Science, Politics, and Society Roy O. Greep Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, Volume 18, Number 2, Winter 1975, pp. 211-226 (Article) Published by Johns Hopkins University Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.1975.0016

For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/405497/summary

Access provided at 6 Jan 2020 08:56 GMT from Temple University

SCIENCE, POLITICS, AND SOCIETY* ROY O. GREEPi

It is a distinct honor to have been asked to present this, the Fifth Annual Gregory Pincus Memorial Lecture. It was my privilege for more

than 30 years to have had many professional and social contacts with that great and good man known to his friends as "Goody." Pincus was a

powerful figure in the field of endocrinology and influenced the lives of a great many of his peers and compatriots, including myself. He was a distinguished scientist, a celebrity of pervasive influence, and an astute politician. His qualities of leadership and his courageous and sometimes daring spirit brought him prowess in the affairs of science and of society. What amazed me most about this man was the breadth of his knowledge

in the biomedical sciences, but what I admired most was his sense of

fairness, compassion, and good humor. He was, above all, a humanitarian. The title of this lecture was chosen, in part, because to my

mind it epitomizes the life of Gregory Pincus whose memory we honor. He was a disciple of science, he knew politics, and he was a benefactor of society.

I have another reason for choosing to speak to this topic in which I have an interest but cannot claim any particular expertise. It is that over the past few years revolutionary changes have occurred in the relationship of science to the society in which we live. It is important that we begin to take greater cognizance of these matters and become more

effective in looking after the interests of science in this changing world. The most immediate reason for thinking in these broader terms is that we as scientists are engaged in an enterprise over which we have little control. It is not that we have lost control, for this we never had. Up until the past few years there was no pressing reason for concern. Society took a beneficent attitude toward the science establishment or what I choose

to call the "fifth estate," and seemed quite content to provide through the medium of its political process rather generous support of research. The benefits deriving therefrom were visible in terms of improved living *Fifth Annual Gregory Pincus Memorial Lecture, Worcester Foundation, Worcester,

Mass., November 1973.

!Director, Laboratory of Human Reproduction and Reproductive Biology, Harvard

Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02115.

Perspectives in Biology and Medicine · Winter 1975 | 211

conditions, eradication of many of man's most dreaded diseases, longer life expectancy, and greater understanding of the world in which we live.

That agreeable situation no longer exists, and we now face what is popularly termed a "crisis of confidence in science" and a dismantling of

the scientific establishment. Science is being challenged on both moral and materialistic grounds. Classified research for the development of defense has been barred by the academic community as immoral; the conquest of disease by science has backfired to yield an overgrowth of population that is now posing the greatest threat to human welfare that man has ever faced. Our industrial technology, feeding, as it must, on

science, is seen as the wanton spoiler of our environment. The slogan of

the day is "Science for the People." This is but a part of the current wave of antiintellectualism that arose out of the revolutionary counterculture

movement. The implications of these present trends are of alarming portent for the future of our society and certainly, also, for our way of life as scientists.

Some Specific Condemnations of Science We should be aware of what is being said about the enterprise we regard as a noble and dignified occupation. The condemnations of science are coming both from external critics and from within scientific

circles. First, a comment from philosopher-critic Lewis Mumford [1],

who maintains that, "the belief that science developed solely out of a

pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is at best only a half-truth, and at worst, mere self-flattery or self deception on the part of scientists." I

have an aversion to Mumford's cerebrations, but it must be admitted

that he has a following among the intellectual community. I regard his criticisms as publicity seeking. Being controversial is a sure route to attention by the press, whether gullible or sophisticated. Now, from our

harshest critic, ergo the most quoted, Theodore Roszak, Berkeley

visionary, author and proponent of the counterculture movement [2, 3]. In an interview with Science Roszak [4] states: "I am antiscience in that I want to question the cultural dominance of science. I want to put it in a

somewhat more subordinate place in society, to ground it in a sensible drawing on the occult, mysticism, the Romantic movement." He goes on to say that "science has taken on the character of a nihilistic campaign

against the legitimate mysteries of man and nature." Science journalist Nicholas Wade sums up Roszak's thesis as follows: "Science does not just provide the practical knowledge that underpins our urban-industrial society, it is also the philosophical source of society's trend away from the values of the community and toward those of the organization. Scientists, in failing to exert control over the uses to which their knowledge is 212 I Roy O. Greep · Science, Politics, and Society

