![[back]](../../left.gif){kind=small}
Everyone knows that the scientific community faces financial problems at the present time. If that were its only problem, some form of restructuring and allocation of funds, perhaps along lines well tested in Europe and modified in characteristic American ways, might provide solutions that would lead to stability and balance well into the next century. Unfortunately, the situation is more complex, made so by the fact that the scientific establishment has become the object of controversy from both outside and inside its special domain. The most important aspects of the controversy are of a new kind and direct attention away from matters that are sufficiently urgent to be the focus of a great deal of the community's attention.
The assaults on science from the outside arise from such movements as the ugly form of "political correctness" that has taken root in important portions of our academic community. There are to be found, in addition, certain tendencies toward a home-grown variant of the anti-intellectual Lysenkoism that afflicted science in the Stalinist Soviet Union. So-called fraud cases are being dealt with in new, bureaucratic ways that cut across the traditional methods of arriving at truth in science. From inside the scientific community, meanwhile, there are challenges that go far beyond those that arise from the intense competition for the limited funds that are available to nourish the country's scientific endeavor.
The critical issue of arriving at a balanced approach to funding for science is being subordinated to issues made to seem urgent by unhealthy alliances of scientists and bureaucrats. Science and the integrity of its practitioners are under attack and, increasingly, legislators and bureaucrats shape the decisions that determine which paths scientific research should take. There is, in addition, a sinister tendency, especially in environmental affairs, toward considering the undertaking of expensive projects that are proposed by some scientists to remedy worst-case formulations of problems before the radical and expensive remedies are proven to be needed. They are viewed seriously though they are based on the advice of opportunistic alarmists in science who leap ahead of what is learned from solid research to encourage support for the expensive remedies they perceive to be necessary. The potential for very great damage to science and society is real.
From its very beginnings in classical Greece, science has been the object of controversy. Aristarchus's proposal that the planetary system was solar rather than earth-centered (220-150 B.C.) was thought to be too heretical to be accepted and was buried in the peripheral literature. Albertus Magnus (1206-1280 A.D.) was captivated by Aristotle's scientific writings when he first came across them, but he was also concerned by the latter's statement that an arrow would not fly in a vacuum even if the gods so desired. Aristotle had proposed that the arrow continued to move after it left the bow only because of the development of convective air currents which continued to propel it until they died out. The difficulties encountered by Copernicus and Galileo need not be expanded upon here. The torrent of criticism released by the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution has extended to our own time.
In the past, such controversy has almost always arisen from centers of orthodox power -- often religious in nature -- which feared that their founding doctrines might somehow be at stake even though, as Galileo attempted in vain to explain, discovering truth in nature should not be in conflict, but supportive, of the tenets of religion.
There were, of course, additional sources of controversy beyond those which inevitably originate within the scientific community on a purely professional basis and relate to the nature of the supporting scientific evidence. For example, superstitions and beliefs held by the public at large were often contradicted by new scientific discoveries and generated opposition when the public failed to appreciate the strength of the evidence. At first blush, it seemed foolish to the average person to claim that the solid ground on which we stand is actually moving at hundreds of miles an hour in keeping with the motions of a rotating earth. It requires a degree of adaptation to admit that your ancestors once clambered in trees like monkeys. Indeed, some of the conclusions drawn from relativity and quantum theories, when they were first proposed, seemed to be in conflict with common sense as understood by well-established members of the scientific professions. Even Albert Einstein, a staunch classical determinist, questioned the statistical features of the laws of quantum mechanics.
Today, "outside" criticism originates from very different sources, at least in the developed countries which depend so much upon the advances in science-based technology for the support of their economies, public health and defense. New breeds of protagonists have emerged, indeed some, but by no means all, from within segments of academia. This theme has been expounded in much detail in the book, Higher Superstition, by two scientists, Paul R. Gross and Norman Levitt (Johns Hopkins Press, 1994), who link it, in part, to the movement termed "political correctness" that is found widely in academic circles. It may be true that only a small minority of academics takes seriously the movement and its various biases, such as antagonism to Western culture, the rising sophistication of technology and what it views as the denigration of women in modern society, but the influence the minority exerts in portions of the academic world can be fearsome. The goal of the minority is in part deconstructionist, members perhaps not realizing that if they were to succeed in collapsing the scaffold which supports the scientific endeavor, they would inevitably fall with it.
Perhaps no more understandable are the forms of opposition to supporting some of the most basic aspects of scientific research that emerge from legislators in Congress and other governmental quarters. While some can understandably be laid to economic constraints, it is evident that the source of controversy here often runs much deeper since scientists occasionally are also accused of fraud.
Let us start with the first of the two new types of controversy.
