science at the crossroads
TRANSCRIPT
EDITOR'S PAGE
Science at the Crossroads "A t home, [U.S.] global leadership in science and technology has not translated into leader-/ % ship in infant health, life expectancy, rates of literacy, equality of opportunity, produc-
JL J L tivity of workers, or efficiency of resource consumption. Neither has it overcome failing education systems, decaying cities, environmental degradation, unaffordable health care, and the largest national debt in history.
"Must science and technology continue to feed the historical cycle of more consumption, more waste, more economic disparity? Or can our research lead us out of that cycle, and create a new trajectory for cultural evolution?"
These thoughts are not those of some antiscience zealot. Rather, they are taken directly from an essay by one of science's most staunch champions—Rep. George E. Brown Jr. (D.-Calif.), chairman of the House Science, Space & Technology Committee, the overseer of many federal civilian research programs.
Brown is not alone is such thinking. Bernadine P. Healy, the director of the National Institutes of Health, is pushing for a strategic plan that spells out how the research priorities of her $10 billion-per-year agency are directly related to human health problems. Walter F. Massey, director of the National Science Foundation, has raised the question of whether the foundation should exert more leadership in applying science to national needs.
In this issue of C&EN (page 7) senior correspondent Wil Lepkowski examines such thinking and initiatives. He explores what they may mean to the practice of science in this country, how the advent of the Clinton Administration will affect them, and the reactions of the basic research community to date.
It is fair to say that such ideas are not yet being warmly embraced by scientists. Many believe them wrongheaded, and very threatening to the basic research establishment. As National Academy of Sciences president Frank Press argues persuasively, "You economically and politically fix what is economically and politically wrong. You don't attack a system [basic research] that has been working right within its context and has shown it can produce scientific wonders." Neglect science, he continues, "and you neglect economic survival."
But, however strong the arguments may be to leave the direction of basic science in the hands of scientists, the scientific community would be well advised to realize that being essentially right is not the end of such matters.
Chemists, especially, should learn from the experience of the chemical industry. Chemical makers were always sound in their argument that the overall benefit-to-risk balance for chemicals is massively positive. But this did not prevent them from getting into endless trouble with the public because of their initial arrogant, slow, and inept response to legitimate concerns about some of their products and operations.
With the people-oriented approach that will apparently pervade the Clinton Administration, the basic research community would be wise to demonstrate concern about the massive social issues facing the U.S. It should also pay serious heed to the problems of its dwindling, if still high, credibility brought on by both its fumbling attempts to tackle fraud within its ranks and its greater use of pork-barrel funding. And it would be well advised to be more rigorous in defining the relationship between its efforts and the economic and social welfare of the nation.
As Lepkowski reports, one observer believes that Rep. Brown's essay is an invitation to scientists to participate in a dialogue. They should not consider it as "an assault on their integrity, their dedication, or their profession." That is good advice.
Michael Heylin Editor
Views expressed on this page are those of the author only and not necessarily those of ACS
DECEMBER 7,1992 C&EN 3