put, have grown to resemble a priesthood founded on arcane knowledge, remote from the lay public but subservient to the secular power" [4]. My own summary of Roszak's views is briefer—psychedelic nonsense. Don Price, in his notable book The Scientific Estate, chides science in milder tones, stating that "science has achieved its great power by insisting on defining for itself the problems it proposes to solve and by refusing to take on problems merely because some outside authority considers them important" [5]. Therein, of course, lies the dilemma in which

science finds itself today. Shall it remain free to choose its goals or become a pawn in the service of the politicians? Erwin Chargaff, a prominent biochemist, in a recent article entitled "Bitter Fruits from the Tree of Knowledge: Remarks on the Current Revulsion from Science" [6], takes a cynical view of the role of science in

modern society. He cites the atom bomb and the moon landings as

examples of the debasement of science. He terms the old maxim that "what can be done must be done" the Devil's Doctrine. This, he fears,

makes the fact that something can be done its own justification without regard to conscience or consequences. Two British scientists, Steven and Hilary Rose [7], have questioned the moral and ethical neutrality of science. Holding that scientists are re-

sponsible for the misuse of their findings, they point out that the present

crisis of confidence in science stems from the fact that scientific dis-

coveries of the most innocent and potentially beneficial variety have been put to destructive or antihuman purposes. They note such instances as the perversion of plant hormones for use as herbicides in antiguerrilla warfare and the use of tranquilizing drugs to control social dissent. They also maintain, with more justification than we may like to admit, that most of the research in contemporary society is conceived for specific ends and linked to specific views held by those who provide the support. They decry the fact that the great bulk of the outlay for research and development goes for the support of areas that can be broadly defined as military or economic. They take strong exception to the pronouncement by the czar of British science, Lord Zuckerman, that

the application of the results of scientific inquiry must necessarily be biased by political and administrative conditions. The Roses do not go so

far as to link science with the Mafia, but they certainly have gone to some length to tarnish the image of science as a noble pursuit devoted to humane purposes. J. A. Passmore, quoted in [8], analyzes the revolt against science as one

that "condemns science for making itself the instrument of power, looks

with dismay on the devastation to which science-based technology has

given rise, and rejects a world made gray by standardization." He puts part of the blame on scientists themselves. "They have wrongly supposed —exactly like their critics—that the exercise of the imagination and the Perspectives in Biology and Medicine · Winter 1975 I 213

experimental method are essentially opposed to one another: they have failed to understand that science is the wedding of the two." The upshot of these recent outbursts is that today we find science having to justify its existence to its benefactor, society.

Early Interrelationship of Science and Society Before we delve deeper into these matters, let us look briefly at the interrelationships of science and society from a historical point of view. Scientific investigation as a serious human endeavor had its beginning with the Renaissance. It was in this period that people started putting ideas to experimental test and reasoning inductively, that is, from particulars to general principles. One of the early and most notable examples of this new experimental approach was that of Galileo's famous demonstration at the Leaning Tower of Pisa, that objects of different density fall at an equal rate of acceleration.

In these early days science was not beholden to society but to the church, as was vividly evidenced by the papal trial of Galileo (1564-1692), for his promulgation of the Copernican helocentric con-

cept of the solar system and his own conforming views concerning the movement of the heavenly bodies, all of which were not in accordance with the Scriptures. Galileo, like one of our national figures of modern times, got off with a light sentence due to his great prominence. His offense was punishable by torture and incarceration, but he was put on

probation and required to repeat the penitential psalms once a week for

3 years. One cannot but surmise that it might have been appropriate

had the other case also been required to do some browsing in the Good

Book with special attention to some of the "Thou Shall Nots." With the

gradual erosion of ecclesiastical power and the concurrent rise of political power during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, science shifted more and more to the province of the universities. During this heroic age, English and European scientists contributed enormously to the pool of factual knowledge. These were times when those who entered science did so out of a driving intellectual curiosity. They worked alone and with extreme dedication and self-discipline, as exemplified by the great Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727). These men were not held in great esteem by the laity and were in no way dependent upon or obligated to society. They derived their support often from their own private means or through meager allocations from the parent institution or

as a royal favor, but they were extremely productive.

