« PreviousContinue »
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OVERVIEW-Continued
1970 year 1970 Major performers, by (millions) (millions) Institutions
When benefits realized (estimated
percent) 0 to 5
5 to 15 yrs.
90 Treatment and cure of disease..
40 Improvement of mental health-
sciences. 8 Engineering
10 Better transportation..
R. & D. IN SELECTED
National Institutes of
Health Service and Mental
Consumer Protection and
Office of Education.
Office of Economic Oppor
Housing and Urban Devel
Department of Transporta
Department of Interior.
Department of Agriculture..
Department of Commerce..
Mr. DADDARIO. We hope Mr. Ink, that we might have a chance to discuss these either by your coming back here or informally some time before we close the record and write our report.
Mr. Ink. We would be very happy to do so.
Mr. DADDARIO. We appreciate ever so much your both coming. Thank you. Mr. IxK. Thank you. Mr. Young. Thank you.
Mr. DADDARIO. This committee will adjourn until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock at this same place.
(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned to reconvene the following morning, Thursday, July 24, 1969, in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, at 10 a.m.)
CENTRALIZATION OF FEDERAL SCIENCE ACTIVITIES
THURSDAY, JULY 24, 1969
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND ASTRONAUTICS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT,
Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:05 a.m., in room 2325, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Emilio Q. Daddario (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. DADDARIO. This meeting will come to order.
The witnesses this morning are Mr. Don Price, dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard; Dr. Hunter Dupree, professor of science history, Brown; and Dr. Michael Reagan, professor of political science, the University of California at Riverside.
Gentlemen, this morning, as these hearings continue, I wonder if we might not proceed first with Dr. Dupree, then with Dr. Reagan, and then you can sum up, Mr. Price, and by that time, we will be in a pretty good position to ask some questions.
If you would proceed, please, Dr. Dupree.
STATEMENT OF DR. HUNTER DUPREE, PROFESSOR OF SCIENCE
HISTORY, BROWN UNIVERSITY
Dr. DUPREE. Thank you, Mr. Daddario.
. My position and experience as a historian have brought me repeatedly to consider the problem of central scientific organization in the U.S. Government, but always from a vantage point outside the scientific community. Scientists are to me fellow scholars and fellow faculty members, but the scientific community as it has functioned in the United States over the past 30 years has been for me the subject of historical investigation rather than a group to which I have belonged. My loyalty, therefore, in making this statement must go to an analysis of the scientific community rather than to a defense of it. While I consider that my previous expositions of the history of the relation of science to the Federal Government still have an essential validity and still contribute to explaining the reasons for the diffuse and pluralistic character of the system of science support which has accomplished its brilliant results in the period since World War II, they do not take into account the changed atmosphere surrounding the Government-university partnership since 1964. The problem facing the committee today is not so much a collapse of the partnership at the Government end as it is a collapse at the university end. My experience as a faculty member at the University of California, Berkeley,
until 1968 and also the change of perspective afforded by taking up duties at Brown University for the eventual academic year of 1968 69 has contributed to the emphasis I shall place today on the changed atmosphere at the university end of the partnership as the generator of dislocations in the Government’s machinery for science.
That science has a role in the attainment of national goals in the United States is no recent aberration. Science and nationalism have grown up together over the last two centuries, and the institutions of American democracy, including those responsible for providing national security, have both used science and supported it continuously from the writing of the Constitution to the present. Such a statement will undoubtedly displease two major groups in our society.
One group-the scientific community-likes to think of itself as completely international and removed from any allegiance to goals set externally to themselves. The organs of the community turn out stacks of reports entitled some variant of “Basic Research and National Goals,” but they usually talk about other subjects because they see the connection between science and the Nation state as both recent and ephemeral.
“The idea of governmental support of research is, forgetting the alchemists, not much more than 30 years old." This is from a report entitled "Basic Research and National Goals."
This not untypical ahistorical stance on the part of a scientist is so firmly ingrained that no amount of historical evidence is likely to convince him that science and the Government of the United States are linked in partnership not merely for health of science but for the realization of the essential purposes of American democracy as well.
The other major group which can have no use for the full Government-science partnership in the American Nation is the New Left. They can see no further than the phrase, the military-industrial complex, and they condemn it out of hand. Indeed, their standard of truth as personal authenticity and their insistence on the inhumanity of large organizations generally means that they can condemn any connection between science and Government as tainting a pure activity with complicity in killing. A corollary of their policies would be the dismantling of the partnership of the Government, the universities, and that part of the industrial sector which is most thoroughly based on research. Such a dismemberment appears to them as a very great advance over the present situation and a freeing of science from evil companions. Since the New Left, like the scientists, is ahistorical, the argument that the partnership is built of deep traditions in American democracy seems to them irrelevant.
Recent observers such as Alvin Weinberg have opened a continuing discussion of scientific choice as a necessary prelude to the allocation of scarce resources for research. Weinberg's scientific, technological, and social criteria presumably come into play only when the money gets scarce, which means to him in the decade of the 1960's. Yet no time in American history has the resource allocation for research had an infinite reservoir; scientific choices on scientific, technological, and social criteria were being made long before the vocabulary was invented.