Page images

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.


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.

[blocks in formation]






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

land. Communications were rudimentary. The methods available made the soil a hard taskmaster, and more often than not the livelihood was marginal. All hands were needed in the field and only scant resources were available for education. Public schooling usually lasted only for a brief childhood—and then only if a school was nearby. As the industrial revolution evolved, communications improved, and productivity in the factory and on the farm rose so that more of the young could be spared and supported in the classroom and for a longer time. Moreover, the industrial revolution demanded kills unknown to the field hand. Larger numbers of youngsters received increasing amounts of education.

In assistance to education, the Federal Government played little part until 1862 when the Morrill Act established the Land Grant Colleges. In accordance with the American character, the motivation was practical. The Act, basically a response to the Industrial Revolution, recognized that practical education was important to the national welfare. While the Land Grant Colleges provided an important framework for developing an egalitarian system of higher education, development and support remained almost entirely private, state and local matter for nearly a century.

The striking success of the mobilization of the nation's scientific manpower in World War II provided a turning point. For characteristically practical reasons--primarily the feeling of continuing needs in national defense in a world of alarming new dangers--the American people undertook immediately after the war the support of basic scientific research through several Federal agencies. In the bargain, although without specific provision, graduate teaching in science was supported. The nation backed into the support of education at the highest level.

While the primary initial motivation was the national defense, much more was and has become involved. As a nation we recognize our involvement in a Scientific Revolution. The cycle that emerged first in the Industrial Revolution is now accelerated and well-defined: new knowledge breeds new technology which raises and diversifies productivity which expands affluence; to breed new knowledge it is necessary to finance exploration and education at the most sophisticated levels. It penetrated the national consciousness that knowledge and cultivated brains drive this circular system.

Sputnik drove home another lesson, namely that the production of the most advanced brainpower is a national problem and a Federal responsibility. The result was the National Defense Education Act of 1958, passed under the umbrella of utilitarianism by a Democratic Congress and signed by a Republican President. Although the original act was limited in objectives, it provided the framework for broadening national support to strengthen education at all levels. This has been done through Federal provision made in 1961, 1964, 1965, and in the Higher Education Amendments of 1968. I understand you will observe the 10th anniversary of the NDEA in a symposium here. Although the NDEA cuts of last year were continued in fiscal 1969, I nevertheless believe the bipartisan passage of the 1968 amendments demonstrates a national faith in the importance of Federal aid to higher education even in times of severe budgetary stress.

Parenthetically, the NDEA became law on September 2, 1958, two weeks after I took up my duties as Chancellor of the Berkeley campus of the University of California. One of my early official acts was to appoint a faculty committee to consider the opportunities offered to the University by the Act. From this beginning we developed programs of scholarships, fellowships, language institutes and modern teaching aids that are resources of continuing significance to the Berkeley campus.

But the record of Federal support of graduate study, as well as education at lower levels, does not end with NDEA and the several Federal agencies that support science and engineering. The measures I have cited were taken primarily for what appeared to be utilitarian reasons. Largely neglected in this history of Federal involvement were the arts, the humanities and the social iences. It has been argued with considerable heat-and no little merit—that Federal support has thus unbalanced the educational and intellectual enterprise. For many years I, and many of my colleagues in science, have been arguing the same point. Science alone, although it is rich in humanistic values that are sometimes forgotten, is not enough for men and women in the Scientific Revolution. We need a consciousness of man's rich history and culture. We must produce men and women who can sense and describe through art, music and literature the human experience in an age of science. We must redouble our effort to understand human behavior in all of its manifestations, and to improve our methods of implementing, through knowledge and understanding, man's constructive and peaceful adaptation to changing conditions.

In 1965, finally, we took an important step in providing nourishment for neglected intellectual endeavors, when Congress passed legislation establishing the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities. I had the privilege of serving from 1962 to 1965 on the Commission on the Humanities, whose report played a significant role in establishing the Foundation. This was a very important measure for strengthening the arts and the humanities, and as a scientist I was particularly gratified to take part in it.

The National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities is comprised of a Federal Council on the Arts and Humanities, a National Endowment for the Arts, a National Endowment for the Humanities, and National Councils on the Arts and the Humanities. Its purpose is to help support and encourage literary and scholarly pursuits and creative arts of the highest caliber. In the arts its interests include (but are not limited to) music, dance, drama, architecture, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic and crafts arts, industrial design, fashion design, motion pictures, television, radio, tape recording, and all the other arts related to the preservation, performance, execution and exhibition of these major art forms. In the humanities it is concerned with our knowledge and understanding of literature, language, archaeology, history, and the classics, religion, philosophy, and the preservation of our heritage in all these fields. This is indeed a lot of ground to cover, but the range of interests indicates, I think, the thorough consideration of the complex needs of our creative and intellectual life that has gone into the planning and activities of the Foundation.

It is true that modesty characterizes the initial financing of the Foundation. Yet it should be remembered that the same kind of restraint was practiced in the initial budgeting of the National Science Foundation—the first Federal provision frankly directed at supporting pure science on a broad base. The first budget for the NSF, for the fiscal year 1952, was $3.5 million, while the budget for fiscal 1969 is $435 million. I believe the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, having an initial budget of $10.75 million in fiscal year 1966, also will grow (although perhaps not at the rate that the National Science Foundation grew) and become an increasingly important force in our system of graduate education and scholarship.