Science, in those days, held few attractions except for those endowed

with extraordinary intellectual genius. Entering a career in science was about the equivalent of entering a monkhood. It involved an almost total withdrawal from contact with society. The old public image and carica214 I Roy O. Greep · Science, Politics, and Society

ture of a scientist as someone who closed his mind to everything save his own special problem area was not too inaccurate.

Higher Education Begins Its Role in Science The nineteenth century and the westward opening of this country saw

the development of land grant colleges and state universities with open enrollment—a wholly new concept in higher education. Those engaged in science were called upon to teach and provide education for an increasing influx of students with an interest in science. It was not until late in the last century that graduate education, with its emphasis on research, gained a foothold in competition with the traditional classical studies. This break in tradition came about as the result of the establish-

ment of graduate studies at Johns Hopkins University (1876), Clark University (1887), and the University of Chicago (1890). This was done to make our universities more responsive to the needs of society, especially with respect to agriculture and industrial development. Among this new breed of scientists geared to the needs of society, a few, such as Luther Burbank (1849-1926) and George Washington Carver (1864-1943), gained public recognition bordering on hero status. Wars and Science

During the First World War, science played only a minor role and escaped with relatively little blame for the use of phosgene gas, which had been discovered some 100 years previously. Between the two Great Wars, it became popular for university scientists to work often with large contingents of graduate students. The ranks of well-trained scientists swelled enormously, as did scientific knowledge, and all with very little burden or concern to society. Governmental grants were available only for agricultural research, and biomedical research was almost totally dependent on small grants from a single source, the Rockefeller Foundation. Despite these stringencies, the advance of science and the accretion of basic information in these two decades came in unprec-

edented abundance. Chemists, physicists, biologists, and medical scientists probed deeply into their research areas to open what has come to be known as the age of science. From the study of particle physics came

concepts for the splitting of atoms with a release of energy that was predictably of almost unimaginable magnitude. Concepts were also available for the technological development of radar in Britain, and the feasibility of jet propulsion had already been demonstrated at Worcester, Massachusetts, by Goddard. To my knowledge, no scientists in this era prior to World War II felt any particular social responsbility for their discoveries or even for the lack thereof. In like vein, whatever mysteries Perspectives in Biology and Medicine · Winter 1975 | 215

were being pursued behind closed laboratory doors were certainly of no

major concern to the public. If the public had any feeling at all about science, it was as benign benefactor of mankind, solver of problems, and cure-all for human ills. The term "social relevance" had not yet gained currency as far as science was concerned. With the advent of the Second World War, things began to change.

Many German scientists, including not a few Nobel laureates, lent their scientific talents to the purposes of warfare. The British were forced to respond in kind, and the United States soon followed suit. Although it

had long been evident that knowledge meant power in the Baconian sense, it suddenly became evident to the warring parties that scientific knowledge held the key to military power. Victory no longer depended upon direct man-to-man confrontations with spears, swords, rifles, or cannon on some circumscribed battlefield. Rather, the outcome had

come to depend on what was going on behind those closed doors where

scientists were at work. Here at home, scientists of every discipline were mobilized on behalf of the war effort. Crash programs by large multidiscipline teams were assigned specific tasks by the Office of Scientific Research and Development. The same period marked the secret birth of the Manhattan Project. In a shocking turn in the history of military conflict, war in all its horror came home to the noncombatant elements

of society. The mass slaughter of civilians as a strategy in warfare was

demonstrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On an even more horrendous scale, the materials for chemical and bacteriological warfare had been stockpiled and were ready to be unleashed. Considering the devastating effect that a little escaping nerve gas had on sheep grazing over a wide area in Utah in 1971, the release of hundreds of tons of this mate-

rial would surely have been the doomsday for victor and vanquished alike. At the same time, great lifesaving measures such as penicillin and its host of curative antibiotics sprang from the application of science to urgent wartime needs.

