logic to separating them for the purposes of this discussion, i.e., to focus on the kinds of henefits received for effort expended. By its very nature, basic research yields long range benefits, if any at all. I t is risky research, and economists have shown repeatedly that industry does not allocate sufficient resources for basic research even though the results may potentially he of national interest. If we accept the position that current industrial management philosophies in this country emphasize short term evaluation and pay-off, basic research-if it is to he done-will have to he funded by the ~
~.~. ~
~
~
~
Federal government and private philanthropic foundations. The instrumentation required to reach the research frontiers in many areas of science, however, puts such support beyond all hut the largest funding agencies, which in the last analysis is the Federal government. There is logic to the suggestion that the Federal government should he responsible for the longer range aspects of the research in this country and that private industrv should suooort anolied research or develonment. Prior t d ~ o r l ~ d a i i the 1 drhate sector played a suh&ntial role in academic research which addressed fundamental problems as well as in applied research which was often done in private laboratories. The generous Federal supnort of basic research which began during the World War gradually erroded the importance of support from the private sector. The bridges that had been established between academic and industrial laboratories were gradually displaced by walls of mutual ignorance and suspicion. There are numerous indications of attempts a t reconcilliations in this area. Both academia and industry are beginning to see once again the potential for mutual benefits of the old associations. Manv in industry recognize that their future is critically dependeni on more and better science and that various kinds of vartnershim among universities, industry, and the Federal government &e essential to economic growth and an improved international competitive posture. In addition to supporting basic research, there is a clear need for a Federal role in the area of science education. There are, of course, two aspects of science education: the education of future practitioners and the education of citizens. The former usually stresses graduate education while the latter is attempted at the unde&aduate level. The needs, once they are identifwd. for thc educationoff'uturepracticingscientiits are fairly well-defined, and the only questiun of impor!ance in this regard is whether the level of support is sufiicient. On the other-hand, both pre-college science education and college science education for non-practioners is in a critical state, as has been descrihed oreviouslv on this Daee. . " There are hil losophical questions in the areas of scientific literacy and prenrofessional science education that can onlv he addressed from H broad perspective that demands suhs&ntitive support a t the Federal level. In this day of retrenchment of Federal spending, science education may he suffering from the ill will eenerated hv an older svstem which suvvorted too manv pointless and insignificant projects which;ltimately p r o v d intellectually unrewarding. Although there were' some worthwhile ideas supported under the science education rubric, it should he recognized that on the whole the quality of intellectual thought in this area was well below that supported in other science-related programs. Even in the face of such criticism, a strong Federal initiative is the best hope for improvements in the area of . pre-professional education as well . JJL i s for education for science literacy. Volume 59 Number 10 October 1982
807
