Discussions of contemporary science too often focus on the painful and disruptive effects of a reduction in federal support an inevitable consequence of general constraints on federal expenditures. They are less than helpful in the broad analysis of the general support system itself.

It would be well to acknowledge that there are fundamental imperfections in present federal mechanisms for the support of science, and that the ultimate patrons of science, the public, have not been given an understanding of science that can serve as a base for its continued support and evolution. A simple return to larger funding of research would mitigate some of the immediately urgent problems, but this alone would not adequately serve the long-term needs of science. Here I explore the basis for this conviction, as well as its implications for evolution of science policy.

The urgent tasks that now confront the scientific community, though not simple, are quite clear.

1) The scientific community must adjust itself to less than optimum funding, at least for the present, while retaining the essential strength of the scientific enterprise.

2) It must seek out the imperfections

The author is special advisor to the president of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. This article is adapted from an address presented 27 December 1968 at the Dallas meeting of the AAAS.

James A. Shannon

of the present support systems, and propose modifications that are corrective and, in addition, rationally based and generally applicable to the diverse fields of science.

3) Finally, the scientific community must devise means of fostering a broader understanding of the revolutionary technological forces that can be unleashed by a vigorous science for the betterment of society.

All three of these tasks are feasible, each is urgent, and each will require a high degree of scientific statesmanship.

General Considerations

Science has flourished remarkably in the United States since the end of World War II, largely as the result of intelligent use of the vast sums of public money available for a wide diversity of scientific and technological activities. The government policies which fostered this development emphasized the promise of science for the attainment of major public objectives. These policies were pursued even though only a few of the individuals directly involved in the political process truly understood the difficulties inherent in the problems that scientists were asked to solve, or the character, complexity, and modus operandi of science. Further, as diverse fields of science rapidly evolved under these circumstances, the

scientific community made little attempt to increase public understanding of these characteristics of science, or to establish the necessary coupling between the satisfaction of social needs and aspirations on the one hand and broad support of research on the other.

For a time, science seemed to be isolated from the real world and its problems. The public attitudes which fostered the outpouring of support were a popular expression of faith in the ultimate power of science to benefit mankind. Many scientists, on the other hand, viewed activities in their own fields as a type of pure intellectualism -an expression of what is best in our society, not necessarily connected with public needs and problems or social purposes. Such a view is reasonable for the individual scientist but does not provide an adequate base for broad public support of a more general enterprise.

It is true that much of science was defended before the public by hardheaded and sophisticated administrators. They were convinced that science could, if properly supported, make broad contributions to society, and their plans, approaches, and public attitudes reflected a high degree of realism. These attitudes prevailed in the programs for the exploitation of nuclear energy, in those for the development of new weapons, and, to a large extent, in those aimed at alleviating disease and disability.

The coupling of research with broad social issues was less well articulated in the development of support programs for basic research, or for the "fundamental research" essential in scientifically based missions. This latter type of activity, frequently called "mission-oriented basic or fundamental research," was deemed essential to an agency's mission when this was viewed broadly and with a concern for the future. However, too often the activity was buried within a complex agency budget and not presented as an essential part of a rationally evolving program. The opportunity was missed

to couple fundamental research with applications and developmental activities, particularly as these related to the general social purposes of the agency.

For many areas of science (medicine, perhaps, is an exception), the major impetus for expansion was external to science as such. It was a response to deficiencies in U.S. programs perceived when other nations made striking technological advances that had implications for the defense of this nation, or that generated urgent, but poorly defined, concern for national prestige. An example is the sizable influence that Sputnik I and the subsequent evolution of the Russian space program had on federal spending for research and development. This event did more than change the order of magnitude of U.S. R & D expenditures for defense and space; it had an influence on all areas of R & D. In fact, by precipitating the Office of Education into the mainstream of higher education through enactment of the National Defense Education Act, it may well have changed the course of higher education in this country. In any case, the burgeoning economy of the United States, with its already broad technological base, imposed few serious budgetary restrictions on science-program development during the late 1950's and early 1960's.