Science in Post-World War II Years

Science emerged from the Second World War conflict with something of a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde image. It was recognized that science could be a mighty force for good as well as a monstrous one for evil. This disturbed a few people, but they were mainly the scientists who were conscience-stricken for having participated in the development of certain of the more terrible means of human destruction. Their lone voices

fell on deaf ears and were soon forgotten. By 1947, the prestige of science was so great that the Congress of the

United States established the National Institutes of Health for the con-

216 I Roy O. Greep · Science, Politics, and Society

duct and support of research on various categories of disease and other ailments of mankind. Over the next 20 years financial support was made available in increasing abundance for research and training in universities and independent research institutes across the land. The life sciences, having at last come into their own, were on a heady binge the likes

of which had never before been experienced. It was too good to last, and as every scientist is now painfully aware, it did not! Antiscience Attitudes Take Over

In the mid-sixties the revolt of youth, provoked in part by an unpopular war in Southeast Asia, triggered a social revolution that took on the attributes of antiintellectualism, antiscience, and antiresearch. Mysticism replaced rationalism. The rigid demands of the scientific ways of life seemed not worth the price. There were also other potent reasons for society turning against science. Under the generating pressure of the postwar baby boom and the massive increase in population, a new set of weighty social problems began to emerge, such as air and water pollution, the energy crisis, drug abuse, mounting crime, racial strife, urban blight, and degrading poverty, for which science had no answers and, in fact, little expertise. Moreover, the cure of cancer had not been forthcoming as the public had been led to expect. Heart disease continued unabated. The chronic diseases and the manifold problems of aging

were being largely ignored, as they still are. There is no question that a large segment of society became disenchanted with science and with scientists. What we as scientists overlooked

while we were enjoying the use of public funds for the pursuit of our own interests was the principle of public accountability. We had failed to observe the axiomatic truth of an old adage which states that "he who pays the fiddler calls the tune." It was a rather rude awakening for

science when, in the Johnson administration, both the legislative and executive branches of government concluded that what the country needed was not more new knowledge but application of the existing fruits of science. Our congressmen began taking a closer look at what they were buying, and not surprisingly, the support of basic research began tapering off in favor of research of a more directed nature or

so-called goal-oriented research. Later came the Mansfield amendment, which prohibited all branches of the Department of Defense from sup-

porting basic research. To make matters worse, science lost its friends in

court through the death of Representative John Fogarty and the retirement of Senator Lister Hill. But the worst was yet to come. The fiscal policies of the Nixon administration brought not only additional

budgetary cutbacks and an antagonistic attitude toward support of the

Perspectives in Biology and Medicine · Winter 1975 | 217

scientific community, but pressure for a new troika in research which would bring the government and the universities, plus independent research institutes, into a new partnership with industry. In my view, this new partnership is impractical and unrealistic. Such items as patent

rights, product orientation, freedom to publish, and profit motives on

the part of industry severely limit the possibilities for truly cooperative research efforts with basic science laboratories wherever they may be located.

When science acquired large-scale public funding, it also acquired a political dimension to which it remained insensitive. Little heed was paid

to matters of immediate public concern. Edward David, erstwhile scientific advisor to the president, warned that "society is no longer content to allow scientists to choose projects from a list of societal needs

but will increasingly insist that science do what society demands" [9]. Herbert Simon put it even more bluntly in proclaiming: "To lay claims to the resources of his society, a scientist must produce what the society wants. And what it wants is a little knowledge and a lot of relevance" [10]. Perhaps we should have listened when Ivan Bennett warned as

early as 1966 that "science can no longer hope to exist among other human enterprises without constraint or scrutiny in terms of national goals and isolated from competition for the allocation of funds which are finite" [H].

Science's Problems

The Achilles heel of science is the fact that it is not a self-supporting

enterprise. Scientists are totally dependent on outside support, that is, gifts and grants of other people's money. They face a serious selling problem in that they cannot guarantee results either on a short-term or long-term basis. The results of research are necessarily unpredictable; otherwise it would not be research. Investigators must ask their support-

ers to gamble. The payoffs, when they come, are generally great, but these are few and far between. Nevertheless, for some 20 years following World War II, scientists were extremely successful in selling their wares. That was a seller's market; what we have now is a buyer's market. National shortsightedness has allowed emphasis to be placed on the cost of basic research rather than the financial benefits that have accrued

therefrom. Fudenburg of the University of California has calculated that every dollar invested in fundamental research is continuing to repay $20

to the government through savings from the cost of institutional care and in taxes collected from people now earning who would otherwise be dead or incapacitated by such diseases as polio, tuberculosis, and a host 218 I Roy O. Greep · Science, Politics, and Society

of other serious ailments that have now been brought under control or eradicated [12].

