Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion [1 ed.] 0226306356, 9780226306353

Citation preview

ixth

Year or Unprecedentec

rowth Expected in 2000 gh reseafch andSevelopinant,

SCIENCE, and

MONEY,

POLITICS

Political Triumph

and

Ethical Erosion

DANIEL

S. GREENBERG

Each year, Congress appropriates billions of dollars for scientific research. And each year, scientists complain of insufficient funding and lobby (usually successfully) for more. Who receives the money, and the tactics they use to get it, are explored in this hard-hitting, meticulously documented exposé by veteran journalist Daniel S. Greenberg. From the end of World War II to 2001, and

from medical research to particle physics, Greenberg reveals the little-known but all-pervasive links among science, money, and politics in the

United States. He takes us behind closed doors in Washington, drawing on archival research as well as astonishingly frank and revealing interviews with presidential science advisers, congressional

and

White

House

staffers,

and

elected

officials. Along the way we encounter some startling revelations. We learn about exaggerated claims of disease cures; how politicians supportive of medical research are rewarded with buildings named for them

at the National

Institutes of Health;

why Ronald Reagan’s science advisers remained silent, even though they knew that false claims were being made for a scientific breakthrough in the Star Wars missile-defense program; and how, even as research lagged in the expiring USSR, leading American scientists warned Congress of Soviet scientific superiority—and the need for increased U.S. science funding to counter it. (continued on back flap)

Cetha

Science,

Money, and

Politics

Science, and

Money,

Politics Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion

DANIEL

S.

GREENBERG

The University of Chicago

Chicago and London

Press

24) Age 32% DANIEL S. GREENBERG is a Washington-based jourrfalist specializing in the politics of science. He has published extensively in professional journals, newspapers, and popular magazines and is the author of a classic work, The Politics of Pure Science, published in a new edition in 1999 by the University of Chicago Press. While conducting research for Science, Money, and Politics, he held an appointment at

Johns Hopkins University as a visiting scholar in the Department of History of Science, Medicine, and Technology.

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637

The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London © 2001 by Daniel S. Greenberg All rights reserved. Published 2001

Printed in the United States of America 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01

12345

ISBN (cloth) 0-226-30634-8

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Greenberg, Daniel S., 1931-

Science, money, and politics : political triumph and ethical erosion / Daniel S. Greenberg.

p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-226-30634-8 (hardcover)

1. Federal aid to research—United States. United States. I. Title. Q180.55.G6 G74 2001 338.973’06—dc21

2. Science and state—

00-013226

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American Natignal Standard for Information Sciences— Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992.

an aan

‘

“|

oie

'

1

a

a aie —

Lb

cn

s

»

.

>

a4

pais

oo

ny

c

iM

;

mrtg’:

pase

erCeati¥y

ms

«

-

vais: Shares aii, aan

x

apna timed: id Pii

seen vie atte wa

as

Ve

(ian

7 win aun

ee

Pact Moquitees Unive TOR Toh iy

eS a

ea

Saaelie fra

vit pow

odCac oe

th Teper ces = od

ed Tur by hey

5 a

ie Uolvetiiiy ae bivag’s My

z

oe

ieee)

:

pom =

thi(nlveraty af Uheage et, Saskia “rene: rr nig.

2

Ws ol

:

Sida

Veg RY 9) To.

Rene

te

if ;

a

;

rel she

(, deals OY Le prerre ho ©

:

,

¥

a

a

+ aye

x

Laned Sie.

on

:

:

’

fi

‘Y

:

7

a 7

8 Sealeslle +,

:

a

-

pr

=

z

:

, Rip ots) v

we

7

= a*

MR

> > Cope

:

U yt

i

ae

a

et!

rp

T4

an

=

7

pany,

Vwsle

Rais

¥

-

talngtinn > hi

oe

é

©

peeing)

Cig

a

an

i"

' eT.

>

7

/

A

2

Pee TGee + sar

A

7

yee ="

ee

.

7

So

“

To arms!

23. Congressional Action on Research and Development in the FY 2000 Budget (Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1999), p. 1.

24.

Washington Fax, “Keep Your Eye on the NIH Funding Ball; It’s Back in Play,” December

25.

David Baltimore, “Stifling the Source of the Surplus,” New York Times, October 28,

17, 1999.

2000.

:

The Political Triumph of Science

/

461

/

POSTSCRIPT

For the sciences, the paradox of isolation and triumph was starkly illuminated in the presidential transition of 2001 and the early days of the George W. Bush administration. While sitting out the election—except for the previously described letterhead endorsement of Al Gore—science asserted its claim of recognition in a preelection manifesto from the National Academy of Sciences. Titled “The Presidential Appointment Process,” the academy—citing as authority prior Carnegie Commission reports— proclaimed the necessity of the early installation of scientific and technical advice at the highest level of the incoming administration: Before and after the presidential election, the eventual president-elect needs advisors with expertise in science and technology (S&T) to advise

on policy issues and help to locate a candidate for the position of Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST). . . . Soon after

the election, the APST candidate is needed to help set priorities, plan strategy, advise the president-elect and cabinet designees, and find quali-

fied candidates for key S&T positions.'

The election-campaign and transition entourages of George W. Bush were unattended by scientific expertise. The campaign itself was devoid of science-related discussions, except for general promises by Bush and Gore to support science and double the NIH budget. The president-elect’s failure to share the academy’s belief in his need for scientific advice was hopefully attributed in scientific circles to the pressure of the truncated transition period. Once in office, however, George W. Bush persisted in neglecting the academy’s advice. Cabinet officers and other senior officials were appointed, and priorities and strategies were devised, without the naming of a presidential science adviser or the evident presence of scientific expertise. In the opening weeks of the Bush administration, the Executive Office Building suite of the Office of Science and Technology Policy was staffed by an idle skeleton crew of civil servants, Clinton’s political appointees all having left by inauguration day. The budget that Bush presented to Congress at the end of February 2001 was composed without scientists on board

1. “The Presidential Appointment Process,” Committee on Science, Engineeering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, 2000.

/

A62

/

Chapter 28

at the White House to defend and promote the interests of the enterprise. Except for NIH, it was an extremely austere budget, containing the sparsest proposals for science since the terror-filled 1995 Republican Revolution. For NSF, Bush proposed a miserly increase of $56 million—insufficient to keep inflation from gnawing at its $4.5 billion budget. Even so, the new administration upheld the tradition of abundant billions forscience. The hereditary feud of Democrats and Republicans over industrial research was manifested in Bush’s decision to “suspend” the Advanced Technology Program, pending study of its effectiveness. The science lobbies pouted, complained to their congressional friends, but remained mystified about who, if anyone, at the White House was responsible for their sensitive interests. The self-ghettoized, apolitical scientific enterprise rated scant notice at the commencement of the new administration.