The controversy originating within the intellectual community has several sources. For example, some individuals, through ignorance, simply do not appreciate the way in which scientific knowledge develops more or less systematically as a result of the rigidly logical interplay of experiment and conjecture. They like to think of its results as "arbitrary." Others fear that the advance of science has consequences that are far more evil than good. Still others dislike the entire development of modern technologically based society and would like to see a reversion to what they regard as simpler and more wholesome times.
Among the most bizarre are those "humanists" and social scientists who claim that modern science is not really tied to the absolutes in nature, but is based on a system of highly arbitrary paradigms devised by a caste of individuals who use them under false colors to live a special life of their own at the expense of society. These agnostics have little if any direct understanding of the rigid code of logic that governs the progress of good science. Nor do they forgo the advantages of science-based technology such as electronic communication systems, jet travel or modern diagnostic and therapeutic medicine in their daily lives. They thrive on self-righteous envy and are sustained in their opinions by what one of my friends terms "a pooling of ignorance." The pity is that individuals having this frame of mind occupy central positions in some areas of scholarship on many campuses and make certain that only those who share their skepticism are allowed to join the parts of the academic structure that they dominate. Unless some radical changes occur in academia, their influence could persist for a long time.
Next in line are the attacks made by individuals such as President Vaclav Havel, the justly admired Czech poet and politician who claims that the net influence of science and the technology derived from it is to generate evils such as fascism and communism with their dictatorial leadership. This, I insist, is pure nonsense. We had vicious dictators and their faithful supporting staffs long before the emergence of science as an instrument of change. Dictatorial leaders such as Mussolini, Stalin and Hitler emerged out of the turmoil of World War I. The poets and composers who wrote the fiery anthems which stirred the minds and hearts of citizenry to such a pitch that they were willing to plunge into that abyss are far more responsible for what followed than are the scientists. World War I was only peripherally a scientific war.
A few particularly sensitive individuals feel that science has done much to harm the human spirit by destroying our self-esteem as a species, falsely based though the charge may be. Originally, mankind was inclined to believe that it existed as a special creation of God or the gods and occupied a central position at the heart of the universe which was, perhaps, designed for our personal benefit. Starting with Copernicus, we have been driven successively off thrones of ever-diminishing grandeur and finally are made to realize that we are perhaps no more than a minor, perhaps transient, actor in a vast cosmos. Moreover, our nearest relatives are not god-like but members of the animal kingdom.
Along with this is, to some, the frightening knowledge that the "solid" matter of which we and our earthly home are made is not so obviously solid and that the universe as a whole is, indeed, a very complicated and mysterious place. Actually, this sense of awakening is not new to the human family. Some 150 years ago Soren Kierkegaard likened our position as individuals to that of a seaman adrift in a small boat in six fathoms of water. The healthy response for any and all of us is to cling tightly when necessary to our human world and its special values. Ours may be a shadow world in a complex, mainly undecipherable universe, but we do occupy a special niche in it provided by nature, and we do have the means to rise to ever greater heights of understanding while enjoying the company of the best of our human companions.
Perhaps above all, the revelations of science should make it clear to us that from now on the ultimate fate of our species is, to a considerable extent, in our own hands. Whether we climb to ever greater heights of wellbeing and understanding, relapse to a more complete state of barbarism, from which we have only partly emerged, or, indeed, fail to survive will depend very much upon the way in which we use the traces of rationality with which we have been endowed. The continuous pursuit of the form of knowledge gained through science will be an essential factor if we are to advance further.
Prior to World War II, there was indeed much doubt on the part of both private industry and the various levels of government in our country regarding the amount of support science, particularly basic science, should be provided. Some doubt regarding this matter had been overcome as a result of the noteworthy contributions to defense and the civilian economy by American chemists and to a lesser degree physicists, in World War I. As a result, the system of support had become sufficiently generous by 1939 so that most areas of science in the U.S. contained pools or zones where contributions of world-class level were being made. Both the wholehearted dedication of the scientific community to the national effort in World War II and the remarkably effective use of the store of basic scientific knowledge then available convinced our national leaders that the natural sciences not only deserved our support but that the wisdom contained in Vannevar Bush's documentary book Science, The Endless Frontier should be followed. Private industry and foundations, and both federal and state agencies, supported by Congress and legislatures, created the most remarkably productive system for advancing science that the world had yet seen.
