*ASSOCIATION AFFAIRS

The Advancement of ScienceLeon M. Lederman

L preparing my presidential lecture I couldnot help being aware of the long traditionof the American Association for the Ad-vancement of Science (AAAS) and of theprocession of distinguished scientists whohave bent their efforts to the Associationand to science, the advancement of whichis our goal. A cursory survey of events overthe past 144-odd years is instructive: Wehave witnessed rapid growth, periods ofdecline, remarkable anticipations, and re-curring crises. The fact that there havebeen crises before, even periods of discour-agement and despair, is not cause for philo-sophical detachment. There is, in eachcase, a very different historical context.The Association has lived through a longperiod of slow evolution of science inAmerica but of fantastic growth in ourunderstanding of the physical and biologi-cal universes, most of it within this century.American science exploded after WorldWar II. Many of us "mature" members wereswept up in a period of national scientificflowering, brought about by such factors asthe influx of European refugees and the newcontract between government and scienceas envisioned by science statesmen includ-ing Vannevar Bush, I. I. Rabi, E. 0.Lawrence, Karl Compton, William Gold-en, and many others. A research enterprisetook root in the fertile soil of what becameknown as the research university, in thenew national laboratories, and in the re-search labs of dynamic industrial giants.These institutions often applied new tech-nologies developed in the war and newstyles of collaborative research. Out of thismix of exuberance, optimism, and newlyrecruited talent there poured a torrent ofscience and technology: semiconductors,solid-state electronics, integrated circuits,computers, nuclear power, microwave tele-communications, antibiotics, high strengthalloys, high temperature ceramics, robotics,DNA and genetic engineering, and super-conductivity.

Today, science in America is in a moodof uncertainty and discouragement. I wantto address this particular period-the pres-ent and future and to give you a report ofmy 2 years, one as president-elect and thislast year as president of the AAAS-to tellyou what I have learned and to give you theThe author is with the Enrico Fermi Institute and theDepartment of Physics, the University of Chicago, andis Chairman of the Board of Directors of the AAAS.

dubious benefit of my experience and myadvice.

The End of the Frontier and ItsAftermath

As many of you know, as president-electand with the encouragement and able assis-tance of the AAAS staff (especially RichNicholson and Al Teich) I conducted aninformal survey of research practitioners in50 of the major universities. We selectedphysics, chemistry, and biology (which alsoseemed to gather in representative subjectssuch as astrophysics and biochemistry) asamong the best supported disciplines. Ex-pecting and understanding the traditionallevel of griping, we were overwhelmed bythe degree to which morale had fallenamong the group especially selected to rep-resent the most successful researchers.

What we were trying to do was tomeasure the health of science, and to do itin a quick way, thinking that the resultswould suggest a better way. What happenedchanged our course. The message, althoughanecdotal and unscientific, was so strong asto override the fear that biased samplingand lack of rigor in the survey would distortthe results.

Since that time there have been at leastthree other surveys that were much morerigorous and followed more closely thetechnical requirements of attitude andopinion research. The American PhysicalSociety Survey of Young Investigators, theGallup Poll survey of biomedical research-ers, and a survey by the American Societyof Neurochemistry all more or less concur.So it is now reasonably well established thatmany of the nation's academic researchscientists are increasingly unhappy withtheir professional life and, often amongyounger scientists, with their decision topursue an academic career in science. Thestate of depression in academic science hassince been further intensified by the effectsof the recession and by the fact that ourmajor research universities are all underfinancial stress.On the other hand, congressional staff

members on science-related committees,Washington-wise science administrators,and some science policy analysts tended todisagree, not with the specific issue of un-happiness, but in their assessment of thehealth and vitality of the scientific enter-

SCIENCE * VOL. 256 * 22 MAY 1992

prise and in the wisdom of highlighting theplight of scientists. For example, the Officeof Technology Assessment in a recent re-port states (1, p. 3):

Given the extraordinary strength of the U.S.research system and the character of scientific re-search, there will always be more opportunities thancan be funded, more researchers than can be sus-tained, and more institutions seeking to expandthan the federal government can fund.

Whereas we received some hundred let-ters praising the survey, adding anecdotes,and complaining that we left out geology oranthropology, which are just as badly offand as important as chemistry or physics,there was a fair amount of criticism of thesurvey, to wit:

1) Scientists are always unhappy becausethey are insatiable.

2) Morale of scientists is not a test of thehealth of science.

3) Scientists are whining, self-serving,just another interest group; and they aremuch better off than the homeless!