Epilogue

There is a tendency for scientists to assume that the social effects of science must be beneficial in the long run. This article of faith performs the function of providing a rationale for scientific research, but it is manifestly not a statement of fact. It involves the confusion of truth and social utility which is characteristically found in the non-logical penumbra of science. —Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (1957)

FROMOUR explorations, we know the following about the politics of the American scientific enterprise:

¢

The psyche of science is touched, and scientists are often energized, by magical thinking and voodoo misperceptions of plain matters of fact in the political history, financing, and public acceptance of sci-

ence. ¢

Many important institutions of science are bureaucratically calcified, financially insecure, and risk-averse.

¢

An infinity of researchable topics renders science insatiable for money and increasingly indiscriminate in ways to get it.

¢

Within the metropolis of science, the academic core shuns conventional politics while vigorously employing nonelectoral techniques for obtaining government money, the denial of which it attributes to public and political ignorance and hostility.

These characteristics, all related, bring us to a difficult and essen-

tial question: Do the values and behavior of science in America warrant concern? We know that science fulfills its primary purpose, the production of knowledge—which, in complex relations with technology, responds to many needs of society or provides reasonable prospects for doing so. Why /

463/

/

464

/

Epilogue

wonder, let alone fret, about the pathologies of science and the privileged place it occupies on the American political and social landscape as it performs its work? Despite the centrality of money in the politics of science, research is not a troublesome burden on America’s economy. In our explorations, money has served as a measure for tracking the politics of science. But at the end of the last century, research and development, which encomPass science, accounted for only about 2.8 percent of a gross domestic product of approximately $9 trillion a year. The United States and several other major industrialized nations spend roughly the same portion of their wealth on R&D. The United States is not staggering under the costs of research, though a contrary, misleading impression arises from contention over government support for science in the politically restrained federal budget. Science is financially bearable and productive. Why, then, worry about science in America? In search of an answer, we must concentrate on two qualities of modern science: in both method and substance, it is poorly understood by the great majority of nonscientists; and it is increasingly potent in its effects on technology and society. Laypeople possess scarcely any understanding, and much misunderstanding, of what science is doing and can do. The franker apostles of the public-understanding movement concede the impenetrability of science, while insisting that their pop reformulations can bring enlightenment to the untutored. That the masses remain unenlightened, a central tenet of the public-understanding movement, is not attributable to lack of missionary efforts, but to the recondite nature of modern science. We will take a lesson on this point from an outstanding figure of the publicunderstanding

movement,

Stephen Jay Gould,

of Harvard,

a zoologist-

geologist, popular author, and recent president of the AAAS. We have now reached the point where most technical literature not only falls outside the possibility of public comprehension but also (as we would all admit in honest moments) outside our own competence in sci-

entific disciplines far removed from our personal expertise. I trust that we all regard this situation as saddening, even though we accept its necessity.!

If the masses are intellectually walled ‘off from science at the professional level, as scientists convincingly tell us they are, then the tasks of understanding, surveillance, and assuring accountability should, we hope, be sit1. Stephen Jay Gould, Science, October 29, 1999.

Epilogue

1

“AGS

/

uated elsewhere than in the scientific enterprise itself. But where? Auditors monitor banks; Wall Street rides herd on corporate managers; courts perform in open session attended by the press. Who watches over science? Politics has virtually abandoned oversight of science in favor of adulation and a rivers-and-harbors approach to obtaining a share for constituents. The principal exception, unworthy of emulation, is biomedical research associated with abortion, embryos, and related red-flag issues that are under the benighted scrutiny of the fundamentalist religious right. Overall, however, the deference of politicians to the barons of biomedical research is awesome and disturbing in its default on public accountability. The physical sciences stumbled over the Superconducting Super Collider, and thereby lost face with politics. But they are back in favor as the underpinnings of information technology and the wealth-producing Internet and its many business offshoots. We cannot count on the invisible hand of storybook capitalism for monitoring or for socially beneficial guidance of science. The surviving conscience of academic science resounds with tales of corporate contamination in pursuit of profit, with the eager cooperation of academe. As an influence on the direction, priorities, and work practices of research, the vaunted marketplace is fickle, easily manipulated, and uncertainly linked to the needs of society. We should also recall that the ideology of basic science anchors the economic case for government support on the reluctance of private companies to finance research whose results will be made available to all, including competing firms. Industry unsentimentally abides by the imperatives of moneymaking—investing in science for profit, not to reinforce scientific independence, truthfulness, freedom of inquiry, professional collegiality, material public benefit, or cultural enrichment. For a long stretch in the late 1980s and early 1990s, industry retreated, without apology, from the support of basic research, in its own laboratories and in universities, because of disappointing financial returns. It came back when science was reevaluated as a good way to make money, in part by drawing more and more professors into trading academic independence for consulting fees and stock options. The press, with some exceptions, serves as a chorus of worshipful approval for science and technology. It sometimes shows repentance for its toady relationship with science by acknowledging, for example, previously celebrated “cures” that failed to cure. The mea culpas have improved but the journalistic performance has not. Under the banner of democratic participation, but mainly for stimulating popular support for money for research, the scientific enterprise is ostentatiously devoted to improving the public understanding of science. However, the many well-financed pro-

/

466

/

Epilogue

grams for that purpose are on a fool’s errand, beneficial for the earnest functionaries they employ, but fundamentally ineffective. As its budgets and efforts expand, the PUS industry unfailingly reports that the understanding it works to elevate remains alarmingly low. Laypeople are in the dark and scientists know little about science beyond their own patch.

RESPONSIBILITY

DECLINED

Among the learned professions and various vocations, science alone has enshrined the principle that its practitioners are not responsible for the consequences of their acts. For our lesson on this matter, we take the words of a pioneering figure of scientific counsel to politics, Sir Solly Zuckerman (1904-93), a distinguished biologist, senior adviser to successive British governments during and after World War II, and prolific author on science and politics. Writing in 1970, Sir Solly noted, with seeming aloofness, the creation in Britain of the (now-long-gone) Society for Social Responsibility in Science—“the latest of a number of efforts to engage the social conscience of scientists,” he pointed out. “As I have observed,” Sir Solly ex-

plained, “scientists have to choose which way they salve their social consciences.” But, indicating a condescending tolerance on his part, he went on to suggest the futility of their efforts: What needs to be borne in mind at all times . . . is that we cannot invest science with any inherent moral direction. That is imparted by the way science is used. . . . The element of the unknown in government increases with every step we are now taking to apply the fruits of science. If the basis of power is being changed, it is less by some governing body, however formed; and more and more by a process of applying scientific

knowledge without any real possibility of determining its final consequences.”