Today the edifice displays serious cracks. The most obvious is related to the decision of the Congress last year to cancel the superconducting supercollider -- a machine designed to peer very deeply into the nature of the matter of which the universe is made. The step was taken and the claim was accepted that science is too expensive. Apart from the fact that the delaying actions taken by Congress in recent years with respect to the machine contributed substantially to so-called cost overruns, one has a right to ask about the nature of the yardstick by which the relative cost is measured. Nuclear and high-energy physics began nearly a century ago with the discovery of natural radioactivity by Becquerel, followed by Ernest Rutherford's demonstration that atomic disintegration was involved. The magnitude of riches and related science that have poured forth from that start are almost without measure. Only individuals who are either motivated by some parochial political peeve, or are completely blind to the way in which science yields its fruits, could regard the cost of the machine and the money to operate it as "excessive."
What one fears most in this situation is that the decision to cancel the collider represents the first step in a sequence of decisions in which badly informed government leaders will attempt to override the views of the most competent basic scientists regarding the best way to conduct their research, as well as the areas in which they should be working. In fact, signs of this trend are already in full view as emphasis is placed on work of immediate short-range value. I can think of no surer road to mediocrity in science in the long run, in spite of the enthusiasm with which some bureaucrats involved in this matter approached their task. Though the rewards have been dramatic, what seems to be completely forgotten is that 30 or 40 years often is needed to devise uses for a basic discovery. Attempting to force the process may, indeed, kill the goose that can lay golden eggs.
Another claim that is frequently made in public circles, often initiated in the halls of Congress but echoed by the media, is that the practice of science is riddled with fraud through cheating in the collection of data and by publishing forged results. This opinion is not merely wrong, it is in complete conflict with the way in which the mills of science grind out their final products when good scientists have a say in the process.
Should fraudulent claims which impinge upon really important areas of science be made, and if the traditionally accepted methods of science are permitted to be effective -- a very important matter -- the fraud will soon be detected. This was true when Trofin Lysenko, with the approval of Stalin, took the position that genetic traits do not follow the rules laid down by Gregor Mendel, Thomas H. Morgan and their successors. Once the dictatorial powers of Stalin were removed and science became free, truth prevailed. Einstein's earnestly professional questioning of the basic tenets of quantum mechanics served ultimately to solidify those tenets.
I believe that the fact that the federal government is currently the principal provider of funds for science could soon become the most prominent source of fraud in science. Government support was highly beneficial as long as the leadership in government, particularly in the executive and legislative branches, did not interfere with the way in which the scientific process normally played itself out. It must be noted with concern, however, that during the present administration, a distinguished scientist, William Happer, on leave from one of our great universities, was discharged from a major agency under highly dubious circumstances. When asked by a committee of the Senate whether he personally believed there was an immediate danger that our planet would be subject to excessive ultraviolet radiation, he responded honestly that he did not believe such a hazard was immediately at hand, but that more funds should be devoted to direct studies of the trends. His answer, given in good faith, was contrary to the views of a highly placed government official (not a practicing scientist) who presumably insisted that he be discharged.
It is equally significant that the scientific apparatus established in the White House to oversee the uses and well-being of science thought it wise to remain silent in the matter. One or two instances of this kind automatically send a signal to the agencies concerning the nature of "results" that are to be expected from investigators. And so a form of Lysenkoism is born. One might have hoped that the private foundations which once regarded the support of natural science as a major part of their mission would serve as a counterbalance. Unfortunately, most of them have either lost interest in the advance of science or become part of the problem by being supportive of such government trends and moving most strangely in lock-step.
The only form of fraud that may possibly "get by" unnoticed in the long run, when the scientific system is allowed to work in an appropriately self-correcting way, is minor cosmetic changes that may be made by a relatively junior scientist to improve the appearance of data and perhaps the conclusions to be drawn from the work. Even then the individual places the fate of his or her career at risk in doing so because another investigator working in the area may discover the fraud and make it commonly known. In any event, actual cases of such forms of fraud are very rare, the number occurring in any given year being negligible compared to the outflow of well-tested results that join the mainstream of scientific work.
If the only source of controversy directed toward the scientific establishment originated from outside, it could be countered, presumably with a notable degree of success, through diligent, concerted action on the part of the scientific community, perhaps working in cooperation with its societies, academies and professional institutes. Unfortunately, the required unity appears to be absent at the moment. Perhaps the needed leadership is lacking. It is not only that the various disciplines vie with one another for scarce funds and are willing to beggar their neighbors, but some scientists have become caught in the coils of what may be called correct sociopolitical thinking and their actions are strongly influenced by it.