4)There are too many scientists.5)Yes, there is low morale. It will clearly

influence career decisions of graduate scien-tists and even undergraduates, but the rea-son cannot be the level of research funding,which, as the AAAS report stresses, hasbeen going up. It must be something else.

6)These are hard times, and scientistsshould suffer with the rest of society.

7)The real problem is (these critics willhasten to add): (a) We have to set priori-ties. (b) The entire research function of theuniversity has grown too large and at theexpense of the teaching function. (c) In-creasingly, "research" means marginallyuseful data collection with vast numbers ofarticles never cited in literature. As Stan-ford University's former president DonaldKennedy said, it means "Overproduction ofroutine scholarship." (d) There is plenty ofmoney, but it's all going to big science or tothe National Science Foundation centers orto the Space Station or to Harvard. (e) Inthe present budget climate, it is unrealisticto expect significant new funding. (f) Be-sides, how much science do we need?

Please understand that not all of thesearguments are without merit. Some havevalidity and even cogency if you put themback into the context from which I extract-ed them. Nevertheless, I would not havelisted them if I didn't have very crushing

1119

on March 25, 2020

http://science.sciencem

ag.org/D

ownloaded from

rebuttals to at least some of these andconcems about others.

Rather than answering the critics pointby point or by reviewing (as I have manytimes in my own mind) how my report tothe AAAS Board could have been betterwritten, I would like to present to you myviewpoint on the state of science and foldin my concems-and the results of somepersonal experience-about the intimatelyrelated problems of science education.Then, I would like to propose a plan ofaction, which is what an experimental sci-entist does when it is perceived that some-thing is wrong. Let me clear up one thing:when I say science I will often use the wordin its original connotation of "knowing,"knowledge, wissenschaft, thereby includingengineering research, art history, medievalmusic, in short, scholarship in the mostgeneral meaning of the term: I am includingmore or less everything that goes on in theuniversity.

How Much Science Do We Need?

There is, however, one aspect of the criti-cisms that needs to be addressed, the issueof "How much science do we need?" and"How many scientists do we need?" Onecan answer on many levels, for example,the scientific opportunities that are dis-played so lavishly at the AAAS AnnualMeeting; some of these, invented here, arebeing exploited elsewhere for lack of re-sources. These opportunities are catalogedin everyone's 16 favorite emerging technol-ogies. And we must add progress in plane-tary astronomy and experimental cosmolo-gy, designer molecules, biomimetrics andnanostructures, buckeyballs, molecularmedicine, the search for the top quark, andso much more. These rich opportunitiesmust be exploited, and we are nowhere nearaddressing them adequately. Nor are we, atthe same time, paying adequate attentionto the education of students, both thepotential scientist and the potential sci-ence-literate citizen. Exploiting scientificopportunities and the educational functionare the traditional occupations of academicscientists. And I would be very surprised ifthe work ethic has changed very much:70-hour-weeks are still pretty normal. Ac-ademic scientists can work differently, but,on the whole, they can't work harder, "profscam"9 wisecracks notwithstanding.

But there are new urgencies having to dowith new obligations related to understand-ing and preserving and restoring our dam-aged environment while simultaneously at-tending to the inequity between the indus-trial North and the poor nations of theSouth. It is in the Third World that povertyand a population explosion threatens thestability of any conceivable "new world

1120

order." This is a major concem even ifcompassion and social fairness were notrelevant. This mnust be addressed by raisingthe standard of living of the South withoutfurther burdening the planetary environ-ment, a problem with scientific and tech-nical dimensions beyond what we nowknow.

And is the fundamental understandingof viruses on the molecular level receivingthe attention that the devastation of newdiseases requires? Think about the mac-roengineering problem of repairing theozone layer, should that become urgentlynecessary. Toxic and nuclear wastes, urbanair, and water pollution are socioeconomicproblems that would be enormously helpedby imaginative science and engineeringthought. These are just a few of the newtasks, a complete listing of which can easilybe compared to a wartime crisis-withoutthe immediacy of black headlines and hour-ly CNN coverage.

In view of all this, how could it beclaimed that we have enough scientists andengineers? We surely don't know enoughscience and engineering. And at still an-other level we can compare our sciencewith that of our economic competitors whoare spending more per unit of gross domes-tic product on research and who are train-ing a greater proportion of their workforcein science and technology.