The matter was stated another way by Tom Lehrer, the professorballadeer, in his sardonic lyrics about Hitler’s pioneering missile designer: “Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That’s not

my department,” says Wernher von Braun. 7 4

2. Sir Solly Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Frontiers of Public and Private Science (New York: Taplinger, 1971), Pages 6, 7.

Epilogue

/

467

/

The tandem difficulties of understanding science and attempting to foresee its social consequences are inherently daunting, even for scientifically informed individuals who are politically alert and concerned. However, the difficulties are compounded by the dominant, and rising, commercial portion in the totality spent on science, and the academic sciences’ continuing, boundless appetite for money, though government support for research has substantially increased. Here I reemphasize a paradoxical point that is not sufficiently recognized: While academe, presumably a publicly oriented, socially responsible enterprise, remains the intellectual core and the training ground of science, profit-seeking industry, not government, is the dominant source of money for research and development in America. True, the federal government provides well over half the money spent on research in universities. Nonetheless, industry is the giant on the national scene—rapidly, steadily growing over the past decade—while federal research spending has increased at a lesser pace. Industry now finances over 65 percent of the R&D in America. And, with the great wealth at its command, industry radiates its profit-seeking values to the other sectors of research. Ravenous, as always, for money, academic science increasingly embraces marketplace values, with embarrassed apologies for departures from conflicting, cherished academic values, but with little restraint. The process is encouraged by government policies and spending priorities that smooth the path for academics and their institutions to make money from science by allowing them to receive patents and collect royalties from their government-financed research. Academic ties with industry, nourished with industrial money, naturally flourish in this supportive legal framework. Starting with hero worship in the business and scientific press, our culture celebrates the entrepreneurial academic, the professor who profitably straddles campus and corporation—as a startup pioneer in biotech or informatics, backed by venture capital, or as a richly rewarded consultant. With codes of conduct, universities attempt to reconcile marketplace values with their traditions of openness, collegiality, and devotion to academic duty, especially responsibility to students. But codes of conduct fare poorly at the juncture of knowledge and money. The neglect of students by commercially engaged professors is a widely lamented, but persistent, fact of modern higher education. At present, the share of industrial research money spent in universities is a relatively small part of academe’s total research expenditures, the balance coming from federal and state governments,

endowments,

tuition,

personal gifts, and philanthropic foundations. But industrial money is espe-

/

468

/

Epilogue

cially attractive because it is so-called new money—a fresh vein of ore in heavily worked territories. In the United States, few universities have sat out the gold rush. For a handful of universities, the financial gains have been substantial, inspiring them, and less-successful institutions, to go for more. But, overall, the irony of academe’s dealings with industry is so much ignominy and hypocrisy, for so little lucre; so much neglect, even betrayal,

of principle and tradition, for minor gains. Count all the money paying for science in universities, and the portion from industry has leveled off at about 7 percent, with much of the money concentrated in a small number of schools. The concentration is also true of royalties from patented research findings licensed to industry, including much research financed by the U.S. government. The industrial research money going into academe is only one manifestation of corporate power on campus. Electronic and molecular millionaires, later joined by Internet millionaires, are the new celebrities, and

glittering role models, for today’s students. Campus-based laboratories not only draw industrial money but they also serve as home base and a resource for academics who take the initiative in seeking to turn knowledge into a product. Science without profit seeking continually recedes in the twentyfirst century. How different it was not long ago: In 1955, Edward R. Murrow asked Jonas Salk, inventor of the polio vaccine, “Who holds the patent on this vaccine?” Salk replied, “Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”? The modern-day entrepreneurs of science are backed by venture capital and guided by university offices of technology transfer and patent counsel. By the year 2000, over one thousand human genes had been patented and more gene patents were being applied for, while ethicists and scientists debated the propriety of staking claims to the fundamental biological material of human existence. Success stories from the scientific marketplace have stimulated universities to more determined pursuit of industrial support, more ardent declarations of piety, and sleazier behavior.

THE

NEGLECTED

PUBLIC

INTEREST

Who minds the interests of the scientifically untutored public when science is crisscrossed with private deals and sugarplum visions of gargantuan wealth? We are familiar and comfortable with the powerful role of personal glory—manifested in acclaim by professional colleagues—as motim

3. Richard Carter, Breakthrough: The Saga of Jonas Salk (New York: Trident Press, 1966), p. 283.

Epilogue

/

469

/

vation for achievement in science. As a medal-giving enterprise, science is perhaps exceeded only by nursery school graduations and the military services. But in science, status and glory have been joined, if not surpassed, by money as a motivating force, often to the neglect and abuse of traditional, and desirable, values of science. Number among the fading values of science the protection of the public, as revealed in numerous episodes of dangerous drugs coming to market and violations of candor and humanity in medical experiments with human subjects. Reports of declines in professional collegiality, honesty, and openness are commonplace in scientific journals, as are reports of misuse of public funds by individual scientists and their institutions. “Whistle-blowing” brings some misdeeds to public attention but, especially at the core of the tight-knit scientific enterprise, the practice is not conducive to career advancement. Deviations from upright behavior are not new to science. The scientific enterprise, however, seeks political and popular trust, sovereignty, and public money on the basis of its claims of self-enforced purity. But more slippages from the ideal occur as science becomes bigger, richer, more insular in its detachment from politics, more powerful in its effects on society, more money-minded, while continuously pushed by government and lured by industry into commercial deals that conflict with traditional values and societal responsibilities. Though the venerable standards of right behavior in science are rhetorically honored, perhaps more so than ever, their power in the life of science has substantially diminished. Piety competes poorly with economics. How do we know of these failures in science? In large part, from introspections at estimable institutions within the metropolis of science, which,

