Page images
PDF
EPUB

This raises the old question of bicameralism. It may be that the envisioned public corporation should be organized along dualistic lines, with one branch composed of scientists and the other of public members. Each could then have its own chamber, but both would be convened in joint session for ultimate policy formation. One way to conceive of this would be to follow our traditional constitutional wisdom and put financial controls and ratification powers in the public chamber and reserve the responsibility for initiating projects for the scientific chamber.

2. EDUCATING THE PUBLIC ABOUT SCIENTIFIC ISSUES

This brings us to the necessity to educate the general public about our leading scientific issues. Each sector could serve this need in its own characteristic way. Representatives from the public sector would have to qualify themselves for office in some way and the best way would be for them to stand for election on the basis of general proposals for the development of science, scientists, in qualifying themselves for selection by their peers, would be required to address themselves to more technical problems. Their educational role would be to explain the extended social implications of the scientific matters at issue. Here a useful example is provided by the Pauling-Teller debates of a few years back. Helmut Krauch has shown that, regardless of their substantive merits, these debates brought about a widespread public discussion of complex scientific issues. The foregoing proposal would regularize just such public debates of the basic issues of science policy, conducted regularly by our leading scientists.

3. A BILL OF RIGHTS FOR SCIENCE AND LETTERS

The fear is that in democratizing science we may run the danger of submitting it to the whims of public opinion. There are many who feel this would be far better than leaving it subject to the whims of scientists, but of course, neither is ideal. Science is not the private property of scientists any more than is the economy the private property of businessmen, or the government the private property of the politicians. A characteristic, and quite widespread, corruption occurs when the scientist forgets this. Actually, the scientist is much like the real estate investor who has bought property in the path of an expanding city. When the value of his possession rises he unaccountably begins to talk and act as if he was solely responsible for it doing so. However, the individual scientist is merely the one who happens to be "in possession" at the time the massive institutional, economic and political forces of his day combine to enlarge the realm of science. Perhaps we need a new Henry George to point out that if anybody "owns" science, it is the people, not the scientists.

There must be some way of protecting the integrity of the scientific enterprise from corruption by both scientists and non scientists. Traditionally such aims have been achieved through bills of rights and today, a special bill of rights for science and letters seems indicated. We are concerned here with such matters as academic freedom, the rights of students and teachers, the needs of the Linus Paulings, the Jackson Pollacks, the Thorstern Veblens, and all who aspire to similar status. We are reminded once again that intellectuals are not necessarily those best qualified to understand the true needs of their own enterprise-just as businessmen are not necessarily those best qualified to understand the true needs of the economic order. Yet today's bureaucratic scientist continues to echo the 19th century businessman's individualist ideology. A hundred years ago the laissez-faire ideology probably was adequate for the needs of both scientists and society. Today, however, the arguments by scientists for unhampered science are as irrevelant as are the arguments for free private enterprice by mammoth corporations-as irrelevant as are arguments for an unregulated press by the mass media monopolies. A scientific monopoly already exists. Scientific freedom is largely a myth. Three quarters of R & D grants are for directed research. Already, grave issues concerning intellectual freedom have arisen. Are there some problems the scientists has a right to refuse to work on? Indeed. Branscom has made it clear that even if present trends continue unhampered some kind of bill of rights for science and letters will have to be instituted. The archaic laissez-faire ideology of science and the overweaning hubris of the scientist must somehow be finessed. The most obvious way of doing this is to provide for the constitutionalization of science in a special polity combining principles of both democracy and the rule of law. Within this context the liberties appropriate to intellectual endeavors could find proper expression and preservation.

4. ADJUDICATING CONFLICTS IN SCIENCE POLICY

A bill of rights, as well as many of the foregoing proposals, would necessitate a special court system. Here, as with the already mentioned ombudsman function, it would be necessary to provide for a prosecutory officer, for some way of commanding records by subpoena, and for holding trial-like hearings. It is not possible for the common law side of our existing judicial system to address itself to these novel problems of adjudication. The same argument applies to a future jurisprudence of science and letters that earlier applied to the jurisprudence of administrative law: the common law side of our judiciary is primarly qualified to deal with ordinary legal issues. Cases in administrative law involve such high technical complexity that special administrative courts had to be instituted. Similarly, to constitutionalize the scientific order will also require instituting a special court system.

5. SCIENCE PLANNING

When we speak of policy formation for the scientific endeavor what we are really talking about is planning. It may well be that in the future the essential nature of planning will become subsumed under the planning of science policy. Indeed, any other outcome would be almost inconceivable. No matter what problem we broach-planning for the city of the future, demographic planning, resource conservation and development planning, transportation planning, etc.each must begin from a scientifically solid foundation and all must be integrated into an over-all planning program for the development of the scientific enterprise. This makes it all the more necessary to provide constitutionally for science planning. This intimate relationship between science and planning further underscores the failure of our present Constitution to provide for a planning function. Even if science as such were to present no constitutional issue, planning would do so. Wisdom counsels that both be provided for together.