Demographic analyses and the growingdisinterest of Americans in science andengineering, given all their uncertainties,still project large shortages of natural scien-tists, engineers, and technicians withoutincluding the new tasks listed above (3).I've seen similar estimates for the socialsciences and humanities. Can you imaginethe Japanese asking if they are training toomany scientists?On an even deeper level, "How much

science do we need?" is the question ofhowfar are we from what some thinkers believeis a kind of saturation-of having enoughknowledge because knowledge is finite.

After all, the laws of physics, it is ar-gued, have largely been discovered and bythe power of their general applicability weare left with filling in the details. In thelong term, one can debate this point ofview versus the concept of "endless fron-tier." In my own field of research, it is truethat we have achieved a radically new viewof reality in the microworld and in theunderstanding of the creation and evolu-tion of the universe.

Still, what remains to be learned mustsurely dwarf the imagination-or in BentleyGlass's metaphor (4), in the accumulationof human knowledge, we may be like smallchildren on the shores of a vast ocean,throwing pebbles in the waves. just tosuggest who is on my side, it was Einstein

SCIENCE * VOL. 256 * 22 MAY 1992

who said, "The deeper we search the morewe find there is to know, and as long ashuman life exists, I believe it will always beso." Surely in fields where complexity dom-inates-in biology I suspect, in our under-standing of neurophysiology and of anthro-pological and historical knowledge, and inthe study of ourselves-surely these hori-zons must be as boundless as the number ofsonnets and quartets that human genius willcreate.

And finally, some kind of an endlessfrontier is really an essential need of hu-mankind-we need the challenge, we needthe frontiers. The question "How muchscience do we need?" will very likely beretrieved by future historians as an indica-tion of the insecurity and the confusion ofour times.

A Rationale for IncreasedInvestment

Let me state my assumptions:1) There are strong indications that

U.S. research-as carried out in universi-ties but also in U.S. industry-that basicresearch and applied research are in trou-ble. Although we still have a fairly robustenterprise, the trends are largely in thewrong direction. There are so many prob-lems, such as regulatory burdens, animalrights zealots and other anti-rational activ-ists bordering on fundamentalism, overheadproblems, and the new atmosphere of gov-emmental suspicion of both the researchuniversities and the scientist-as-crook. In-evitably this threatens the traditional butfragile relationship of science and the gen-eral public, which has always been com-posed, in equal mixtures, of incomprehen-sion and trust.Comment: As an experimental physicist,

my job is to observe and to measure, and Isuspect that most of science comes underthis rubric, so to put a perspective onscientific malfeasance I learned who invent-ed measures: It was, according to an unim-peachable source, Cain (5)-"This wickedson of Adam and Eve, having killed hisbrother Abel, went on to invent weightsand measures-an innovation whichchanged a world of innocent and noblesimplicity . . . into one forever filled withdishonesty!" In the Biblical tradition, thenotion of measure-science-is inherentlyassociated with sin!

In spite of all the issues I listed, theprimary problem, ifyou ask the scientists, isthat there is not enough funding to milk thescientific opportunities, to keep the postdocand graduate student fed and working, totry new and risky ideas.

2) Investments in research pay off, andwe can duel on this with economists at 30paces, but we can also look around and see

I--------------------------i-----------------

on March 25, 2020

http://science.sciencem

ag.org/D

ownloaded from

how science through technology continuesto provide means for adding to and enhanc-ing our health, our wealth, and our wisdomthrough culture. The payoff can be mea-sured and it is large (6).

3) I am impressed with that school ofeconomists, led by Robert Reich at Har-vard, who stress the importance of invest-ment in human resources and infrastruc-ture-in research capability, in a highlyskilled work force with solid grounding inmathematical basics, science, reading, andcommunication skills. Let me quote fromReich's book (7, p. 8):

As almost every factor of production-money,technology, factories, and equipment-moves ef-fortlessly across borders, the very idea of an Amer-ican economy is becoming meaningless, as are thenotions of an American corporation, Americancapital, American products, and American technol-ogy. A similar transformation is affecting everyother nation, some faster and more profoundly thanothers; witness Europe, hurtling toward economicunion.So who is "us"? The answer lies in the only aspect

of a national economy that is relatively immobileinternationally: the American work force, theAmerican people. The real economic challengefacing the United States in the years ahead-thesame as that facing every other nation-is to in-crease the potential value of what its citizens canadd to the global economy, by enhancing their skillsand capacities and by improving their means oflinking those skills and capacities to the worldmarket.