This set of circumstances permitted science in the United States to grow more or less in accordance with its own internal logic, being guided more by considerations of excellence, productivity, and freedom of individual effort than by consideration of the extent to which it might satisfy definable social needs. It seems likely that the period 1945-1965, particularly the last decade, will be viewed in retrospect as the time when U.S. science reached the summit of broad uncritical public support-what might be called the "Augustan era" of American science. But this was not a planned "happening"; it was more an accident, or spin-off from an affluent society's making bountiful contributions to science for diverse and often vague purposes. Fortunately, these contributions were, in the main, managed intelligently.

Such a situation, anomalous as it appears, in retrospect, to have been, led to the evolution of programs that were mix of basic, applied, and developmental activities. As the broad program evolved, its continued support and growth depended directly on obvi

ous concurrent benefits as well as on expectations for the future. These benefits were derived largely from the applied and developmental portions of the activity, rather than from the basic science involved. Such practical benefits dominated most presentations of accomplishments in all areas of science. Meanwhile, the public comprehension of research and development was shaped by mass-media information techniques which presented the progress of science as a stochastic series of exciting science spectaculars, without giving any sense of the fabric of scientific continuity and of its underlying warp and woof.

One wonders what the public attitudes toward science would be today if more attention had been devoted, during the past two decades, to education of the public in the internal complexities of science, and in the relationship between scientific discovery and technological advance. One should not lightly dismiss the role that presentation of the adventure of scientific discovery can play in motivating the public to support science. But it is important for scientists to understand that the motivating forces that captured public interest a decade ago have little relevance today. If science is to remain healthy and vigorous and is to continue to advance, a more rational basis for development of the national science effort must be found.

Despite the anomalies, the nation has acquired a broad and vigorous base in most general areas of science. During the present period of fiscal constraints, this base can provide a sound point of departure for the next stage in the exploitation of the nation's intellectual resources in science and technology. In the meantime, we must correct the fundamental weaknesses in the support structure, weaknesess that can place our long-term scientific prospects in jeopardy.

I am firmly convinced that it is possible to improve our present support mechanism for science, and to provide for a more rational distribution of supports without hampering the productive activity now in being. I am also convinced that such action must be accompanied by a coupling of activities aimed at the acquisition of new knowledge and activities aimed at applying that knowledge for the attainment of social objectives.

Because the changes required will involve a sharp departure from the

past, such a development will require very thoughtful planning. Much is at stake, and there is no precedent or established design to guide us.

Before considering how our national science effort can be made more effective, one must clearly understand the distribution and magnitude of our current scientific effort and the critical strengths and deficiencies of present support mechanisms, and have some perception of the social needs that will provide the ultimate gauge of relevance and progress. Such a mix of substantive, policy, and procedural considerations is not amenable to simple treatment-certainly not if one attempts to consider science and its usefulness as a whole. However, it is possible to examine a major segment of science in these terms and later review the results for their relevance to all fields of science. Such considerations could then provide a basis for designing overall national policies.

The discussion of the biomedical sciences which follows is not such a definitive analysis. It is, rather, a series of reflections on some of the more important issues. Furthermore, I have selected the biomedical-science area for comment more because of my acquaintance with that area than because of a judgment on its relative impor

tance.

Biomedical Research-1968

The striking World War II advances in medicine, a progressive public understanding of the socioeconomic burden of chronic illness, and our ignorance in relevant areas of science led to a general acceptance of the view that the ultimate resolution of major disease problems was possible only through research and the acquisition of wholly new knowledge-fundamental as well as applied. These views led to the enactment, during the late 1940's, of the landmark legislation which was the basis for the development of the modern NIH programs for the support of biomedical research. However, during these initial stages of the organic growth of NIH and other federal programs, the complexity of the biomedical problems and the proper scale of an effort that would satisfy the needs were matters not seriously considered or generally discussed.

The longer-term aspects of furthering medical capability were first pre