6. POST-AUDIT

Even if all the above-proposed innovations were to work perfectly, a number of additional problems would still remain. One of these concerns the relationship between the scientific and the military establishments. All the foregoing proposals could be instituted and the present corruptions might remain. This indicates that three additional control devices may be required. One is to provide for a postaudit. This should be thought of in two ways: first, as the General Accounting Office post-audit now operates; that is, a simple technical and financial post-audit to find out how appropriations were spent and whether irregularities occurred. But there must also be a substantive post-audit; a post-audit to inspect the substance of what actually was done in carrying out stated policies. This can be thought of as a retrospective application of planning-programming-budgeting techniques. We need to know whether space program R & D was diverted into electronics R & D with commercial marketing potentials; whether funds for molecular biology were diverted into pharmacological research, etc. However, experience teaches us that while they are necessary, institutionalized post-audit devices are not sufficient because, as with the Army Inspector General and the Federal regulatory agencies, there is the ever present danger that the inspector tends to become a part of the system he inspects. This means that thirdly, something like a permanent British-type Commission of Inquiry is needed. Probably it should be required to report on a regular quadrennial basis, coinciding with the periodicity of the planning process and the electoral campaigns previously described. Such a Commission would be staffed by men of eminence and independence to guarantee the quality of their reports and to avoid the issuance of sham public relations-type reports as are so often produced by our present presidential commissions.

7. SCIENCE AND ECOLOGY

Now let us turn to what might be called the larger ecological aspects of the scientific order. What is this scientific order? What are its boundaries? It is obvious that taken most broadly, its boundaries are coterminus with those of the universe itself. This means there is a sense in which no one nation by itself can truly provide for the constitutionalization of its own science. As an example, suppose America had decided to develop solid state physics and transistor applications so as to maximize their utility to people and the public good and avoid

the dislocations that their too rapid exploitation might bring. Similar questions are actually before us as a culture today concerning the computer and yet there is no way for us to address ourselves to their ecological aspects. It may be that there should be intensive theoretical research on the extended implications of the computer before we start using it to make everything from shoes to teaching machines, flooding the consumer market with hastily conceived first-fruit gadgetry. In Russia, for example, there was insufficient hardware for immediate applications when the computer first appeared. As a result, the Russians were forced, as they had been earlier in the field of rocketry, to address themselves first to the theoretical implications of the computer while they waited for the hardware to become more widely available. It may be that this simple technological scarcity permitted them to take a wiser ecological view of the role of the computer than occurred in this country, where the computer seeped through the technological order as a result of the extension of ballistics control devices to industrial and administrative processes. But the Russian example also makes it clear that no one country, not even a dictatorship can really plan ecologically in the realm of developmental science.

The history of the transistor shows that Japan, or some other country, may come along and flood the world market. Ultimately what is needed is a concerted effort on a world level. It makes little difference what one nation decides to do about the transistor if any other is able to do the contrary. So it is apparent that there is an international, or transnational, aspect to the problem of constitutionalizing science. We already have transnational industrial corporations. Perhaps the scientific order in its constitutional mode must follow the example of the transnational industrial combine. Perhaps both in unison will provide us with avenues leading toward world order. In any case, the problem of world order is here, built into contemporary developmental science, and there's no way to avoid it. We must do as much as we can now on the national level, but we must do it with the recognition that soon these efforts must find world wide integration.

8. SCIENCE AND HIGHER EDUCATION

A serious problem has arisen concerning our universities and the relationships between developmental science and the proper approach to higher education. Revelations about Project Camelot and defense oriented university research programs have made it obvious that developmental science has already distored our educational processes and corrupted the idea of the university. The constitutional approach allows us to correct this by separating the big developmental scientific institutes and laboratories from our universities, placing them instead under a public corporation, as described earlier. Indeed, all our present professional and technical schools should properly be transferred to some such public corporation, freeing the university to safeguard the philosophic needs, the theoretical integrity and the educational proprieties of the pursuit of knowledge without the contamination that political, financial and practical needs now impose.

9. SCIENCE REVIEW JOURNALS

Two things that have corrupt the sciences and the professions, of course, are money and power. Whenever an endeavor becomes extremely powerful or highly profitable, morality is threatened. Following this line of argument, it would appear that the only people capable of maintaining an ethic for a profession are the young-before they have used it to become rich and influential. In this light we might recall a proposition once put forward by Harold Laski. He claimed that the effective regulators of the American judiciary were the law journals. These are research and publication endeavors run by the young before they have made any money practicing law. There may be a nugget of wisdom for us here. Perhaps we can somehow institutionalize the critical and ethical talents of our youth and focus them upon the conduct of the sciences, as is now done for the judiciary by the law journals. Perhaps what we need is a series of piercing science review journals-the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a good example devoted primarily to the social, political and ethical implications of developmental science.