Another effort to fill a vacuum in a major area is the support that the National Science Foundation has been authorized to give to the social sciences. The Foundation now has a Division of Social Sciences which sponsors research in anthropology, economics, geography, the history and philosophy of science, political science, sociology, and social psychology. Again, the support is modest, but I believe there is growing understanding that these fields must have stronger support.

My reason for this exposition of facts that are hardly astonishing to you is to lay the groundwork for some generalizations. The first of these is that, in my opinion, the Federal-university partnership in cultivating intellectual resources is a permanent one. I believe this partnership, as well as support in the lower schools, is based on acceptance by the public, the Congress and the Executive Department of government that the young are a national resource; and that the development of that resource through education to the highest levels can be neglected only at our peril. Whether the quantity and quality of higher education in both private and state-supported institutions is adequate or inadequate depends primarily upon the Federal Government.

My second generalization is that the framework for adequate Federal participation, broadly, in educational support is now largely available. If the support is uneven and in places inadequate, we can take heart from the fact that most of the machinery is functioning, the precedents have been established, and past experience suggests growth in the future.

Third, Federal support for education at the college and graduate level is relatively nonpolitical. The obvious need, as well as the successful example of support for science, has allayed, if not abolished, old fears of centralist control, and muted sectional problems and religious questions.

Finally, the dynamics of the Scientific Revolution—the cycle of accelerating scientific and technological power, increasing productivity, greater leisure, and the demands for higher skills—seem to me to guarantee not only the permanence but the increase in Federal involvement. To this opinion I would add the view of Alan Pifer, President of the Carnegie Corporation, who early this year stated that he anticipated Federal support might increase until by 1975 government funds will supply at least 50 percent of university budget needs. The Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, as a result of its study to which I shall refer in a moment, believes that the Federal share of the cost of higher education will increase from the present 20–25 percent to about one-third by 1975. While vast support must continue at the local and state levels, the national responsibility is clear and irreversible.

To some extent we can see in a few statistics how levels of education and sophistication are being driven upward at an accelerating pace. Between 1900 and 1960 enrollment for undergraduate students increased 14 times, while graduate enrollment increased 57 times. This growth in graduate enrollment reflects the demand for more highly trained people. During the decade of the 1950's the total labor force increased by 17 percent, while professional and technical workers increased by 43 percent and managers, officials and proprietors by 33 percent.

Not all of you will agree, I am sure, with my optimistic outlook on the Federaluniversity partnership. In particular, there has been considerable gloom over the tapering off of budgets in the sciences at the graduate level. Many valuable programs have suffered from cuts in NDEA funds. The reasons for the slowdown are well-known, but they bear repeating. Since I am most familiar with the financing of science, I will speak of the situation in this area.

Research and development enjoyed a dramatic and uninterrupted rise in Federal financing starting after World War II. At one point it was estimated that if the rate of growth continued, by the year 2000 the budget for research and development would be approximately equal to the gross national product! On these grounds alone an adjustment was inevitable and should not have been cause for surprise. That the adjustment was necessitated by unusual Federal financial problems, rising from Vietnam and domestic difficulties, has served to escalate the problems of the graduate schools. I believe, however, we are warranted in assuming that the present circumstances represent an unavoidable and temporary retrenchment. The present commitment is extensive, and the program generally has remained vigorous.

As Federal support grows the present framework will inevitably need to be broadened. The individual research grant or project, awarded on the merits of the proposal and the competence of the participant, should continue to be the basic form of support. Certain problems have already appeared or can be foreseen in these programs. This year the government, which traditionally has dealt with individual investigators, asked the central administrations of the universities to impose severe cuts on National Science Foundation funds for each campus. This action understandably caught the campuses unprepared, and contingency arrangements must be developed by mutual agreement between the partners to avoid administrative crises, whatever the cause, in the future. Also in the future block grants and unrestricted funds will assume increasing importance, and national fellowships, awarded on a competitive basis, will play an important role. The universities do not have the administrative machinery to handle this and must prepare themselves to cope with the allocation of salary and other operating expenses, equipment, and construction funds under such a regime.

The present Federal support operates in a pluralistic framework with many government agencies involved, and this has many advantages which should be continued. However, it has the disadvantage that comes with the Government appearing to speak, and actually speaking, with more than one voice. This unfavorable aspect and the serious problems caused by sudden reductions in financial support must be overcome by the introduction of more rational apparatus at the Federal level. Also we need to establish a relationship between Federal support for academic science and the emerging Federal role in the overall support of higher education. I expect that increased coordination, through a council or committee mechanism, will be forthcoming soon, followed by the creation of a cabinet level Department of Education.

I believe that in the years ahead ways will be found for stabilizing government financing of the universities to avoid shock treatment, and also to provide for the moderate growth and funds essential for spontaneous creative initiative. A formula for science suggested by Dr. Donald F. Hornig, Science Advisor to the President, would provide a growth rate in research and development of 6 percent per year. plus a “sophistication factor" of 1 to 4 percent to take care of growing complexity of research and equipment. The 6 percent figure is roughly proportionate to the recent rise in the gross national product. The reasoning, and I think it is sound, is based on the nature of our society; since new knowledge and technology are essential to growth of the economy, a regular investment should be made, taling into account knowledge as a growth factor. I am

« PreviousContinue »