Science

""Science: The Endless Frontier" is a landmark in the history of American science because it launched the National Science Foundation. At FDR's request, Vannevar Bush wrote this report to lay out how science would be funded in the US after WWII. Bush's career - entrepreneur, dean of MIT, president of the Carnegie Institute, and head of the wartime Office of Science Research and Development - afforded him a rare perspective on how things get done in science. So in 1945, he assembled a group of eminent scientific researchers and administrators to lay out his vision for how to keep American science moving forward.<br/><br/>At the core of Bush's philosophy is the idea that basic (as opposed to applied) research is the key to scientific progress. Quotes like "applied research invariably drives out pure" are sprinkled throughout the book. He constantly emphasizes that:<br/><br/>> in order to be fruitful, scientific research must be free — free from the influence of pressure groups, free from the necessity of producing immediate practical results, free from dictation by any central board<br/><br/>There's not a lot of evidence backing up this important claim - it's just taken as a given. And yet, I am not entirely convinced. For one, this is clearly a self-serving argument. As the Committee (full of research scientists) recommends, "unrestricted grants... would be the most valuable and productive form in which Government support could be given." Yes, please! Just put the money in the bag. Thank you kindly sir, now begone! How do I get in on this deal?<br/><br/>Secondly, I don't understand why applied / mission-oriented science should be a less efficient engine for generating significant advances in our scientific understanding. Any big, hairy, audacious goal (like putting a man on the moon or sequencing the human genome) requires inventing solutions to lots of problems and "unknown unknowns" that aren't clear at the beginning of the project. Sarewitz's "Saving Science" influenced my thinking on this question and I have yet to come across a compelling counterargument in support of the primacy of basic research. Bush constantly states how important basic research is as an input to the science -> social utility pipeline, but this is such a complex system that I don't see how he could possibly have any way of testing this assertion.<br/><br/>Finally, another danger of Vannevar's focus on funding "influence-free" basic research is that it distances the scientific community from the general public. If the money is coming from the government with no strings attached, the scientific community has a significantly reduced incentive to communicate with the public - a dynamic discussed at length in Shawn Otto's "The War on Science".<br/><br/>But enough criticism of basic research - there are other elements of Bush's report that warrant some commentary.<br/><br/>The rhetorical framing of the report is notable. As Bush declaims, "scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress." The primacy of national security is an indication that this is technically a military report. The phrase "one essential key" Bush's attempt to build general non-scientist support for his plan. As he repeatedly emphasizes, "science can be effective in the national welfare only as a member of a team." He also gives the politicians some ammunition with some Frederick-Jackson-Turner-esque dreams of the frontier:<br/><br/>> The pioneer spirit is still vigorous within this Nation. Science offers a largely unexplored hinterland for the pioneer who has the tools for his task<br/><br/>The inclusion of "more jobs" is a telltale sign that this report was written in the 40's. Bush states that "clearly, more and better scientific research is one essential to the achievement of our goal of full employment." In fact, it is quite unclear to me that scientific understanding and full employment go in the same direction. In a highly automated, winner-take all digital global economy... not sure that Bush's original employment arguments hold water anymore. But the good news is that the entire section about "how do we store and organize all this data?!" is completely obviated by the Internet, so at least there's that.<br/><br/>Bush most captured my attention when he discussed the importance of training new scientists and nurturing the best minds. He says, "the most important single factor in scientific and technical work is the quality of personnel employed" and he devotes much thought to funding the academic talent and leadership pipeline. I was surprised to learn that National Science Foundation fellowships come along with an obligation to be "enrolled in a National Science Reserve and be liable to call into the service of the Government, in connection with scientific or technical work in time of war or other national emergency." Old Vannevar also won some points by drawing a roadmap for undergrad-driven commercialization of science (which was exactly my experience in bringing SilviaTerra out of a lab at the Yale School of Forestry):<br/><br/>> New types of industrial activity could be aided if students of engineering and science were strongly encouraged at the undergraduate stage to study unsolved technical problems and to invent solutions for them. On graduation those young men who wish to strike out for themselves should have the opportunity to complete their inventions, both theoretically and practically, in an actual enterprise.<br/><br/>Speaking of Yale, I couldn't help but notice that there wasn't a single Yalie on any of the multitude of committees that put together this report. James Conant, president of Harvard and Bush's underling at NRDC, gets plenty of airtime though. There's no denying that the Boston schools (particularly MIT) and places like CalTech got a massive amount of government funding as part of the war while schools like Yale seem to have been largely passed by. I think we're still seeing the consequences of that today. I'm still looking for a good book to read about funding battles between universities today.<br/><br/>Overall, this book gave me a better framework for understanding the structure and funding of modern science. We're now dealing with some of the flaws of Bush's vision - including ossification at the top, a publicly-disconnected scientific establishment, and challenges with commercialization of research. Most troubling is a problem that Bush himself foresaw:<br/><br/>> If the necessity were not clearly demonstrable, several considerations might argue for the undesirability of such Federal support. These center upon the fear that Federal aid might lead to centralized control. It is the firm conviction of the committee that centralized control of research by any small group of persons would be disastrous whether such persons were in government, in industry, or in the universities.<br/><br/>This centralized, self-justifying Government-Science complex is called "The Cathedral" by some on the alt-right (including Moldbug in his "Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations". I'm not sure that they're completely wrong here, and it's a bit unnerving to see that this was one of Bush's concerns as well.<br/><br/>Full review and highlights at <a href="https://books.max-nova.com/endless-frontier/">https://books.max-nova.com/endless-frontier/</a>"

"by fair my favourite author and this is my favourite book "