Question has been raised as to whether society is justified in putting constraints on the freedom of scientists to investigate whatever it is that

happens to excite their curiosity. What brings this matter to public attention is the realization and, in fact, the fear that the combined power of science and technology to achieve is getting out of hand. The awesome power of the atom bomb and the capacity of the computer for Big Brotherism are cases in point. The question is not whether what can be

done must be done, but whether what can be done should be done. Society

clearly has the power to declare that some problem areas are out of bounds to scientific investigation. One would like to assume that scientists have the good judgment not to lend their talents to destructive or immoral purposes, but the shameful record of human experimentation by Nazi scientists in the last war is not reassuring. What happened once could happen again. Human nature has not changed, however much we

would like to think that civilization may have progressed beyond such

diabolical brutality. The public is faced with the fact that science and technology now have

capabilities that are on a global scale. Even without the help of science,

man has already turned vast areas that were once verdant fields and forests into irrecoverable wastelands or seas of shifting sand. It is also by

his hand that most of the great inland lakes and streams are dead or dying. That man could, with the help of science and technology, so alter

the ecosystems as to make the earth uninhabitable is beyond question. He could bring death to the oceans, lower the life-supporting oxygen content of the atmosphere, melt the polar ice caps, and change the climatic conditions of the world [13]. He already has the tools to sterilize

the entire human race or consign it to the fate of the dinosaurs. He has the drugs available for altering or controlling human behavior, and genetic engineering looms ominously on the horizon. It is, perhaps, fortunate that there are many mysteries of nature and of the universe which lie beyond the powers of man ever to solve or understand. He

cannot ever fully understand the workings of the human mind with its powers of memory, comprehension, imagination, sleeping, and dreaming; neither can he undo death or reverse the aging process. Nor can he ever hope to build a single living cell with the power to grow and divide. Much less could he hope to make a tree, for, as poet Joyce Kilmer notes, some things must be left only to God. And even that raises still another issue, the existence of the soul, that is not within the power of man to

solve. Speaking of poets, I note Hudson Hoagland recently broke into print on the pages of this journal [14]. It was intriguing to observe that on the matter of the baffling mysteries of the biological rhythms that Perspectives in Biology and Medicine · Winter 1975 [ 21!)

control our lives with such fantastic precision, he, too, was left with the same unknowing alternative. Here are a couple of his lines: For years we had studied the speed with which temperature controls the cell, the

speed of oxygen uptake; CO2 release as well. Many physiological rhythms of insects, fish, and the frog follow this equation beautifully, as if these rates were fixed by God.

Obviously, society will insist that some restrictions be put on scientific endeavors. In fact, this country has already withdrawn support from the

development of supersonic transport and is greatly intensifying the ac-

tivities of all its regulatory bodies. In deciding what research it will or will not support, society will be up against a risk-benefit ratio that may well

be indeterminable in most instances. As long as the power structure of this country rests solely in the hands of politicians, these momentous decisions will continue to be made by politicians acting within the bounds of public opinion. Informed input by the scientific sector may well be the

crucial factor, but until a mechanism has been devised to assure such

input on an official plane, it will continue to be haphazard and of little consequence or totally ignored.

Up until the past few years, society has been content to let basic scientists pursue problems of their own choice with virtually complete freedom to do their thing. That situation, as I have just noted, has undergone change. Society is now specifying what research it chooses to support. On this score, there is a sweeping change in the nature of the problems that are of societal concern. The shift is away from national priorities such as defense, space exploration, and cure or prevention of disease to such domestic problems as pollution, deterioration of the natural environment, delivery of health care, drug abuse, and crime. To think that the great body of natural scientists in this country would be either competent or willing to turn their attention to this set of domestic priorities is sheer folly. Who, then, will do the job? The answer is already

evident from the emphasis being placed on that much toted new partnership of the government and universities with industry. What lies behind this smoke screen is a new partnership between the government and industry. Witness, for instance, the proliferation of commercial firms around the Bethesda area [15] for the purpose of siphoning off research tax dollars in multimillion dollar contracts with fat overhead allowances.