whatever its failings, retains a strong reserve of ethical sensitivity and rectitude. Much of the evidence of ethical erosion in science has been revealed by dismayed scientists, and concerns tradeoffs between scientific independence and integrity, on the one hand, and, on the other, money. Decades of factual trimming by scientific leaders in their relations with government helped undermine the foundations of integrity. When anything goes in methods employed to panic the public and Congress into boosting the budget, lucrative deals in the commercial marketplace become a tempting, easy next step, even on terms that offend the fundamental precepts of scientific integrity. In the annals of science and politics, count as historic events of ethical consequence the Cold War red scares and other false alarms of foreign scientific superiority, the manufactured Ph.D. “shortages,” the careless creation of surplus labor pools of scientists, the annual recurrences of financial “crises,” the spurious announcements of imminent disease cures,

i AIO

7

Epilogue

the deliberate underpricing of megaprojects, the claims of popular hostility to science, and the public-understanding scam. All of these, with the special exception of the politically self-destructed Super Collider, passed the pragmatic test: they worked. In the journals of research and in the popular press, the good news of science today is increasingly accompanied by plaintive reports of dubious deals and casual betrayals of society’s faith in the practitioners of science; in some instances, astonishing reports. In this lamentable genre, I assign a high mark to a report that encapsulates the eroding ethical state of the American scientific enterprise. In bland prose, two Harvard academics related a farcical cameo of academic corruption in aletter to Issues in Science and Technology, a journal cosponsored by

the National Academy of Sciences and the Center for the Study of Science and Society, at the University of Texas, at Dallas: At the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), an undergraduate

was unable to complete a homework assignment that was closely re-

lated to work he was doing for a company because he had signed a nondisclosure agreement that prohibited him from discussing his work. Interestingly, the company that employed the student was owned by an

MIT faculty member, and the instructor of the class owned a competing firm. In the end, the instructor of the course was accused of using his homework as a form of corporate espionage, and the student was given

another assignment.’

The squalid dealings are deplorable on many grounds. However, the authors of the letter confined themselves to warning that restraints on open discussion could “result in scientists with an incomplete knowledge base, a less than adequate repertoire of research skills, a greater tendency to engage in secrecy in the future, and ultimately in the slowing of scientific advance.” The dangers to science are evident. But so are the dangers to society, when apprentices in the arcane business of science are steeped in sleazy practices by their mentors. Though better known and more successful than most in melding science, education, and business, MIT has ample company in the intense pursuit of industrial money, pious avowals of scientific and academic integrity, 4. Eric G. Campbell and David Blumenthal, Institute for Health Policy, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, letter, Issues in Science and Technology, fall

1999. The episode they describe was previously reported in the Wall Street Journal, June 24, 1999: “MIT Students, Lured to New Tech Firms, Get Caught in a Bind: They Work for Professors Who May Also Oversee Their Academic Careers.”

Epilogue

/

471

/

and profitable tolerance of behavior that invites the worst in the lexicon of corruption.

A Few

MobpEsT

PRESCRIPTIONS

After these hundreds of pages of descriptions and diagnoses, we arrive at a point where it is fair to ask what should be done, what can be done, and

how, to make a better public servant of America’s great scientific enterprise? Given the sciences’ insulation from politics, the economic heft of industry,

and the deep entrenchment of the scientific institutions at the core, few grounds exist for optimism about the prospects for beneficial change. Though the academic-government system is bureaucratically calcified, riskaverse, and unreceptive to innovation, its enormous wealth finances enough productivity to give credence to the battle cry of the status quo: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Look at the outpouring of discoveries and new technologies, and their bewilderingly rapid entry into the economy and culture. Surely, the new millennium brings in a golden age of science that surpasses the multiple golden ages in the last half of the last century. Why change anything? My answer is that science is too powerful, too potent in its effects on society, and too arcane to be entrusted to the expanding alliance between a profession that has retreated into a ghetto and the commercial sector, with their shared focus on making money. While this relationship flourishes, a deadening complacency has settled over the institutions that should be protecting and advancing the public interest in science: the research agencies of the executive branch of government, Congress, the press,

and, within science, leaders who should be stewards of scientific tradition,

rather than apologists for its neglect. Science finds advantage and claims virtue in its detachment and aloofness from politics. But politics is the medium through which a society decides upon and implements its values and its choices. That the political system frequently goes awry and fails to work to its full potential of beneficial effects is a reason for involvement, not withdrawal. And this is especially so for an enterprise that draws heavily on the public purse and radiates powerful effects in all directions and on all things—while denying responsibility for the consequences of its work. In its retreat into political isolation, science cannot detach itself from relations with the outside world. But increasingly, these relations are with industry seeking profits from academe’s scientific strength and prestige, distressingly often to the detriment of scientific integrity and public wellbeing. The sciences’ introspective agonizing over their falls from grace has

fare

Epilogue

continued long enough to sustain the expectation that few, if any, correctives will come from within. With rare exceptions, the public is satisfied to leave science to the scientists. Politicians put hands on science mainly to get a share for their voters. More satisfied than dissatisfied with things as they are, particularly the sudden gusher of money from federal surpluses at the turn of the century, none of the professional sectors cancerned with science are inclined to push for change on their own. But coming from several directions, small impulses for change can reverberate through the various sectors with energizing effects beyond their original strength. The goal should be more involvement of science with politics, rather than less,

because more would benefit society by opening science to public view and controversy. More involvement with politics would surely be uncomfortable for science, because it would threaten the reigning combination of support without scrutiny or responsibility. But it would be beneficial for society in its dependence on science, and possibly even helpful for science itself. The aim is to dislodge science from its comfortable ghetto and move it into the rough waters of the political mainstream. The press, on its own, if it chooses, can make the transition from cheer-

leaders of science to independent observers. The symbiosis of science and science writing is evident in the uncritical journalistic mining of scientific and medical journals, the gullible acceptance of the sciences’ hollow complaints of financial neglect, and, in general, the rote willingness to pass

along to the public any pronouncement bearing the imprimatur of science, no matter how self-serving or foolish. On these and related matters, science writers themselves are critical and contrite about the performance of their profession, but the failings persist. The journalistic trumpeting of medical cures on the basis of wisps of evidence, even though accompanied by sober cautions against optimism, deserves to be severely throttled back, in recognition of an unfortunate reality: though news is sold around the clock, major advances in medicine come along infrequently. A prime, neglected topic for continuous journalistic scrutiny are the shrill Washington lobbies for science, heavily subsidized in roundabout fashion by federal funds through nonprofit tax exemptions. The public-understanding-of-science movement also merits an examination of its large expenditures versus unrealistic goals and meager accomplishments. Uncritical congressional pandering to the financial demands of science will continue as long as the leaders of science are exempted from serious questioning about scientific priorities‘and choices. A skeptical science press, unawed by its subject, can encourage congressional initiative in assessing the spending choices of a government scientific bureaucracy that functions

Epilogue

/

473

/

with little or no oversight, by politics or the press. A wondrous transformation is not to be expected in political dealings with science; a recommendation should not be confused with optimism. But continuous nudges, here and there, by the press could help transform congressional hearings on science from love fests to probing legislative inquiries. No single disinfectant can cope with the corporate contamination of academic scientific integrity, especially when the recipients are willing, even eager, to be contaminated. But do not discount the power of public exposure of ethical failures in an institution that boasts of adherence to lofty ethical standards. Like crawly creatures that scurry from sunlight when the rock is lifted, the malfeasants of science do not relish exposure; and

they are a gross embarrassment to their honorable colleagues.

