Page images
PDF
EPUB

for the product (the two reasons obviously are interrelated). Holman, supra note 36, at 156-60 (especially table 14). The preceding study shows that commercialization of a patent, regardless of ownership, is likely to occur only if it is capable of prompt exploitation and does not call for extensive preliminary development. This is one major reason why it seems essential (as is recommended infra) that a government agency take on the job of accomplishing this preparatory work-of readying an invention for commercial exploitation.

41. The Office of Technical Services publishes twice monthly U.S. Government Research Reports. The AEC also disseminates information in its Nuclear Science Abstracts. Private abstracting services are numerous; see, e.g., Excerpto Medico, published by the International Medical Abstracting Service.

42. In cooperation with a small number of universities and research institutes NASA has established centers which have as their function the distribution to industry of information generated by the agency and its contractors. For a good description of one center, see Weimer and Timms, "The [Indiana] Aerospace Applications Center," Business Horizons, Summer 1964, p. 93. Also see note 29, Chapter VI. More generally, Webb, "The Economic Impact of the Space Program," Business Horizons, Spring 1963, p. 5.

43. In 1963 President Kennedy proposed the organization of a Business Extension Service, analogous to the Department of Agriculture's Extension Service. U.S. Code, Congress and Administration News, 88th Cong. 1st Sess. 28, at 41 (1963). As a step towards the better dissemination of technical information it was a commendable proposal. However, the plan engendered opposition from some business interests and the House turned hostile, cutting an initial budget request of $7.4 million to $1 million and making clear that even this might not be renewed. 140 Science 1380 (June 20, 1963). At that point the Service-conceived of as part of a broader Civilian Industrial Technology program-was all but dropped. The 1965 budget spoke only of an enlarged Office of Technical Services (see note 41 supra). In the 1966 budget an even more conservative approach was evident. Additional funds were sought for the National Standard Reference Data System and for a clearinghouse to distribute technical documents resulting from government R&D. Neither proposal was new, and both were to be administered by the long-established National Bureau of Standards. 1966 Budget at 101. Passage in 1965 of the State Technical Services Act, in an effort to encourage the states to develop programs for the diffusion of science and technology, was an encouraging step. Its impact cannot yet be assessed but the Act reflects the unwillingness of the federal government to become actively involved in the dissemination of technical information to industry.

44. Development of Inventions Act, 11 & 12 Geo. 6, c. 60 (1948). The Corporation was formed on June 29, 1949 was a government grant of £5 million. In the words of the Economist its purpose was "to smooth the frequently difficult transition from laboratory to commercial development for inventions which happen to be made outside industry. and can gain no support from private business." 193 Economist 1186 (1959). Unlike the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which also engages in development work, the Development Corporation has no laboratories of its own.

45. For a review of the products in whose development the Corporation has played a role see 186 Economist 875 (1968), 193 Id. 1186 (1959), and 201 Id. 1231 (1961). Cf. Duckworth, "Government and Industry Research: General Principles, Organization and Terms of Reference,” 178 Statist 887 (1962).

46. When it was set up in 1949 the Corporation was thought likely to generate enough revenue through royalties to cover its outlays. No doubt this was an unduly optimistic assessment. In the year 1959-60 it spent an estimated £500,000 and received royalties of £259,000. 201 Economist 1231 (1961). It is thougt, paving part of its way and the government is gaining some return on its outlays. More important than any notion of "profit," however, is the fact that inventions which otherwise would be collecting dust are being put to the good of the society.

47. Perhaps in most cases, it would be preferable to allow an invention to be used by all interested parties without the payment of royalty. This would tend to maximize exploitation and also avoid the passing along of the royalty to others in the form of higher prices. In a given case, however, the imposition of a rovalty might be appropriate. It is contemplated, as an example, that the Super-Sonic Transport (SST) will be developed at a cost well in excess of $1 billion. Of this the Federal Government will contribute at least $750 million, the rest coming from aircraft and engine manufacturers. According to the original plan the government's contribution would be repaid by the airlines through the assessment of a royalty of about 1.5 percent of the revenue from the plane over a 12 year period. N.Y. Times, Aug. 17, 1963, p. 34.