The quite understandable interdisciplinary struggle for funds could be contained by the use of some not very radical techniques of apportioning funds, as must be done in many aspects of an economy. However, the intervention of motives governed by sociopolitical goals rather than purely scientific investigative ones greatly complicates the situation. The individuals involved in this practice do not, like Stalin and his cohorts, become involved with the fundamentals of well-established fields, such as genetics, quantum chemistry, relativity theory or plate tectonics where they would meet deeply entrenched obstacles put in place by well-recognized scientists. Instead, they focus on areas of science which are inherently more complex, in which truly acceptable end results can only be achieved over very long periods of time and in which there is a finite chance, usually very difficult to disprove, that the end result would imply that segments of society could face significant hazards in worst-case scenarios. Generally speaking, the steps required to counter the effects that might arise in such extreme situations would demand expensive changes in ongoing practices, coupled with extensive control by government agencies.
The extremists involved in such work insist that radical steps be taken long before there is solid evidence that the worst-case situation actually will occur. Environmental studies involving open-ended research provide ideal areas for action of this kind. Two obvious examples that come to mind concern the possibility of catastrophic global warming as a result of the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, gasoline and gas in whatever form. Another centers on the possible destruction of the ozone layer in the stratosphere which shields us from very harmful bands of ultraviolet radiations produced by the sun through the release of manmade halogen-containing compounds such as freon, an ideal refrigerant that is used widely, and the halons which are very effective in smothering fires.
Actually, there appear to be three types of individuals who become deeply concerned about the possibility of worst-case scenarios in connection with such environmental topics.
First, there are those who are rightfully worried about the burden our species places upon our planet. Their concern is genuine and one must resonate to their worries. One hopes in the case of the two issues that they are less influenced by the media hype which surrounds the topics than by the fact that the average global temperature has remained steady for the past 15 years in spite of the rise in the use of fossil fuels, and the fact that the ozone layer, with significant fluctuations of only moderately well-understood origins, has been constant on average for over 50 years -- since long before the freons or halons were commonly used. In other words, there is no evidence of immediate disaster in either case. (Incidentally, much attention has been focussed on the status of the so-called ozone holes in the Antarctic, an annual phenomenon first observed nearly 40 years ago. Whatever else, the appearance of such holes has a major natural component unrelated to humanly introduced halogen compounds. One should be focussing on research that clarifies the source of the periodic minima in ozone concentration rather than claiming that the sky is about to fall.)
Second, there are those scientists who tend to work, not where some inner drive forces them to, but where the money is -- a not unworthy posture provided scientific integrity is maintained. But maintaining integrity in environmental research requires unusual courage these days since the cash registers controlled by the government and indeed most of the larger private foundations are strongly biased toward a form of political correctness. The discharging of a distinguished scientist from a federal agency tells part of the story.
Finally, there are those who have otherwise good scientific credentials but have become caught up in a special evangelical mission that goes beyond trying to know the answer, either for its own sake or to clarify a complex situation along traditional lines. They would like to have it come out in accordance with their sociopolitical wishes and demand that society follow their cries for action, costly though it may be. They move, at the moment, with the spirit of the times. Nature, however, will follow its own rules, and, in the long run, the truth will out. Unfortunately, much damage to our economy and social structure could occur before that truth is known if we decide to follow them and they are wrong. In parallel is inevitable damage to the reputation of the scientific community as a whole.
What to conclude? The pursuit of science in the U.S. faces great challenges at the present time, challenges that go far beyond the fact that only limited funds are available to fuel a highly effective and well-staffed machine. That such shortages would eventually occur was, of course, predictable decades ago since the rate of growth of the scientific community, as well as the growth of its needs, was larger than the rate of growth of the economy. It was evident that some balance would have to be struck. Under more normal conditions, the means for achieving that balance would be regarded as the most important issue affecting the scientific endeavor at present, a matter worthy of extensive, unbiased congressional hearings.
Unfortunately, the funds issue, which is of vital interest for the well-being of both science and society, has become subordinated to issues that should not arise in an otherwise healthy environment. Not only is the relevance of science and the integrity of its practitioners under attack, but those who provide support question both the cost of research and the traditional and highly successful methods scientists have used to exploit the fields in which they work. In the meantime, scarce funds are diverted to support work of questionable validity and hypothetical urgency. There is the expressed assurance that bureaucrats know best.
Beyond this, and truly sinister, is the trend in some fields, at present most notably those related to environmental affairs, for some scientists to leap well ahead of what is known from solid research and to draw worst-case conclusions that would require truly radical and expensive changes in the way our advanced society uses available money and technology. The changes some of them propose would not only be very costly, absorbing funds that might better be used for more immediately obvious needs, but would impose an expansion of the government's regulatory apparatus, including the bureaucracy, by substantial amounts. Common sense and wise leadership will be needed within both the government and the scientific community if potentially great damage to our economy and social structure is to be averted.
Return
to COSMOS 1995 Table of Contents Return
to COSMOS Journals Return
to COSMOS Home Page