The Health of Research andEducation

My personal efforts, the campus visits, themany thoughtful letters, and my interactionwith members of Congress increase my con-cem for the health of science. The fiscalyear 1993 budget continues to illustrate thefact that science is "well treated" in thisAdministration at least by its own lights.Academic R&D (nonmilitary) will receivea 5% increase, that is, a 1 to 2% increaseover inflation ($11.5 billion) if Congressgoes along. Other targeted areas of researchwill do better. And there is no doubt thatthis is impressive testimony to the regard inwhich science is held in Washington. Per-haps we can get by with these incrementaladditions, but I am not at all sure. I amafraid that the slide of our science willcontinue and that, at some point, it willbecome nonlinear. The word gets out.Graduate students defect. The best and thebrightest go elsewhere, to Singapore, Ko-rea, or law school. A weaker and lessdynamic science infrastructure becomes in-capable of exciting and recruiting and so itgoes.

What is needed, in my view, is a muchmore dramatic change in the govemment-science relationship, indeed the govem-

ment-university connection that was forgedin the late 1940s and that has sustainedAmerica's leadership for the past 50 years.

It is even easier to apply the sameconclusion to education. One of the bur-dens we have as scientists is the obsessiveneed to ensure a flow of young people intoour field and to see to a general public thatis amenable to arguments about the supportof science and scholarship. But the educa-tion problem is even deeper than that-deeper than the need to have a science-literate work force in order to maintain ourprosperity and standard of living-deeperthan ensuring a supply of scientists. It isreally a question of cementing the nationalcommunity, which, through unequal edu-cational experiences, is in the process ofpartitioning into increasingly antagonisticcommunities. Our nation will not surviveas most of us would want to have it with apermanent and growing underclass. So, inboth education and science, which weavetogether to form the tapestry of our hopes forthe future, we have serious problems.

Federal expenditures for precollege edu-cation represent about 1.5% of the federalbudget and 6% of the total expended bystates and localities. In the pre-Reagan erait had been 10%. In any case it is small, andso we must concentrate on the kinds ofinitiatives that will leverage federal dollarsin the places where they are most needed,in the inner cities and in the poor, ruralareas. Here is a huge pool of untappedtalent for the science-literate work force,the minorities who by any and all demo-graphic projections, will be desperatelyneeded as the proportion of white males inthe work force continues to shrink and asthe foreigners, upon whom we have growndependent, become increasingly unreliableas a source of scientific workers. Competi-tion for their skills is more and more in-tense. The thing about foreigners is thatthey speak languages-whereas Americansabroad hang on desperately to their Englishbut may occasionally attempt some brokenFortran.

It is also here in our cities that the cycleof failure and dropout and poverty andcrime and drugs and teenage pregnancyflourishes, but it is also here that qualityeducation, decent schools, and well-trainedteachers can break that deadly cycle andoffer hope. A key to successful interventionis science teaching: yes, hands-on, activity-based, inquiry-led. These are the buzzwordsand I've personally seen this work in theghetto schools of Chicago. I've seen aprogram that retrains inner-city teachers todeliver math-science curricula. I've seen itwork for first and second graders andthrough sixth grade. It can open the door tothe joy of leaming so that these childrenbegin to flourish in their communication

SCIENCE * VOL. 256 * 22 MAY 1992

skills and, hallelujah, math and science arebeing taught where they never were before.But to deploy these new techniques requiresreal money, perhaps $1 billion for in-ser-vice teacher renewal alone to reach 25cities like Chicago.

If we have the vision to see the impor-tance of this, then we must summon theresources, the investment to deal with it, tothink about the whole problem, from teen-age counseling to prenatal care to a muchmore extensive Head Start to a reform ofthe K-12 system. One very encouragingtrend is the increasing involvement of uni-versities in precollege education. Outreach,the initiatives of scientists, is beginning tohave a real effect, at least in the vicinity ofuniversities that are involved. What rele-vance does all of this have for the researchenterprise we foresee for the future?

Increasingly, research will be transna-tional as huge facilities will be shared andthe national origin of companies becomesless interesting. An increasing number ofnations will enter the R&D community.Here we can include Korea, Singapore,Eastem Europe, and the former SovietUnion as well as Brazil, Mexico, Argenti-na, and other developing nations now en-joying democratic reform but suffering fromtransitional economic problems. Competi-tion for who will have the best educated,best equipped, most acceptable sites for newcommercial activities will increase. Let'snot forget that, while we are intent onbecoming #1 by the year 2000, the present#1's are not standing still, waiting to beovertaken.

The summary here is that in spite ofhundreds of national and state reports andthe commitment of Congress and of thisAdministration, very little has been accom-plished; our report card is still poor. Myconclusion is that the public is still noton-board in this "gulf" war-the gulf be-tween ignorance and education.