APPENDIX G

SCIENCE AND GOVERNMENT

REMARKS BY WILLIAM D. CAREY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET TO THE SOCIETY FOR SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN SCIENCE WASHINGTON, D.C. SEPTEMBER 7, 1968

It's a pleasure to speak to you briefly and informally about some aspects of the relations of science and Government.

These are days of discontent and social criticism, of rising noise levels and shaken certainties. Any man's opinions ought to be offered with humility and questioned cheerfully. As omniscient as we would have you believe the Bureau of the Budget is, it is possible that we may have made one or two mistakes in the past 47 years.

The business before us is science and where it stands. It is no news that the current battle of the budget has rung alarm bells in the science halls of the Nation. After years of feast, now comes the harbinger of famine, the way I hear it. I suggest that we see the situation in perspective.

One, the budget for science is tight, and by past standards it will not change much in the short run.

Two, the Government is not resigning from the support of research, and Federal funds for science will continue to support the market in about the same proportions as in the recent past.

Three, the current pain in the research community might best be described as a cramp or charley horse in the financial muscle, and the prognosis for recovery is favorable.

Four, when we voice anguish about constraints on science budgets it may be worth noting that the aggregate Federal expenditures for R&D in the decade of the Fifties amounted to about $35 billion, while the total in the Sixties is in the range of $150 billion. This puts austerity in a slightly better light.

Five, the present strain translates into two or three years in a row of failure to provide financing for increments of inflation in the costs of performing research and for increments in the supply of graduate scientists coming on line. The effect is to force dollars for science to stretch farther and to defer the pursuit of some research opportunities.

Having made these points, let me not be misunderstood. I am not placid about the condition of science, particularly academic science. In a civilized society concerned with the best uses of its intellectual and material wealth, the pursuit of knowledge ought to rank high and it should compete on even terms with other public goals and preferences. But this is the heart of the problem: science is not seen as an integrated enterprise, and public investment in R&D is both highly discretionary and dependent on external goals, the chief of which is national security. I am not aware that our society attaches a conscious objective value to science as public enterprise, apart from accepting its utilities to defense, space, nuclear weapons and technology, and medical advances. In short, despite the prodigious scale of our outlays, we have not yet developed a strategy for the uses of science to society. We are basically opportunistic, and when luck turns against us we behave much like a bewildered child whose ball as been taken away. It is also necessary to remember that when the pursuit of science and technology rests largely in the hands of Government, outcomes are inevitably a function of the process of political action. All Government is. And it is neither a stable nor predictable process because it traffics in the volatile preferences and pressures of a pluralistic society. Rationality in our behavior may be gaining, but it still has far to go, and those who pin their hopes for science on Government must be prepared for cold winters as well as warm summers.

It is one thing to argue against cuts in research funding but quite another to think through and formuate strategies and policies that might give science a rational and more secure base in our public values. How can science serve the ends of a free and decent society? What should be its directions, and to what investment alternatives should we address ourselves? So far as I know, there exists no such policy framework around which to crystallize purposeful public goals for science. That is our real trouble.

Looking to the post-Vietnam period and to the highest and best uses of the peace dividend, the question is whether conventional wisdom will govern our actions or whether we will have sufficient spine to think through our social responsibilities and priorities. It is already becoming clear that the peace and growth dividend is accruing callable mortgages from the defense sector, price rises, and workload increases. Time is running, and while we quarrel and demonstrate the crucial questions go begging. A great country with a record of ethical motivations in its public conduct that is almost unbelievable ought to stop shaking its fists and begin using its mind to find a right order of priorities.

