progress would be greatly facilitated if much of the good of our present support system can be retained and some specific types of medical action undertaken. Such remedial action was discussed under four headings: The need for a broader measure of institutional support, particularly for the broadly defined educational missions of institutions; The belief that having secured institutional stability, then the consequent freeing up of mission-oriented agencies would permit them to address themselves to their mission more productively; The essential need for a more adequate information system that could provide "analyses and arrays of information specifically relevant to broad sets of problems from an overall point of view." I might add: To satisfy this need it was proposed that a limited number of cognizant agencies be designated presumably by executive order. The need for some central mechanism high in the executive branch which would utilize such organized information collated so as to permit the definition of broad national goals and make "the critical policy and allocation decisions that would influence program development in science and education and in the use of science for other social purposes." It was not envisaged that such a central structure would have operational responsibility for any portion of the program it reviewed and upon which it made judgments affecting the allocation of resources. Such a mixture of policy formulation and program execution was contained in the original National Science Foundation legislation and, I believe, is responsible in no small measure for some of the deficiencies which characterize both the NSF programs and the development of our national science policy. A science policy agency can scarcely have a broad operational program and be free of conflicts of interest. It is my conviction that a science department, regardless of what it contains specifically in the way of operating programs, would have the same deterrent to effective service as a focal point for the evolution of science policy; to the objective consideration of the Nation's science programs; to general acceptance of its leadership role by other elements of the Federal research and development establishments; and to its acceptance by the public and the Congress as an unbiased source of advice on the best manner by which our scientific resources can be utilized to satisfy our public (social) purposes. In such a view, the major thrust of R. & D. would continue to be contained in discrete mission-oriented agencies. This does not imply a view that current arrangements are satisfactory. Our present system would require modification so as to provide for the essential stability of our institutions of higher education, for a more adequate program of graduate education and for an adequate amount of what I would call support for undifferentiated research essential for a broadly enlightened educational process. Particular note should be taken of the lack of use of basic research as a term generally useful in describing academic science. These ends could be achieved by combining some of the programs of the Office of Education that directly support graduate education with comparable programs of the NSF; broadening the responsibility of NSF in the field of graduate education and in the direct support of, and further development of our universities; creating substantial and visible foci of support, again in NSF, for divisions or bureaus addressed to the social and behavioral sciences, to the physical, mathematical, and engineering sciences, and to the nonmedically relevant biological sciences; providing in NSF the means to provide such centralized and nationalized resources essential for complex research of a fundamental nature but not reasonably replicable in multiple university settings. In this view, the National Science Foundation, would emphasize the free exploration of science, with adequate resources, in association with our institutions of higher education; the free pursuit of definable problem areas would be the responsibility of mission-oriented agencies; and the general overview of science, including definition of general objectives and the allocation of resources; the function of a central body without operating responsibility. The case has been made very well for the mission-oriented agency by Glenn Seaborg and does not require further comment here. I would only extend his remarks to make one additional point. A major thrust of the President's Science Adviser was that weaknesses in the science base of the several large mission-oriented agencies could best be overcome by an extension of support of NSF. In my view and that of Dr. Seaborg, each missionoriented agency will require a capability to support a broad base of fundamental science particularly relevant to the long-range objectives of the agencies-a dependency on NSF for this function is most inadvisable. Within such a framework of responsibility, it would be possible to reduce the partial dependence of our universities for their integrity on defense-related support mechanisms, simplify the responsibilities of a number of agencies, viz, Atomic Energy Commission, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National Institutes of Health, for stabilizing educational institutions, more particularly our universities, and permit the latter to pursue their course of essential development unfettered by extraneous responsibility. As an aside, and very pertinent to the present crisis in the delivery of health services, medical education and its related functions would continue in NIH. I do not believe that it is possible to legislate such a situation into being, though I do believe that it is possible to set up, through legislation, a framework within which the essential transfers and adjustments can be achieved. With suitable authority, these might be completed within a 2-year period, but perhaps a more reasonable target would be the completion of the operating framework for a science and education within the time span of the present administration. Finally, it is not possible in a brief discussion such as this to dispose of-for organizational purposes the many central devices for 33-257 0-69- -19 program development now present in the executive establishment, much less in the Congress. In the executive branch, I have in mind the President's Science Advisor and the dependent organizations of the President's Science Advisory Committee, Office of Science and Technology, and Federal Council of Science and Technology as well as the Bureau of the Budget. Surely the latter, that is, BOB, should acquire some science competence in its own right and this could be accomplished in a number of ways. Most certainly the President requires some type of personal advisory structure of high competence for such important areas as science, technology, and related educational enterprises and this might be obtained through a restructuring of OST and PSAC. I doubt that anyone would hold that the combination of OST and FCST as they operate today can subserve the central function described in this presentation. In conclusion then: 1. Some type of central mechanism is required, placed high in the executive branch of Government, nonoperating in character, that would concern itself with the rational evolution of the science and education resources of the Nation and their utilization to satisfy the needs of our society. Such an organization would be concerned with goals, programs, and the comparative assessment of priorities, not with slogans. 2. Such a mechanism is necessary whether or not we develop a department of science, one of science and technology, or one of science, technology, and higher education. Further, such a mechanism would satisfy many of the deficiencies of our programs today which lead many to propose the establishment of such a department. 3. Our complex society will continue to require stability for our institutions of higher education; opportunity to support on a broad base, the exploration of the cutting edge of science through undifferentiated research, the product of individual minds not attuned to immediate relevancy except as a base for a lively educational process; opportunity to apply the broad reaches of research and development in diverse fields of science and technology in a fashion which clearly relates such activities to societal needs, the latter must be grouped in a manner which recognizes and defines our public purposes and permits the evolution of explicit goals in important areas of human aspirations. 4. We have before us the extraordinary need to recreate, but now with limited fiscal resources, a situation where, to an optimal extent, the internal mechanics of science can be retained but modulated in a fashion which produces measurable progress toward practical social objectives on the one hand, and a healthy science and educational base on the other. These are the meaningful short- and long-range goals of science. 5. Given the above, I believe we will have a better public understanding of the importance of science in our complex society, and appreciation of its contributions to our major problem areas, and, consequently, a resurgence of popular support. (Paper presented by Dr. James A. Shannon is as follows:) Reprinted from 21 February 1969, Volume 163, pp. 769-773 SCIENCE Science and Social Purpose James A. Shannon Copyright 1969 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science Science and Social Purpose Proposed fundamental changes in the national science effort are discussed in terms of biomedical research. 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 |