WIDENING

THE

PATH

TO

POLITICS

The dearth of scientists in elective public office is in large part explained by the monastic nature of scientific training and career progress. But it also comes fromascientific culture that derides politics as unclean and debased, ethically distant from the ideals of science. For inspirational purposes, the concept of the role model is central to the culture of science, but in elective politics, role models with scientific credentials are few. The professional societies of science should advance beyond clichés and act on the recognition that participation in the nation’s political life is a virtuous activity, good for the nation and good for science—and well worth the support of scientists. The fellowship programs that bring scientists and engineers to staff positions in Congress and elsewhere in Washington are useful but insufficient. Politics would benefit from more office-holding scientists; science would benefit, too. With that understanding as a starting point, the scientific enterprise should extend help to scientists who dare a plunge into politics. Physicians, lawyers, and schoolteachers apply collective strength to politics through political action committees and other organized political efforts. Why not scientists? As we saw, latent scientific support for scientists in politics was brought forth by scientists rallying to finance the congressional candidacy of physicist Rush Holt in 1998 and 2000. In modern America, participation in elective politics is measured in money and efforts to mobilize votes—activities (with rare, local exceptions) shunned by science ever since its one-time, 1964 venture into big-league politics. Antiseptic aloofness from elective politics contributes to the marginalized role of scientists in public affairs, as evidenced by their frustrations with the State Department and the compartmentalized presence of scientists in theWhite

/

474

/

Epilogue

House. With the prestige and glamour of presidential staff appointments, the White House scientists serve the presidency. But no one in the know in political Washington is fooled. The president’s scientists are peripheral to the political structure of the presidency because science has made itself peripheral to politics. No amount of sermonizing, here or elsewhere; or acknowledgment of the desirability of scientists in elective politics, can send a flood of mathematicians, physicists, and biochemists into seeking elective office. The laboratory is a poor launching pad for politics. However, the prevailing antipolitical culture of science encourages science to stick to the ghetto, and perhaps even to strengthen its walls. In the year 2000, over half a million holders of doctorates in the natural and physical sciences and in engineering were employed in the United States. Only four were members of Congress. The isolation of science from politics is furthered by traditions that have become entombed in bureaucratic concrete. Consider a small but revealing item, the anachronistic title of the venerable National Science Foundation, an organization whose historic and spiritual significance for science transcends its money-giving capacity. NSF long ago acquired responsibilities beyond science, expanding into engineering and elementary and high school science education. However, the mandarins of academic basic re-

search scramble to the ramparts at the hint of a title expansion that would accurately reflect the work of NSF. Their friends in Congress, with little interest in this obscure sectarian strife, find it simplest to leave the name unchanged. Meanwhile, the managers and beneficiaries of NSF express puzzlement and disappointment over the failure of politics to provide NSF with funds that match its expanded responsibilities. On good grounds, they contend that the foundation’s entire budget, over $4.5 billion in 2001, could be well spent in any one of the three sectors: science, engineering, or education. By monopolizing the title, the scientists assert a symbolic claim over NSF, but at the cost of truth in labeling and the potential for broadening public and political recognition and the financial fortunes of the foundation. In the senior echelons of academic science, political vision is blurred by reverence for basic research and outdated anxieties over its political support. As we observed in examining the proceedings of the Commission on the Future of NSF, the self-“designated legatees of Vannevar Bush ominously chant that applied research drives Out basic research. But through good times and bad, both the White House and Congress have strongly supported basic research, even during those periodic bouts of political infatua-

Epilogue

aS)

if

tion with technology. For purposes of prodding science out of its isolation and broadening political and popular support for science, wonders might be achieved through an even more expansive name change: why not make it the National Science, Engineering, and Humanities Foundation, with per-

haps a nonscientist at its head? The chieftains of science will gag on that proposal as a denial of their place in the sun. Congressional barons, sensitive about maintaining their jurisdictions, will resist loss of authority. The long-deprived humanists will probably fear a trick by the politically suave scientists and their political compatriots. But let’s not file away that suggestion in hopes someday of a more favorable environment for reshaping the science wing of the U.S. government. A first step would be to recognize the beneficial potential of housing science and the humanities under the roof of a single government source of financial support. Nothing is certain in these matters, but the merger might contribute to the intellectual enrichment of both the sciences and the humanities. We might recognize, too, that separate bankrolls do not advance the goal of bringing together the two cultures. Another beneficial step would be removal of the physical sciences from the chronically dysfunctional Department of Energy, and their resettlement into an independent agency or the well-run NSF. As for NIH, with an annual budget that exceeds $20 billion and continues to rise, the problem is bureaucratic elephantiasis in a government agency that holds a nearmonopoly on finance for the biomedical sciences. A breakup of NIH into several separate government philanthropies for the medical sciences would introduce the vigor of competition into a sector that constantly flagellates itself for scientific conservatism and operational sloth—without correcting

either. All these suggested changes would contribute to opening the politics of science to public view and—horror of horrors—political scrutiny and contention. The object isn’t more money or less money, though more could conceivably result from bringing science into the political mainstream. The object is to encourage science to bear its responsibilities in a new millennium dominated by the works of science. For over fifty years, the political instincts and talents of science have been heavily focused onasingle goal: more money. The struggle is won. Politics and the public manifest the holiness of converts. Now it is time for the people and institutions of science to justify that confidence by stepping out into the unruly world of politics.