The immediate concern of basic scientists is understanding the phenomena of nature and the universe. Quite obviously, they believe that what they are doing is of importance to mankind or they would not consider the effort worthy of their steel. If they show little concern about application, it is that they are justified in anticipating that application will take care of itself. They consider their part finished when they have 220 I Roy O. Greep · Science, Politics, and Society

brought their findings or concepts to the point of applicability. Technological development is a far more costly enterprise than research and requires an altogether different motivation and mentality. Basic science pinpoints what can be done; technology is concerned with how to do it. The primary consideration in basic science is the validity of the obser-

vation or concepts. This is the standard by which scientists are judged by their peers, and to them that is what counts. By traditional practice scientists have been and will continue to be judged and rewarded by the quality of their work and not by its relevance. What is most disturbing in my view is that the government is now placing emphasis on "directed research" through the mechanism of contracts. Here the government decides what problem areas are most in need of further investigation and solicits the scientific community for proposals. Each such contract has a government project officer who keeps a close eye on what is done and how it is done. Much of the scientific community is so pauperized that its members are already eager to accept funds on these terms. It has been said with unflattering perception that where money beckons, scientists are wont to stray. The real danger in this arrangement is the loss of freedom of investigators to explore an unexpected ramification of their work without first getting permission from Uncle Sam's agent. Here we have the specter of governmental agencies hiring scientists to solve specifically identified problems that are generally of very practical or applied nature. What we are observing is that money for research initialed by the investigator is being diverted to the support of research that is under political control. This may be advantageous on a short-term basis, but in the long run it will dry up the wellsprings of our progress. As a nation, we are already losing our advantage in patent applications, electronics, industrial production, health care delivery, and economic welfare. Howbeit, the sobering fact of the moment is that research money is now flowing in the direction of the contract mechanism where industry has the inside track. What Is the Solution?

It must be clear at this point that the fortunes of science, politics, and

society are inextricably enmeshed and interwoven. The problem is how to bring them together for the common good of all. The matter hinges in large measure on the ability to communicate. AU politicians must master the art of communication in order to succeed. Such an art is not

required for success in science. Science and politics are two different kettles of fish. Politics is that sphere of human activity which deals with

the laws governing the affairs, of man. Science is that sphere of human activity which deals with the laws of nature and the universe. The pri-

mary aim of science is to gain understanding and reveal truth. The Perspectives in Biology and Medicine · Winter 1975 | 221

primary aim of politics is to gain power and wield influence. Science has no place for compromise. Politics seeks compromise. Science thrives on diversity of views. Politics thrives on consensus. In science the test of

validity is verifiable truth. In politics the test of validity is public acceptance. In science order is absolute. In politics order is absent. Science has a mystique which tends to set it apart from society. Politics has an aura which also tends to set it apart from society. Still, science and politics are

products of society, and both are rooted in it. Just as science and politics

are two different kettles of fish, so scientists and politicians are two

different breeds of cats. Objectivity is the hallmark of the scientist. Subjectivity is the hallmark of the politician. The scientist relies on proof, the politician relies on persuasion. Few scientists are willing to become involved with controversial public issues. Politicians are required to do so. Scientists seek the approbation and respect of only their professional peers. Politicians seek acclaim from all segments of society including the rank and file. Scientists rarely enter politics; Representative Mike McCormack is the only person in the entire Ninety-third Congress with a science background. Scientists who do meddle in politics are often accused by their peers of seeking personal aggrandizement. One thing that scientists and politicians have in common is the propensity to be selfserving. If scientists have fallen from public favor, let it be said that the tide of public respect for their political brethren has also reached a new low water mark and left exposed some fairly smelly beachheads. I do not wish to leave the impression that scientists are saints. Outside their laboratories scientists are mortal beings subject to frailties of the human spirit and the sins of the flesh. Some are obnoxiously arrogant, social dullards or given to eccentricities or excesses none of which has any bearing on the quality of their work. On the spectrum of political persuasion, a few are rightists and more are centrists, but the great majority are moderate to extreme liberals. Their names, especially those of the elite, often appear on various espousements of social or political issues. Such tactics may satisfy the conscience, but as a means of influencing the legislative or executive branch of government they are, in my opinion, counterproductive.

It is ironic that for the first time in history we are living in an age of science but with politics as usual. We desperately need to effect some changes whereby the scientific community can participate in the making of decisions that affect science. It is a fact that our entire modern civiliza-

tion is a product of science and technology. This must be preserved and sustained if this nation is to retain its world position. Unfortunately, scientists have no clear knowledge of what their role in the decisionmaking process should be or how to go about implementing it. Even if a workable plan were devised, they would not be likely to agree on its merits. Scientists, as a group, are independent thinkers and highly 222 I Roy O. Greep · Science, Politics, and Society