10. SEPARATION OF POWERS

Next, thinking about the larger constitutional implications of science, there may be enduring vitality to the initial idea of our Constitution: its separation of powers/balance of power/checks and balances structure. For example, the

earlier proposal for a bicameral approach to science planning and policy formation immediately raises the question of a separation of powers, checks and balances feature; each house would exercise restraint on the other; concerted would require the cooperation of both. An ombudsman and a new court system were also proposed. These again present opportunities to employ a checks and balances scheme. Obviously, this new constitutionalized scientific order should not slavishly follow the established American constitutional separation of powers mechanism, but certain of its aspects or analogues do seem promising.

11. SUBSIDIARITY

This raises the question of federalism. The general constitutional idea of federalism is "subsidiarity." It means simply preferring the local to the centralized solution of problems. There may be a need in the scientific order for a special version of the subsidiarity principle. Indeed, this might be something that should be considered in the context of the proposed bill of rights for science. The subsidiarity principle dictates that every possible scientific issues be dealt with autonomously, at decentralized levels, rather than being disposed of in centralized institutions. It may well be that one of the chief sources of the evils we now observe in "big science" derives primarily from its centralization. Perhaps something like an "anti-trust” approach to science ought to be provided for. Such a device might be the best way to protect the primacy of local organizational autonomy for our centers of scientific research. Moreover, recall the issue of world order referred to above. Here is another level of potential centralization that in one sense is even more frightening than is centralization on the national level. Perhaps the proper way to resolve this problam on the world scale is also through a federalist, or subsidiarity approach. All nations can set about constitutionalizing their scientific orders to deal with the problems that are appropriately national in scope, but they can do so in such a way that the resulting arrangements can later become a part of a larger world scientific order, whenever that order becomes available.

Perhaps this can be prepared for by developing the Pugwash idea and extending it broadly throughout the arts and sciences. Of course, it may be the Pugwash idea now seems good merely because there isn't anything else available. An extension of the Pugwash approach might be just as full of danger as, let us say, the American Federation of Scientists. The basic defect is that the public, the world public, is not represented at Pugwash. One of the primary goals of the above approach was to incorporate the public-the public order-into the scientific order.

In science, as in economics, laissez-faire was permissible so long as it did not produce results that were harmful to society as a whole. But the atom bomb was to science what an economic depression was to the free market. The implications are clear in both cases. Public controls and regulations are needed. In economics the solution is relatively simple. But in science the scope of its potential ill effects are so extensive that national, and even world, controls are necessary.

33-257-69- -32

APPENDIX J

REMARKS BY DR. GLENN T. SEABORG, CHAIRMAN, U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION AT THE EIGHTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF GRADUATE SCHOOLS IN THE UNITED STATES, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, DECEMBER 4, 1968

THE GOVERNMENT-UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP IN GRADUATE

EDUCATION

It is always easy, I find, to accept speaking engagements a year in advance. I am sure that many of you in the audience are familiar with the pattern. A friend invites you to speak at a meeting. The date is distant, the issues of interest are not really crystallized. You accept, for reasons composed of approximately equal parts of a genuine interest in the subject matter, personal ego, and a pleasant feeling that the moment of truth is so remote that it may never come at all. At some point reality intrudes, usually in the form of a letter from one's host. The cloud that was only as big as a man's hand has grown to alarming proportions.

The original invitation and later the reminder, in the case of my present assignment, came from your president, my long-time friend Gustave Arlt. Professor Arlt advised me that among the matters affecting graduate schools that might be appropriately discussed here were the effect of selective service on graduate enrollments; the effect of federal budget cuts; the student rebellion; and the disadvantaged student in graduate school. Moreover, I had the impression that these were only openers; the challenge was unlimited. As I stand here, a veteran of scores of speaking engagements contracted a year in advance, I can discover no appeal from George Bernard Shaw's verdict: "We learn from experience that men never learn anything from experience."

In self-defense, and in accordance with custom, I have taken refuge in carefully limiting my discussion to those problems about which I fancy I have some knowledge. I am buoyed by the thought that you who occupy the academic shooting galleries know that you have much better first-hand knowledge of this imposing list of problems than I and, that you, in consequence, can readily believe that cowardice plays but a small role in my reticence. Sheer modesty, at least in this instance, is the compelling author of my caution. Furthermore, I note that you have competent speakers addressing themselves to each of these problems as part of your program for today and tomorrow.

It is, of course, a great pleasure to talk to an organization composed of so many former colleagues and long-time acquaintances, including my friend of long standing, your chairman, Dean Joseph L. McCarthy.

I have chosen to center my remarks on the government-university partnership, which I have observed continuously for a quarter-of-a-century as a research professor teaching graduate students, as chancellor of a large university campus, as head of a major government agency sponsoring research, and in many advisory positions related to the policies of this partnership. I will also venture some views on a subject that relates to one aspect of the student rebellion; namely, the primary function of the university-and most specifically the graduate school-in a time of upheaval and of commands that it play new and demanding roles.

I should like to introduce my thoughts on the government-university partnership through a perspective that, while necessarily abbreviated and oversimplified, is persuasive to me in understanding the present and future dynamic condition of graduate study and research.

In the early days of the nation, education beyond the three R's was not a major concern of the people at large. Our ancestors were filling up a big, raw

« PreviousContinue »