The Interdependence of Science and Technology engineers of this country are celcbmting the centenary T of the foundingof the American Society of Civil Engineers. Since the civil engineers were the h t group to organize a RE
mf
society, other engineering groups are cooperating in a tion-wide celebration which will be climaxed by two sohd weeks of meetings in Chicago during the first half of September. The title “civil engineers” was adopted in the dim past to indicate engineers who were not engaged in military engineering. Such titles as mechanical, electrical, and sRronautical engineers are comparatively new and came into b e i i as the field of engineering k a m e more spialiaed. In addition to the two weeks’ celebration in Chicago, meetings sponsored by local chapters of the various engineering societiee are being held this year in cities throughout the United States. This is much the eame pattern that was followed by the local sections of the AMERICANCmmcfi %aETY last year during the hciety’s Diamond Jubilee. Vannevar Bush, speaking at a New York City gathering of engineers last month, forecast far-reaching changes in man’s ways of making a living and indicated that many of these changes are imminent. What struck us as particularly signi6cant was the large number of important chemical develop menta that the head of the Carnegie Institution in Washington mentioned in hia addreas. Reporting “an unprecedented rate,” Dr. Bush noted that scientists were at work on ways of farming the em, building new soils, cultivating plants in water, accelerating growth of livestock, and sorting chemicals out of the oeean. In medicine, Dr. Bush predicted that the process of maintaining a normal hormonic balance as a mean%of -p the health of the population generally may be the @eatmedlcal accomplishment of the next deeade. In chemistry, he envisioned ion exchange methods that would make pure water from salt water and d e e t desired chemicals fmm the seas “without h a n d l i the entire mass.)’ In these and other examples cited by Dr. Bush, we 88e the results of research measured against human needs. If we study the case histories of these examples, we find that most, if not all, of the scient& advanoes stem from basic fundamental research. Any one at all familiar with reeeareh mogniaes that fundamental research is the well of knowledge. From it come the elements upon which applied research exists. But the establishment of certain basic scientific principles or facta does not provide man with useful products and services. These are the results of applied research followed by largescale commercial production. Industrial scientists and engineers are members of the team that makes such develop menta possible. Here we see the pattern of seientific progress, the fuudamental scientist, the applied scientist, and the engineer all contributing to make the end results possible. If it is true, as the International Labor 05ice has pointed out recently, that “there is no evidence that basic scientilic and technical knowledge is more advanced in the United States than in
Europe, but such knowledge is more effectivelyutilized arid applied to industrial production,” then we in the United States owe a particularly heavy debt of gratitude to those who have labored in the fields of applied mead, p d u d and market development, and full-scale production. No nation on earth mass-produces as we do. Sometimes our mom practically minded scientists and engineers are inclined to minimize the contributions made by the “long-haid” scientists. Occasionally, the r e m d e r in the fundament.uk thinks of the industrial scientists and engineers as mere producers of “gadgets” or ‘%ardware.” We do ourselves a distinct disservice-whether we are engaged in fundamental reslegrch, applied research, or largwcale pmduction-if we depreciate the d u e of one group 88 against the others. AU are essential and all must contribute in a substantial way if science and technology are to fulfill their obligations to humanity. We believe we have made it abundantly clear that technological p r o m depends to a large extent on the principles and facta disclosed through the pursuit of fundamental waearch; perhaps we have not clearly eatsbliehed the dependence of fundamental researoh on teohnological progress. Fine,ncial support of fundamental m r c h must come from somewhere and much of it bas come from industry or from individuals who have acquired wealth as the result of succ888 in hdustries based on technology. To increase still further our fundamental knowledge, it is usually necessary to employ expensive equipment. E b t e i n needs a little more than a pad and pencil, but even a casual inspection of some of our radiation laboratories will disclose eauipment coating millions and . . millions of dollars. Mom and more of the support for this type of reaearch is coming direct fro? approp&tions by Government. However, such monies can be derived only by taxingthe individual and the corporation. Therefore, the basic support of fun& mental research continues to stem largely from successful aDDfied resesrch which makes wssible l a r-m a l e , low-cost ;Auction. We in the chemical field have been most fortunate in that the AMEMCANCmmcffi SOCIETYand other scientilic and technical groups wrving chemistry and chemical engine* have brought together in intimate contact tha mearchers in both fundamental and applied fields. Perhaps this is one of the very pertinent reseone why Dr. Bush was able to draw so heavily on chemistry for hia illustrations of mearch of a nature beneficial to man. The new opportunities for improving the lot of mankind as envisioned by Dr. Bush will be employed to their fulleet extent only if vereatility, flexibility, and willingnw to pioneer are developed by all who participate in what we call the modern r-mh approach, for the lack of a more delinitive title. Dr. Bush recommended these three attributes to his audienea of engineers. We are con6dent he would mommend them to scientists-all scientists. ~
929