at erin

A

A shen

a9a)

oe

sunkeanemie eee

ee Sad

a ry‘i fae ereaae ’ Bp

Hea

a eupeanar atin tones nical

ie ‘jebanyzaldaacey heat fumeeye tyo peeletend 3e\kelraetoy

»

niardsMK

lag

eRe IGA AORhoa alialHEC a aD

+ dhe deanrill ott of aodine> syia8 Pyle) silted ae oe pelgerrs: Seibert‘aL matte

als nok MOG

te hag, ia 8EL oes eoy eid. “y

isa

ied,

RAE Paya Ad sate eater aoa

oh

a er

iruter ‘¥e

ee

-

ars

ad net sabiaan

TaN ado itenerota be erage pokinnpe, GreDvitaned soning

-Hegitnaitts pon Neb tesdearici Sedpacttiy OSU imeAk Medes TATE ORR gets«Rie

srl

ais vA. aE a

jeolponsniog tl

SERIO, ORE: ack aahenna igy, ba pmetvht UL pices, tameeee “Aaa 4Pah aly” See aly acer

a.

wk

Ha tease pay. Sis

Maquina #5 Ro AAR

tasty 0 ogo el Mgt

basa iot byibberh ay aed are eee ouike. eteuae a acl, An aah a cae Revo Nek aterove WERT SHBG '

SseOG

Al

;

eh i otek) hsts

Pings EOS DN ilyameneer TR Pa DURE

Aaeaueiv

vat enti

ee Sa lig hy." ic oat ete:

ie

»>*

eh CRU aNapie 9 Sera RD 4

vino

sh

Thi 3

roan “ors, Likes sie7

as yy}

coerente onc

masag ti MCRD oeigirg.

AY

naa

a

9

a

oe

bro Ai un ey ies TOAD GT eb ergs Ge BIO twa trek Berg ht. “sill

Save cia he

ante oe

ah)

BASE

se tiles ed 177 Mhdartfiadis MIND penanceat aR oe hh teed a2, RePEERS e

oe

ewe0

rs

Na

1

stave

a Oey

ON

16 Aer

helt "oes

he

Ay

SOA tight.ts ‘a ws oabnaiaeeea Ne2TAL cape ine UA wie SapHiepet, «IN ue pew Dotyoatey ik sohbihags) j

REN ov ‘gi winding ih

Taiko

=, a, . Sele cm linSen ail aa ew Beetie Lae fégt ete

|

seth, Tele i

es

ka) ja

a

- Sai

7

fae

ae aoe

Se n

os ~

a

x

i a

7

Awe

7

a

ms 8c-

_ ers Pia Dents a

yah Pea

Sc dine ny,rae

AT, , moncuint jem allen as ipsa

ia

oa |

< i

F a

my

e

i

Oe

oa ar

Appendix

be ATRWY

Table 1 Support for Academic R&D, by Sector: 1953-98 Source of Support Year

Total

|

Federal Government

State/Local Government

Industry

Academic Institutions

All Other Sources

37 40 42 46 S1 56 61 67 75 84 96 114 136 165 200 221 233 259 290 312 343 393 432 480 569 679 785 920 1,058 1,207 1,357 1,514 1,743 2,019 2,262 2,27 2,852 3,186 3,457 3,568 3/19 3,960 4,139 4,375 4,686 4,979

27 29 32 36 40 45 50 5S 62 70 78 88 101 114 126 139 155 a 182 9S 211 239 272 300 337 364 386 419 463 534 S95 654 713 780 882 1,003 tsi 1,249 1,358 1,448 O33 1,598 1,624 1,672 1,754 1,840

Millions of Current Dollars

1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993; 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

213 301 342 391 433 491 586 705 834 993 1,178 1 S7S S95 1,818 2,035 2,187 2,280 2,418 2,565 2,757 2953 3,216 3,570 3,899 4,346 4,996 S/S 6,455 7,085 7,603 8,251 9,154 10,308 11,540 12,807 14,219 15,631 16,935 18,201 19,383 20,499 21,626 22,647 23,720 25,001 26,343

149 16S 191 221 242 280 356 453 Sov 687 839 995 1,167 1335 1,491 1,586 1,624 1,686 1,760 1,890 2,009 2,160 2,400 2,619 2,893 3,329 3,848 4,335 4,670 4,879 5,210 5,748 6,388 7,028 7,768 8,592 9,314 9,935 10,662 11,523 12,319 13,009 13,604 14,180 14,849 15,558

;

40 45 SO 57 64 UP, 81 90 101 112 125 138 150 160 168 185 208 237 262 282 302 320 348 369 394 443 482 9 581 621 658 721 834 969 1,065 1,165 1,274 1399 1,482 1,524 1,550 1,611 1,741 1,839 1,940 2,070

21 24 27 32 Syl 39 40 40 40 41 41 41 42 45 52 58 61 66 ULE 79 90 104 118 131 155 182 215 264 314 363 432 518 630 745 831 934 1,062 1,167 1,243 ISVvAL 1,388 1,448 1,539 1,655 W773 1,896

Table 1 continued Source of Support

Year

Total

Federal Government

State/Local Government

Industry

Academic Institutions

All Other Sources

181 194 203. 214 230 244 266 288 316 352 398 464 545 641 753 798 805 848 903 932 972 1,020 1,025 1,077 89 1,334 1,421 1,524 1,602 1,719 1,854 1,994 2,220 2,505 2,723 2,935 3,178 3,404 3,552 3,568 3,623 3,768 3,850 3,994 4,200 4,418

134 142 154 168 180 196 216 236 263 292 323 359 403 442 474 S01 536 S61 568 582 596 621 646 672 709 714 698 695 701 760 813 861 908 968 1,061 1,165 1,261 1,334 1,395 1,448 1,493 1,521 1,511 1,526 1,572 1,632

Millions of Constant 1992 Dollars

1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972; 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

173505 1,475 1,649 1,821 1,952 2,162 2,553 3,028 3,541 4,163 4,884 $,615 6,388 7,082 7,682 7,912 7,878 7,934 8,001 8,250 8,365 8,358 8,481 8,751 9,163 9,816 10,347 10,699 10,733 10,834 11,278 12,057 13,126 14,321 15,419 16,516 17,422 18,093 18,702 19,383 19,972 20,579 21,065 21,656 22,408 23,374

738 806 921 1,029 1,089 1,233 1,549 1,945 2,364 2,880 3,476 4,065 4,675 5,201 5,627 5,738 5,610 5,530 5,488 5,655 5,690 5,615 5,702 5,879 6,098 6,541 6,967 7,185 7,074 6,952 7,121 7,570 8,134 8,721 9,352 9,980 10,381 10,614 10,956 11,523 11,994 12,379 12,654 12,946 13,309 13,805

196 218 241 263 289 317 351 387 427 470 518 562 599 623 634 668 719 778 817 844 854 832 827 828 831 871 872 859 880 885 899 950 1,061 1,203 1,282 1,353 1,419 1,494 1,922 1,524 1,510 SoS 1,619 1,679 1,739 1,837

102 115 130 . 147 165 72, 172 172 170 170 168 165 166 175 194 208 209 215 225 236 254 270 280 294 326 357 388 437 476 S17, 590 682 802 925 1,000 1,084 1,183 1,246 1,277 1,321 1,352 1,378 1,431 Toll 1,589 1,682

7

NOTES: Data for 1998 are preliminary, and data for all years are reported on a calendar year basis rather than an academic year basis. Data in subsequent appendix tables are reported on an academic year basis and there-

fore differ from those reported in this table.