polarized on virtually every problem involving their own estate. Even

more distressing is the fact that most scientists are passive to, or unaware of, their responsibilities to the society in which they work and derive their subsistence. They remain largely oblivious to the political clout and power role they could command if they were to unite. Arthur Kornberg [16] maintains that the major forces urging support of science during the 20 years of financial downpour which preceded the present drought came from within the Congress and from enlightened citizens such as Mary Lasker. He goes on to mention that the support of science is so vital to the future of America that it must remain the responsibility of

society. Paraphrasing Clemenceau's famous dictum on war, Kornberg

reiterates, as others have, that science is too important a matter to be left to scientists. On the contrary, I would assert that science is too important

a matter not to take full advantage of the input of those who bear the

responsibility for the conduct of scientific research. The reason advice from scientists has come to be distrusted and dis-

counted is that they have too often engaged in special pleading for support of their own particular area of interest. Science needs very badly to get its own house in order. Some writers maintain that scientists must

communicate with the laity and instill an appreciation of the importance of pure research. This is, of course, to be encouraged in every way

possible; but as a solution it is wholly impractical. There is an intelligent laity with which science can communicate and an uneducated laity with

which it cannot. The gulf is too great. The point where pressure needs to be applied is with the few politicians whom society has delegated to make these decisions. They need advice from a politically neutral body with no chestnuts in the fire. On this point Edward E. David, Jr. [17] has given what I think is some very straightforward advice: The proper role for scientific advisors is to provide decision-makers with

evaluated options, with the pros and cons clearly stated. Although expert recommendations are certainly in order, strong advocacy for those recommendations is best left to others. Positions of strong advocacy are necessarily one-sided and do not generate confidence in the balanced judgment of the proponent. . . .

We should retain pluralism in both scientific decision-making and funding, so that entrenched viewpoints or incorrect judgments by a single agency or administrator can be offset by others in a system comparable to the checks and balances of the executive, legislative and judicial systems.

This is an ideal which probably cannot be realized. A poor second choice, but perhaps the only feasible solution, is to let the various scientific societies establish their own competitive petitioning bodies on a dog-eat-dog basis. This will oil the wheels with the loudest squeaks, but that would be better than having the whole scientific caravan grind to a halt. Industry and labor have effective means of looking after their own Perspectives in Biology and Medicine · Winter 1975 | 223

interests, and science must find some means of assuring itself a place at the table when it comes time to cut the federal pie each fiscal year. Some

have advocated that a fixed percentage of the GNP be devoted to research and development. We were spending 3 percent, and this is now down to 2.5 percent. This would have the advantage of putting a floor under the allotment and guaranteeing some continuity of support, but Congress would clearly never establish such a precedent of favored treatment in a democratic society. There can be no question that science needs authoritative representa-

tion in decision making where science is concerned, but I would argue that this is not a task to be turned over entirely to the scientific elite which has come to be equated with the Nobel laureates. Not all of them behave in the same manner, but too many have regarded this notable distinction as conference of omnipotence or license for oracular enunciations on subjects about which they have no special qualifications to speak. Others appear to have mistaken their return from Stockholm as

the Second Coming of Christ. It will be apparent that I do not have a solution to the difficult predicament in which science finds itself. In self-defense, I can only protest that to my knowledge no one has yet come up with an answer despite much serious soul searching by such notables as Harvey Brooks [18] and Don Price [5] of Harvard, Victor Weisskoff [19] of MIT, Arthur Korn-

berg [16] and Carl Djerassi [20] of California, Robert Morison [21] of Cornell, Amitai Etzioni [22], a member of the Committee on Public

Understanding of Science, and Philip Abelson and William Bevan [23], who serve on the editorial staff of Science, the principal publication and forum of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Don Price [24] argues that politicians have not lost faith in the inevita-

ble beneficence of science. Rather, he maintains that science and tech-

nology have acquired a critical mass of politics and that politicians are not likely to give up supporting science. He sees politicians as having too much uncritical faith in the ability of science to produce specific results. He views the present political interference with research as an attempt on the part of Congress to stop scientists from wasting time on esoteric theory and get on with the business of producing practical results. He has an optimistic outlook and avers that the current difficulties between science and politics "are mainly the result of the traditional tendency of politicans to demand too much too soon in return for the support they give, and partly the result of the normal tendency of scientists to try to have their cake and eat it too." Price believes that these frictions will be

reduced by personal understanding on both sides. One of the saving graces in this unhappy situation is that the public and the Congress appear to continue to hold a measure of trust in the truth, and it is the recognized business of science to seek the truth. 224 I Roy O. Greep · Science, Politics, and Society

Several authorities maintain that the present public dissatisfaction is aimed more at scientists than at science, and more at technology than at

pure science. Scientists are faulted for having worked with the military on weapons development, and technology is being blamed for the deterioration of our environment, the depletion of our resources, and the wasting of vast sums of money that the man on the street believes should

be used for the alleviation of many of our most persistent and troublesome social problems.