Do We Have the Money?

Now what I hear over and over in thescience business is that "in these times ofbudget deficit, there is no way that dramaticchanges in support of science can beachieved." Next to the crack about thehomeless, this is the favorite of the critics.Yet I find this a most curious objection, inview of a $6-trillion gross national product(GNP) and a $1.5-trillion federal budget."You don't understand," I'm told, "thediscretionary part of the budget is only 20%of the total, and the $10-billion researchbudget is a significant part of that." Thelonger you spend in Washington, the moreof these curious arguments youhear.Neetls,ifhrewearalpr-

Nevertheless, if there were a real appre-ciation of the importance of science and

1121

i-R-9 oommum5moRmRammcmoromDMRMRQRREQRQRPRRommmcm5RuRuRuRmcR5cumomomgumgcamRmummoRnRommm

on March 25, 2020

http://science.sciencem

ag.org/D

ownloaded from

scholarship and education, if the presidentand the congressional leaders were reallystirred up-something like to the level of5% of the Persian Gulf frenzy or to the levelof 15% of S&L bailout fervor-then $20billion or $40 billion could be found. Timeand time again we have been shown thatthis nation can afford anything it reallywants to do. As a simple country physicist,I maintain that a doubling of the researchbudget and the education initiative at thelevel of adding $10 billion to $20 billionout of a federal budget of $1.5 trillion or aGNP of $6 trillion is not a matter offunding, it is simply a matter of choice.These would be prudent, long-term invest-ments. Had such investments been made inthe 1970-1990 period there may well havebeen far fewer homeless, far fewer of ourcitizens trapped in the ghettos of our cities.

Another example of the need to rethinkthe priorities of our federal budget has to dowith our research universities. In HannaGray's keynote address to the 1992 AAASmeeting and in the symposium on thefuture of research in America, the plight ofour research universities is highlighted.Stanford, Yale, Columbia, the Universityof Chicago-institution after institution-are contracting their contribution to re-search and to scholarship out of fear offinancial deficits. These deficits now aver-age about $10 million but are expected torise. In view of increasing costs, declininginterest, and decreased return on invest-ment, the recession, and pressure on theindirect costs, this may rise to as much as $5billion annually ifwe relate this to, say, 100universities. Now I ask whether the contri-butions of these 100 or more great univer-sities to our health, our economic well-being, our culture-whether these shouldbe put at risk for such savings? For everyonewho tells me that there are more urgentneeds for the funds I have listed, I'll askwhy we need to spend $40 billion on a vastinterlocking intelligence structure designedfor a previous age or why, after the collapseof the Soviet Union, has our defense budgetchanged so imperceptibly. I sometimes fan-tasize about a rational (!) zero-base budgetexercise for fiscal year 1993. How would itlook compared to the president's requestand the congressional alternatives?

It is here that we must acknowledge theneed to rethink how universities managethe research-education mixture. There areenough data around to indicate that what isa great strength in the graduate schools isless than successful at the undergraduatelevel. It is the ultimate waste to havestudents survive the obstacles of primaryand secondary schools, still proclaimingthemselves to be natural science majors,and then to lose them after a year ofcollege. This must not be allowed to hap-

1122

pen. It is also here that imaginative effortsmust be expended to look to the attractionand retention of women and minorities,especially in the natural and engineeringsciences. What would surely help is a stron-ger emphasis on "science as a sense ofcommunity," an atmosphere and vibes thatcan only be established and maintained byan engaged faculty. More of us must bealerted to this subtle but crucial task as wework to make our universities better.

In order to address the problems ofscience, scholarship, and education proac-tively, one must, I believe, understandthem as part of the societal problems inwhich they are embedded. Education isperhaps 10 to 20 years ahead of science inits slide toward disaster. But these are, Ibelieve, part of a deeper pathology affectingour society. You see it in the written-offinner cities, in the political mood of ourtimes. The press, on the Sunday of myAAAS presidential lecture, reflects themood. The Sunday edition of the New YorkTimes (9 February) had five relevant arti-cles: The front page article was entitled"Shadow of Pessimism Eclipses a Dream."The News in Review had two relevant arti-cles: "Economic Myopia, Obvious Prob-lems, Hidden Causes" and "Making SureFederal Research Goes for Learning." Thenthe business section (I hardly ever read it):"Attention America! Snap Out of It!" Fi-nally, the lead editorial: "Crown Jewels atRisk," pleading for help for the beleagueredresearch universities. A Time magazine es-say in this same month is called "Fraying ofAmerica." Felix Rohatyn, the noted NewYork financier, fresh from a European tripwas quoted as saying that retuming to theUnited States was like coming to the oldcountry from the new world.