SOURCE: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies (NSF/SRS), National Patterns of R&D Resources (Arlington, VA: biennial series).

Table 2 International R&D Expenditures and R&D as a Percentage of GDP: 1981-98 Year

United States

Japan*

Germany”

France

United Kingdom

Italy

Canada

Total R&D Expenditures in Billions of Constant 1992 U.S. Dollars‘

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

109.5 115.2 123.1 134.8 146.1 149.3 152.0 155.5 158.2 162.4 165.3 165.2 161.2 160.7 170.4 179.4 189.4 201.6

NA 36.9 40.0 43.5 48.3 49.0 92.9 56.6 62.0 67.3 68.8 69.2 67.4 66.4 73.6 Ti 80.9 NA

23.4 24.2 24:7 29.9 28.3 29.1 31.3 32.4 BGes, 34.1 36.6 36.8 35.5 BOs 36.6 36.4 37.6 38.6

16.6 17.7 18.3 19.5 20.3 20.6 21.5 22.9 23.9 25.4 ZS 26.4 25.8 29.2 25.7 25.4 25.0 NA

U7e3 NA 16.9 NA 18.4 is) 19.7 20.3 20.9 21.3 19.6 20.6 20.7 20.7 20.1 20.4 20.3 NA

6.9 7.1 7.6 8.3 9.6 oy) 10.7 11.4 12.0 12.8 12.4 12.3 11.2 10.8 10.7 11.0 11.9 12.3

So Su 5.8 6.3 6.9 7.2 7.2 7.4 7.6 8.0 8.1 8.3 8.8 OF 7. 9) 10.3 10.6

R&D Expenditures as a Percentage of GDP

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

2.32 2.49 2.56 2.62 2.74 Zl 2 2.69 2.65 2.61 2.65 272 2.65 2.52 2.43 2.92 2.57 2.60 2.67

NA 2.22 2.35 2.43 2.58 Jess) 2.62 2.66 Dale 2.85 2.82 2.76 2.68 2.63 2.77 2.83 2.92 NA

2.43 2.52 2.92 2.51 2.72 213 2.88 2.86 2.87 2.75 2.61 2.48 2.42 2.32 2.34 2.30 2.31 2.33

1.97 2.06 Zed 2.21 2.25 2.23 Ca 2.28 2.33 2.41 2.41 2.42 2.45 2.38 2.34 2.32 2.23 NA

2.37 NA ZA NA 2.23 2.25 2.19 2.14 2.15 2.18 2.11 20S Dale 2.11 2.02 1295 1.87 NA

0.88 0.91 0.95 1.01 1.13 1.13 TLS. 1.22 1.24 1.30 1.24 1.20 1.14 1.06 1.01 1.02 1.08 1.11

1.25 1.40 37 1.41 1.45 1.49 1.44 1.39 139 1.47 T53 1.54 1.60 1.60 1.58 1.60 1.60 1.60

a

NA = not available

Due to changes in methodology, data on Japanese R&D in 1996 and later years may not be consistent with data in earlier years. > German data before 1991 are for West Germany only.

© Conversions of foreign currencies to U.S. dollars are calculated with purchasing power parity exchange rates. Constant 1992 dollars are based on U.S. GDP implicit price deflators. SOURCES: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Studies (NSF/SRS), National Patterns of R&D Resources: 1998, NSF 99-335, by Steven Payson (Arlington, VA: 1999); and Organization for Economic

Co-operation and Development, Main Science and Technology Indicators database (Paris: April 1999). Science & Engineering Indicators—2000

POM payug, saqeig uede{ ; peu wopsury Aueuliay aouely epeur) eIssny Ajey eyensny4 SpueyiayjeN + uapems yrewmuad pueyury Ae@MION pueyieziiMs uniseg eLqsny puryary uredg 20901) Aaymny Tesnji0g A eIARTSOSN eneolp BIUBAOTS

/uorsay Ayunop

0°001 Z8E eZ 1's 9 SF oF VN €7 1606 Ce 91 30 90 s0 ae 30 sO ZO UL £0 10 10 Z0 VN VN

sappy

0001 SKS SL OL 9 7i SP VN 97 UZ oz 1 £0 90 s0 CAN: 30 s‘0 Z0 eT £0 L'0 10 €0 VN VN

0°00 BSE 18 Wn $9 6F VP 6€ 87 Ce 1 oT 30 £0 s0 eT 30 90 Z0 ST £0 Z0 TO Z0 10 10

P6-Z661

paeyst[qng 7U]

Jofey

SulIsauIsugq

/UOTsay AnuNOD

gg

[euoHeUsszU] ‘sfeuInof Aq

arodesurs puereyL ersdepeyy ueysryed sautddyryd ysopesueg IayO eIsy Man purjeaz Jeurlo0g“Assn 1e}0} aurelny) sniejag ueysryaqz) eIuojsy RIA] eruenyyyy elUsUIy IIIIO JouIOJUSS [izerg euljuasly OolxXa attyo A ejanzaua RIquIojoD eqn 1eyI10 “D pue*§ eoHOUy [eeis]

s0Ua10S pure

L6-S661 0°00 9S ss a 39 18S Ll? re aS 7 Lg oT 30 £0 S0 Sap 60 90 Z0 07 v0 v0 Z0 10 10 10

[eOTUYyDaLsap>HAY UT e ag Jo

16-6861

yWadIEd Jo

dYMUaDS pure

88-9861

a8vyusoIag Jo s,ppIoM

9xiqeL €

10 10 00 00 00 00 10 r0 39 VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN v0 €0 70 10 10 00 00 10 I'l