I feel certain, as do many others, that science will survive the present

crisis but there can be no doubt that, as matters stand now, basic research

is in serious trouble. This conclusion is abundantly reinforced through-

out a recent article on "Problems Facing Biomedical Research" by Laurence Longo [25]. In it he quotes the secretary of HEW in language fitting to the graveside of fundamental research: "We will shift away

from investigator initiated research. ... If you are going to go to the government for these funds you are going to have to accept the fact that government and Congress can direct the way it is going to be spent. . . .

Some scientists would prefer to have money to stumble onto something. Well, that's fine, but we can'tjust stumble onto something all the time, we need focused, directed research." That this negative attitude is by no

means confined to the Washington scene was resoundingly reconfirmed in a recent poll conducted for the National Science Foundation [26]; 2,200 persons representing a cross section of our adult population rated the discovery of "new basic knowledge about men and nature" near the bottom of the list of priorities which they would like to see their tax dollars support. Health care, crime, and pollution control headed the list. All this, ironically, comes at a time when the prospects of giant strides forward in the biological sciences over the next decade are so promising as to be absolutely exhilarating. What the people want is technology, and while they can have science without technology, they cannot have technology without science.

In a more encouraging vein, the current struggle between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government seems almost certain to result in some restoration of the power and prestige of the Congress, which has, traditionally, taken a more generous attitude toward the support of science than has the presidency. Moreover, there are numerous indications that the generating forces that led to the strident social strife in the late sixties have been spent. The Vietnam war is over. Our excessive postwar population growth rate is subsiding. The flight from reason and rationality is waning. No doubt, the period from 1965 to 1975 will be known in history as the decade of dissidence and dissent. With the passing of that ugly period, I anticipate that society's confidence in science will be restored and once again science, politics, and society will live in harmony for the common good of all the people Perspectives in Biology and Medicine · Winter 1975 | 225

of this great nation and the advancement of the hopes and welfare of mankind everywhere. REFERENCES

1.L. Mumford. New Yorker, October 10, 17, 24, and 31, 1970.

2.T. Roszak. The making of a counter culture. New York: Doubleday, 1969. 3. --------- . Where the wasteland ends. New York: Doubleday, 1972. 4.N. Wade. Science, 178:960, 1972.

5.D. K. Price. The scientific estate. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1967.

6.E. Chargaff. Perspect. Biol. Med., 16:486, 1973. 7.S. Rose and H. Rose. Perspect. Biol. Med., 16:605, 1973. 8.Science, 181:327, 1973.

9.E. E. David, Jr. Science, 175:13, 1972.

10.H. A. Simon. Science, 181:613, 1973.

11.I. Bennett. Address given at Conf. Science in the Service of Man, Oklahoma City, October 1966.

12.H. H. Fudenberg. J. Lab. Clin. Med., 79:353, 1972. 13.G. R. Taylor. The doomsday book. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett, 1970. 14.H. Hoagland. Perspect. Biol. Med., 17:142, 1973. 15.Fed. Proc, 32:vi, 1973. 16.A. Kornberg. Science, 180:909, 1973.

17.E. E. David, Jr. Am. Sci., 61:20, 1973. 18.H. Brooks. Science, 174:21, 1971. 19.V. F. Weisskopf. Science, 176:138, 1972. 20.C. Djerassi. Science, 181:115, 1973. 21.R. S. Morison. Science, 178:1045, 1972. 22.A. Etzioni. Science, 177:391, 1972. 23.W. Bevan. Science, 176:990, 1972. 24.D. K. Price. Daedalus, Summer 1974. 25.L. D. Longo. Fed. Proc, 32:2078, 1973. 26.Science, 182:369, 1973.

EPONYMS

When an ailment bears an eponym Other authors tend to step on 'im. I. N. Dubin, M. D.

226 I Roy O. Greep · Science, Politics, and Society