This mood also exhibits itself as a loss ofnational self-confidence: Challenger andthe Hubble telescope and President Bush'strip to Japan all contribute, as does, morekeenly for people of my generation, thedemise of Pan American Airways and Ma-cy's department stores. A common denom-inator here is a loss of faith in the future, aconcentration on what is immediate. Thepolitical process has only a few years inter-val from election to election; increasingly,corporations are transients-and interest inlong-term goals and investments has nopriority. The once numerous and highlyproductive industrial research laborato-ries-RCA, GE, Westinghouse, Bell Labs. . . are gone or going-pale shadows of aonce exuberant faith that the company'sresearch investment will indeed pay off.Listen to the New York Times (8):

Consider the stereotypical American companythat is losing the innovative race to Japanese rivalsbecause it refuses to invest for the long haul. The

SCIENCE * VOL. 256 * 22 MAY 1992

managers' motive, apparently, is to please the stock-holders (and boost their own pay) by diverting cashfrom hard research to plush dividends.

This makes academic research and theuniversities even more crucial in securingthe future. As U.S. industries decreasetheir capability to do long-term research,the universities will have an even greaterresponsibility. Industry will increasinglyhave to look there to attend to its problems.Increasingly the national labs will look touniversities as partners in exploiting theirunique facilities, whether they be accelera-tors, light sources, telescopes, supercom-puters, or what have you. The health of theuniversities is crucial to the future of thenation; they add to the store of knowledge,they look to the education of undergradu-ates and graduate students, they contributeto culture and are the repository of criticalthinking on all aspects of our complexsociety. Universities can do better, will dobetter, but putting them at risk is not whatAmerica should do.

A Modest Proposal

So what is my plan? What can mere scien-tists do? The plan I am urging on theAAAS Board is one that has already beentaken up by many science societies-it is asustained, vigorous effort to reach theAmerican public on the issues of scienceand education, on the issue of investmentin human resources, investment in our fu-ture. Some of the larger societies are alreadyactive. The American Chemical Societyhas a lively program of TV spots and Sun-day supplement inserts. The AmericanPhysical Society has had a program and isdebating resuming such things. The bio-medical community has established Re-search! America, an organization of 30 orso affiliates designed to advertise the virtuesof biomedical research. Another segment ofthis group is pushing for a much moreambitious program. In my view, the AAASis a unique organization to lead, coordinate,and implement an order of magnitudegreater effort to educate the public on thevalue, the power, and the limitation ofscience and the need for a long-term out-look. An appropriate program would useTV, movies, op-ed's, full-page ads, Sundaysupplements, the Reader's Digest, cerealboxes, and skywriting, where feasible. In-tensive efforts to assist the print and TVscience journalists must be a part of theprogram.

Even if the times were not as threaten-ing as they are, the direct communicationbetween the scientific community and thepublic becomes increasingly important as away of reaching democratic consensus onthe applications of knowledge. Science and

on March 25, 2020

http://science.sciencem

ag.org/D

ownloaded from

technology increasingly intrude on our life-styles and behavior and the consequences ofdiscovery shape the future in ways aboutwhich scientists can at least make estima-tions, however imperfect. So in the need toallay public mistrust and secure its support,there is also a recommitment of science tofacing up to responsibilities, growing evermore pressing.A reasonable program would require per-

haps $5 million to $10 million a year as awild guess, and it would need highly pro-fessional advice. I have suggested that aboard of strategy composed of the leaders ofall the major science societies be convenedto begin a discussion of the health of re-search and of the virtues of such a dramaticprogram. Clearly there is the danger ofbacklash. The program must be crafted verysensitively. But the risk of doing nothing isfar greater than the risk of failing here. Ifthe stories told are interesting and if theeffort is more educational than promotion-al, it need not have a backlash. The goal isan increase in public understanding of sci-ence. Just suppose, for example, that BillCosby and Sally Ride cohosted a prime-timenetwork show called "This Week in Sci-ence" or "New Horizons of the Mind." Justimagine an "L.A. Science" or a "ScienceNightline." Such programs could engagetens of millions of people-parents andchildren. It could have associated classroommaterials, be sponsored by several far-sight-ed technological companies. When itcomes to fixing television, while we are atit, we do really need all the help we can get.Even ifwe could focus the full and awesomepower of a unified academia (the mindboggles!), the issues will still be in doubt,no? What is being proposed is a massiveprogram of educating the general public inmatters of science, engineering, scholar-ship, and education. This means competingwith dreary sitcoms and a diet of rape andmurder trials. It proposes the grandiose goalof raising the level of American culture andbears the burden of saying: "What's goodfor American science, American scholar-ship, and education is good for America."

