In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

What about the Future? One can imagine how difficult it would have been for persons born in 1850 to imagine the world of today. Airplanes, x-rays, radios, the genome, the Internet, the atomic nucleus, even zippers and ice cream would all be entirely foreign. Even those with the most vivid imaginations would have been hard-pressed to foresee such novelties . In the words attributed to both Niels Bohr, Danish physicist and 1922 Nobel laureate, and Yogi Berra, baseball legend, “Prediction is very hard, especially if it is about the future.”1 Today we are not much better off: the future will always be hard to anticipate. Indeed, our excitement—and anxiety—about its prospects are a powerful force in motivating our present-day lives. For many years, policy and science were assumed to be almost completely unrelated. Science focuses on creating new knowledge, while policy creates rules by which society functions. Science is (ideally) an unprejudiced seeking of knowledge, while policy (at least in a democratic society) seeks to do the most good for the most people, even if this means solutions are inefficient. While analysis may demonstrate that one program is more cost-efficient or likely to succeed, lawmakers may choose another program that promises immediate results for people in need of assistance. In the policy-making world, right and wrong can be subjective. Scientists often believe that policymakers lack a rational, methodical protocol, while policymakers claim that scientists are insensitive to the need for strategy. The two groups do share some traits, however. In both arenas optimal progress is made by asking the right questions . Scientists have long grasped this fact, but policymakers have not. Because lawmakers are often driven by personal and political motives—doing what is best for the people, or searching for effective policy—their questions can sometimes seem one-sided or shortsighted. Much depends on the government’s attitude and policies toward scientific advancement. One event, like World War II or Sputnik, can drastically change the world, and a nation’s response to such an event can shape its policy for years to come. The world we live in, in other words, has been formed in reaction to past events. Prior to World War II, there was, as we have seen, very little government support for research. As the country mobilized for war, the government recognized that scientific knowledge could help soldiers on the battlefield, and increased its research funding accordingly. Thus was forged a partnership that no one could have predicted fifty years earlier. Many of the technological advancements of the last half-century were the result of U.S. efforts to win World War II and the Cold War. Any attempt to predict the future must take into account our ignorance of what major eventsawaitus—eventsthatwillshapeourneedsandhence our policies. The September 11, 2001, attacks prompted an unprecedented rethinking of our federal policies for homeland security and research related to bioterrorism. We cannot predict what events will drive major policy changes in the future. Will rising oil prices and concerns about climate change lead to increased focus on energy research? What impact will concerns about global competitiveness have? Will a global pandemic such as avian flu push us to devote scientific resources to this threat? Policymakers sometimes respond quickly to national or international events. Undue haste, however, can lead to ill-advised policies, without thorough debate or thoughtful discussion. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was writ345 CHAPTER 20 Science, Science Policy, and the Nation’s Future 346 | BEYOND SPUTNIK ten, brought to a vote in both chambers, and signed into law within a matter of weeks after September 11. The bill included provisions that might have been better written, or left out altogether. To cite just one example, its provisions on select biological agents did not specify which federal agency was responsible for enforcing the regulations . This omission initially caused great consternation among university officials, who had to ensure that their researchers were following federal law. Policies can also be provoked by a convergence of events with a desire to pursue certain goals. For example, John F. Kennedy decided that one means of responding to the Soviet launch of Sputnik was to put a man on the moon, despite the tremendous costs and difficulties. In his May 25, 1961, address to Congress, President Kennedy stated: “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him...

Share