And in the area of science, what should the post-Vietnam profile look like? Where can science and technology respond best to the conscience of man? High on my own list would come food and agriculture and aquaculture because a decade or so from now humanity faces the terrible tragedy of famine. My private list of priorities would give high rank to population control research, to R&D in the organization and delivery of health services, to the design and creation of new towns and communities, and to the pursuit of institutional change that can melt divisions in society and foster complementarity of organizational goals. But your list might be very different. I have suggested in another forum that problems of choice for public investment in science and technology ought to start from a framework of social values, and that alternatives ought to be tested in that framework to determine their social contribution relative to costs. Despite some rude noises which greeted this rashness, I still stand on this ground. It will not accomplish much to deliver impassioned polemics against moon expeditions or other pet dislikes that pass under the rubric of science because they too have constituencies and policy antecedents, and they will not give ground to rhetoric. But if rational analysis can be applied to opportunities for R&D in a value-oriented framework we may at least influence future choices. And if reason should not finally prevail, we can say that it had its moment. Perhaps we should also ask whether new institutional arrangements are needed to promote what some call the science of science and what you term "social responsibility in science." If we are to come to look upon science as more than a derivative relation of national defense and oold war strategies— if we are to sense that it is a function of culture and humanism and the political economy-then perhaps institutional changes are needed to focus analysis, criticism, forecasting, evaluation, and planning, together with responsible advocacy, in a style not now observable.

I can think of a variety of directions to take for institutional change, if that is what is needed. One option is to create, in the twilight area between Government and the Universities, an Institute for Science Policy Studies, to be concerned with studies, analyses and demonstrations relating to problems of policy planning, goal selection, criteria for resolving problems of scientific choice, and the relevance of science and technology to the human condition. A second alternative would be to realign administrative machinery by creating a strong Cabinet Department of Science, Technology, and Higher Education, reflecting both the major and pervassive role that science exercises in the Nation's business and the organic linkage between science and graduate education. A third and somewhat appealing step might be to create a Council of Science Advisers modeled on the Council of Economic Advisers, to be concerned with the interactions of science and education, social development, foreign relations, technological change, growth, and human needs.

Such a Council might also be charged with producing an annual report on science and public policy goals with assessments of the balance, relevancy and progress of science, and with evaluations of emerging opportunities for social investment in science and technology. In all these alternatives we would be reaching not for more administrative statuary but for devices to apply thought and purpose to science as a social responsibility. So much for institutions.

The relationship of Government and the universities through research agreements is always a proper subject for examination in a free society. Here again, I want to make it clear that my own mind is not fully formed. I begin with the stipulation that in the social sciences the Government is engaged in highrisk research no less than with the more exact sciences. Government finds itself in a lot of trouble as it faces up to "people" problems and it is being forced by social criticism to think up and apply solutions based on very imperfect knowledge of the complex forces that it seeks to influence and change. Government's mistakes and misfirings in the social arena are not forgiven or forgotten nearly as readily as is the case with airplanes that won't fly or with rockets that abort. These are the realities. Now, when a Government agency nervously works itself up to the point of deciding to sponsor social science research, it has understandable impulses to stay out of trouble, sensing that retribution is likely to be swift and possibly disastrous. It is not helpful when academic social scientists lay down ultimatums against any and all conditions in research contracts and grants, any more than Government is justified in inflicting unilateral restraints and obligations in an excess of diligence.

The fact is that Government agencies are accountable and they cannot divest themselves of responsibility for what is done with research funds. I do not think this is an excuse for unreasonably limiting the freedom of the academic scientist, but the question ought to be on what is "reasonable." Categorical absolutes and pamphleteering are not very helpful, in my opinion. Government has no conspiratorial strategy to manipulate social science research, and it is prepared to go far toward cutting the strings that materially encroach on responsible academic freedom. What I think Government asks is that academic researchers not pick up their sleds and go home mad, but that they negotiate the areas of difference and tension in the common interests of getting on with the work that we have to do.