The main point is that it does this in fullview of makers of national policy and, if itis done well, this could have a dramaticeffect on attitudes and on priorities. Whena president, an adviser, a congressman, orkey staffer reads, the stories in the Washing-ton Post or Parade magazine it has a thou-sand times the clout of your visit to hisoffice to say the same thing. It is crucial thatthis be a sustained program. Not much willhappen in a year or two, but if we commitourselves to, say, a 5-year program of mediaactivity, something will happen, prioritieswill be adjusted, and the 3% or so of thefederal budget now invested in the kind ofscience, scholarship, and education we are

addressing will grow to serve the needs of aresurgent nation. We will probably neveragain be the kind of leader we were in the1950s and 1960s, but we can be among themajor players in the new global order.

This is a strong departure from the statusquo, where each year we anxiously await asmall but appreciated increment. But con-sider the stakes, not for the scientists hereor even those who couldn't afford to cometo Chicago. The times they are a'changin'.The world is vastly different today. We seearound us and detect, in most of the dis-cemible political voices, uncertainty andan appeal to immediacy. This seems to beindependent of political party. As a nationour old frontiers have been converted toshopping malls and used car lots; our oldadversaries, which contributed so much tonational purpose, are gone. Science re-search and scholarship offer new horizons,new wealth, an inherent and contagiousoptimism, and the possibility of restoringthe planet and also restoring our own soci-ety via the immense power of rationalthought molded by aesthetics, compassion,and wise self-interest.

And something else-let me raise this asa question. A popular involvement in sci-ence, education, and scholarship, in thechallenge, in the opportunities, in the pub-lic confrontation with man-made and nat-ural disasters-can these things be pack-aged into an activity that will replace ourgood old communist foe as a more produc-tive unifying element for our increasinglyfragmented society?My plan certainly needs the active col-

laboration, advice, and creative wisdom ofcolleagues in behavioral science, in psy-chology, in the humanities, and in socialsciences. We need very professional ad-vice-we need a powerful advocacy groupoutside of science-from the corporate, fi-nancial, labor, law, and congressional com-munities. There is of course no guarantee ofsuccess. Perhaps the malaise eating atAmerican society is much too deep andscience and education will continue to de-cline. What will happen? Science, scholar-ship, the American period would very likelygo into a long slide, which will eventuallystop; recovery and reemergence will even-tually take place. As we are leaming fromeducation, the repair of infrastructure is along-term problem measured in decades.Life will be much harder for our childrenand our grandchildren. The question wemust all ask ourselves is "Are we convincedenough by these altematives to dedicate theeffort it will take to avoid the decline?"

This program will not fly unless theleaders of the science and engineering soci-eties hear from the rank and file, the benchscientists and trench scholars. This programor some better altemative needs the enthu-

SCIENCE * VOL. 256 * 22 MAY 1992

siastic support and resources from a unifiedscientific community. AAAS is uniquelyorganized and superbly staffed to lead thiseffort. If each of us goes off making ourseparate cases, not much will happen.However, if we coordinate our message andpresent a united front, the voice of schol-arship, we may achieve this new compact.The goal is to forge anew a vision of adynamic society in which children can onceagain expect to do better than their par-ents.

Epilogue

After delivering the address upon whichthis paper was based, I became aware of a1951 policy statement of AAAS (it wasknown as the Arden House Statement) (9):

... demands that the AAAS not only recognizebut attack the broader extemal problem of therelation of science to society. It seems to us neces-sary that the AAAS now begin to take seriously onestatement of purpose that has long existed in itsconstitution. To quote: "The objects of the AAASare . . . to increase public understanding and ap-preciation of the importance and promise of themethods of science in human progress."

The author, Warren Weaver, called foractive reassessment and redirection ofAAAS away from technical topics andtoward improving the attitude and supportfor science among members of the nonsci-entific community (9).