On this benign September afternoon the quarrels and divisions that have overtaken us seem a little remote and unreal, even though we know better. At times like this we look for meanings to give us courage and faith in our capacities to right what has gone wrong. Perhaps the qualities that can do that are compassion and honesty. I think, at such times, of Lincoln's letter to Hooker giving him the military command, and if I still have a few minutes I'd like to share it with you. He wrote as follows:

"To Major General Hooker:

"General:

"I have placed you at the head of the Army of the Potomac. Of course I have done this upon what appear to me to be sufficient reasons. And yet I think it best for you to know that there are some things in regard to which I am not quite satisfied with you. I believe you to be a brave and skillful soldier, which, of course, I like. I also believe you do not mix politics with your profession, in which you are right. You have confidence in yourself, which is a valuable if not indispensable quality. You are ambitious, which, within reasonable bounds, does good rather than harm. But I think that during General Burnside's command of the Army, you have taken counsel of your ambition, and thwarted him as much as you could, in which you did a great wrong to the country and to a most meritorious and honorable brother officer.

"I have heard, in such a way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the Army and the Government needed a dictator. Of course, it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain successes can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship.

"I much fear that the spirit which you have aided to infuse into the Army, of criticizing their Commander, and withholding confidence from him, will now turn upon you. I shall assist you, as far as I can, to put it down. Neither you, nor Napoleon, if he were alive again, could get any good out of an army while such a spirit prevails in it.

"And now, beware of rashness. Beware of rashness, but with energy, and sleepless vigilance, go forward, and give us victories."

APPENDIX H

RETHINKING OUR SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES

By Dr. Jerome B. Wiesner, Provost, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

An address delivered at the dedication of the Technical Information Center of Celanese Research Company, Summit, New Jersey, September 26, 1968.

I am happy to be able to participate in the dedication of the Celanese Technical Information Center. We are always particularly pleased to celebrate the creation of a new enterprise that is dedicated to the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge. This is not surprising, for there is something very special about classrooms and laboratories: They are the gateways to the future.

The industrial laboratory, the university laboratory, and the government laboratory have each played a vital role in the creation of our American technological society. The interplay between these three has made possible the continuing growth of our industry and our agriculture, improved our health, and insured the security of our nation. Clearly their role will continue to be important in the decades ahead, for never in our nation's entire history have we been confronted with more problems for which new technologies would appear to offer the most promising hope of solution.

An effective technical information center is an essential part of any modern research and development enterprise, for the steady advance of technology is accompanied by a flood of information so great that, unaided, the individual scientist or engineer cannot hope to assimilate all that is relevant to his work. The problem upon which I am going to focus this address, planning in our society, is a closely related information field.

We have many problems in our society-poverty, hunger, deterioration of the cities, pollution of the air and water, threats of war-and for each of these we see possibilities of technological assistance. However, if we pause and ask how well we are doing, how fast we are progressing toward solution of these most difficult problems, or even if we ask how effectively we are using our scientific and technological resources in the search for a solution to these problems, we are not very pleased with the answers. This doesn't mean that one can't find a great deal of exciting research and development, but rather that there are some very serious gaps in the programs.

Some important areas have never been properly managed or supported, particularly in those applied programs directed at finding solutions to our great social problems and in the basic research activities designed to support them. In this category I would include research in the behavioral and social sciences, research related to the environment, and activities related to the urban setting.

A STATE OF DISARRAY

Actually, most fields of R & D are presently in real trouble. It is probably not an overstatement to say that the scientific establishment of the nation is in a state of disarray. In fact, there has been no time in the post-World War II period when the situation looked as bleak, nor have our scientists felt more discouraged. Research budgets at universities and at most national centers are being drastically cut; a substantial number of the Federal fellowships which have played so important a part in the education of new scientists and engineers have been eliminated; and essential research facilities are being deferred.

Actions already taken will weaken the fabric of the American scientific establishment for many years to come. Many scientists fear that our leadership in important areas of basic and applied research is passing to Europe and Japan. Among the fields where this may be happening is high-energy nuclear physics,

« PreviousContinue »