Finally, one of my distinguished prede-cessors in AAAS, Allan Bromley, in his1981 presidential address raised many of theissues I have raised (10). I reread his talkafter giving my own, and since he is todaythe president's science adviser it is especial-ly interesting to see the parallel channels.He expressed concem about the health ofscience ("There is a mood of pessimismloose in the science and technology com-munity and in the nation."). He was per-ceptively concerned with the poor state ofscience education, citing data and statisticsthat were to later festoon the "Nation atRisk et al." reports. He gave much attentionto the problem of developing nations (". . .

And unless we act, and are perceived to beacting to better their lot, we run the seriousrisk of a world in turmoil, with the devel-oping world making common cause to fightfor what they view as a fairer share of theearth's resources."). Bromley especiallycalled on AAAS members to become moreactive on the public literacy front ("I amconvinced that the ultimate answer must liein an informed, interested public preparedto understand, at least in outline, andsupport science and technology on theirown merits and in recognition of the vitalrole they play in almost all aspects ofcontemporary life. ... We must build a

1123

on March 25, 2020

http://science.sciencem

ag.org/D

ownloaded from

new public constituency for science andtechnology."). Finally, to my great delight,he calls on general scholarship ("Only byworldng together-humanists, social scien-tists, and natural scientists-can we hopefor success in attacking our most importantproblems."). I cite both parts of the epi-logue to emphasize not that the problemsare so perennial as to induce resignation,but that they are stubbom. The sharpestlesson we can draw is that the failure to actboldly and decisively compounds the prob-lem. In the past decade, not only have

things gotten worse but events have con-spired to raise the stakes for the nation andthe world. Now we require efforts morestrenuous and more imaginative than haveever before been attempted. The advance-ment of science deserves no less.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. Federally Funded Research: Decisions for a Dec-ade (Office of Technology Assessment, Washing-ton, DC, April 1991).

2. A. Teich, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 22January 1992, p. A52.

3. R. C. Atkinson, Science 248, 425 (1990).4. B. Glass, ibid. 171, 23 (1971).5. W. Kula, Measures and Man (Princeton Univ.

Press, Princeton, NJ, 1985).6. For anecdotes, see L. M. Lederman, Sci. Am. 251,

40 (November 1984). For economists who havestudied the economic retums of research, see, forexample, Theodore Schultz, Edwin Mansfield, ZviGrilliches, and Robert Solow.

7. R. Reich, The Work of Nations (Knopf, New York,1991).

8. P. Passell, New York Times, 9 February 1992, p.E5.

9. W. Weaver, Science 1 14, 471 (1951).10. D. A. Bromley, ibid. 215, 1035 (1982).11. President's address to the 1992 Meeting of AAAS,

9 February 1992, Chicago.

AAAS-Newcomb Cleveland PrizeTo Be Awarded for an Article or a Report Published in Science

The AAAS-Newcomb Cleveland Prize is awarded to theauthor ofan outstanding paper published in Science. The value ofthe prize is $5000; the winner also receives a bronze medal. Thecurrent compeintion period began with the 7 June 1991 issue andends with the issue of 29 May 1992.

Reports and Articles that include original research data, theo-ries, or syntheses and are fundamental contributions to basicknowledge or technical achievements of far-reaching conse-quence are eligible for consideration for the prize. The paper mustbe a first-time publication of the author's own work. Referenceto pernent earlier work by the author may be included to giveperspve.

Throughout the competition period, readers are invited tonominate papers appearing in the Reports or Artides sections.Nominations must be typed, and the following informationprovided: the title of the paper, issue in which it was published,author's name, and a brief statement ofjustiSfcation for nomina-tion. Nominations should be submitted to the AAAS-NewcombCleveland Prize, AAAS, Room 924, 1333 H Street, NW,Washingson, D.C. 20005, and must be received on or before 30June 1992. Final selection will rest with a panel of difinguishedscientists appointed by the editor of Science.The award will be presented at the 1993 AAAS annual

meeting. In cases ofmultiple authorship, the prize will be dividedequally between or among the authors.

SCIENCE * VOL. 256 * 22 MAY 19921124

on March 25, 2020

http://science.sciencem

ag.org/D

ownloaded from

The Advancement of ScienceLeon M. Lederman

DOI: 10.1126/science.256.5060.1119 (5060), 1119-1124.256Science 

ARTICLE TOOLS http://science.sciencemag.org/content/256/5060/1119

REFERENCES

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/256/5060/1119#BIBLThis article cites 5 articles, 4 of which you can access for free

PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions

Terms of ServiceUse of this article is subject to the

is a registered trademark of AAAS.ScienceScience, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. The title (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for the Advancement ofScience

© 1992 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science

on March 25, 2020

http://science.sciencem

ag.org/D

ownloaded from