88-9861 ‘0 10 00 00 00 00 10 v0 9 VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN 0 €0 Z0 Z0 10 00 00 10 Om

F6-Z661

peysi[qng [UJ

Ce

Z0 10) 10 L‘0 070 00 10 v0 6F s0 10 10 00 00 00 0:0 ZO HOV) €0 €0 10 10 00 00 10 OT

Oe eee

sapyay

16-6861

JusdIeg jo

:AxyuNOD 26-9861

ZO 10 10 00 00 00 10 v0 eV sO 10 10 00 00 00 00 10 Z0 70 €0 Z0 0 00 00 10 O|

L6-S66L

——

000Z—S40}vI1puy SuuiaauiSuz 32 29ua19$

‘uonringe} [eDeads ‘(Sys/ASN) Setpnys sedInosay sdusId¢ Jo WOISIAIg ‘UOHepUNOY aduUaLs [eEUOHRN pur faseqeyep sIOyeIpU] adUaIDg “SUT ‘YDIeasay THO ‘Xapu] UOHLID suas [eI0g PUL XePU] UOHeHD VUES ‘UOHLUTIOJU] IBHUEDS IOJ yNINsU] :sAOUNOS

60 Sot rom i TO TO c0

v0

L0 c0 TO TO

60 90 VN VN v0 ZO TO

OT

VN

ealoy

“saSevIoAR

110 adoing eLILAOCTS PIULUIOY PLYRAOTSOYIEZD yoezD oqnday

8u0y] UeMIELsuoy

aqqeottdde you = YN

eulyo

£0 80

£0 c0 VN 80

ST cl AY)

TO

v0 c0

00

£0 90 FO ZO £0 ZO

eIpu]

IoyiO POLY eAuayy OdD0IO/W easly Wemny 133O IeaNPoy seq YNos eIIOSIN eIsIUn], uel]uepio[

v0 ZO c0

00 OC

ANUNOD $6-Z66I 2U} OJ Saseq snopeA ay} Jo asnedaq se8vIIAe PLIOM O} Ppk JOU OP s[IeJaq ‘sIeaA []e OJ paurquiod are yep ULUTIAD “A[UO F661 O} SIOJOI ,,F6-Z66L,, ‘PAPAOTS pur dI[Qndey YydezD 104 ‘(adomg 19y}0 Ur papnout) eTUOpadey puR eTUSOg pUP ‘eIUdAOTS ‘eIFLOID OJ saBeIIAK asay} IOJ aNz} ST aus at} ‘ATUO F6-E66T O} JOJor SaBeIOAL ,,F6-Z66L,, HOU pure ‘soyqndar 1ouIIOJ sy} JO UOHeU \ -Iquiod ay} st YSsN JaULIOg “AryUNOD Yea 0} aPHTE J[eY-dUO se pa}UNOd S} SaLTVUNOD JUEIEFJIP WO sIOYIN OMY UIIM apHIe ue ‘g[durexea 10} /s}USWIUBISse [PUOT|OeIy UO paseq aie s}UNOD API :SALON

00 00 TO ZO $0

00

eiqery

a

v0 TO

yd A3q Ipneg

ZO 00

00 LO

LO TO

YINoS

Aresunqy elresing

puelod

£0

00 TO vO c0

00 00 00 c0 v0 90 oO ZO TO 00 00

vO cO TO 00 61

80 90 VN

TO v0 00 00

00 00 ZO 10) 00

00 00

ZO 00 TO TO 00 00 TO v0 c0 TO TO

”

yTeuonen

IL1‘PT

666L (182)

8818

0z9'9 LSO'L 60S‘Z

1229

8Z6‘TT

086‘II 19S‘Z1 €LZ‘EL

S661

9661 L661 8661 (382)

£90'S

8r3‘S 1619

80Z‘TT L6L‘I1

SIs €09 9SL 978 SOl‘T PST €97'T 66£'T 88s‘T 088'T 7107 101‘ OFL‘Z (ASA SIL‘Z SST‘€ €vT'E €06'€ 661'F S9oS'F 6LL'F 1zs‘S

eUieoH

sojny JO

TZZ‘OL

+ |

su

OST‘

OFL'T 618'T 806‘T

PEL‘T

Z9S‘T 089‘T

OFS‘T

8ZZ L9Z Z9E PLE 68€ Ser LEV IIs LES L19 $389 ZOL SIZ €8Z 088 Z00'T 766 960'T €Pl't PS7'T IZE'T 9EF'T

Iw

uonepunoy jo

BUSS

jeuonen

:Aduasy 66-0261

Eee

STWapecy ‘Q3xyy Aq

7661

‘

sapuesy

OLF'T Sr9'T 406'T LI6‘T FIZZ Ilr‘Z GIO S06‘Z SLE‘E 688‘ €97'b 99b'b S09‘F 996'F LES‘'S Ore’9 6SS‘9 Lee‘ 873 7L9'8 SEl‘6 ‘OL691

lIv

suoNe3IqO 103

€661 F661

OL6I IZ6T ZLOL €Z61 PL6L SL61 9L6L LL61 8Z61 6261 O86T 1861 7861 €861 F861 S861 9861 L861 8861 6861 0661 1661

eax

e19eL v [eIapay

€Ze'T

Ler'l SPE'L P6E'T

68ST

919'T €0Z'T

€0r'T

91Z IZ LIZ FOZ L61 €0Z OFZ €LZ €8€ Ser S6P €LS 799 vel 0€8 06 860'T L10'T 1Z0‘T 681'T €1Z'T Coal

suoly Jo

9

j

sonneuoley

98S

6I1Z

$99 6IZ 612

804

F19 19

uoneNnsIulUIpy jo

aoeds

TEL PEL 611 IIL 66 801 611 SIL L7Z1 6£1 8ST IZI 981 681 £07 LET PSZ P67 SEE PEP IL? res

}UsLIND sie][oq

asuajoq

quaujiedaq

JeuoneN quawjIedaq

86S

109 €8S rss

P6S

€8s S9s

09

OOT +6 Ss €8 +6 ZEL SPL 881 OFZ 092 S8Z O0€ LLZ L6Z IZE LSE SvE 98¢ 90% PSP 00S 1Z9

,A8iaug

|

€0r

9LE lth PSP

Ser

€€P 6£F

Ser

“$9 ZL £8 56 S6 801 OZT OFI 981 002 91Z €hZ SSZ SLZ 19Z €67 PLE O8Z SOE 8ZE 8re 98¢

aIn}yNIUsy

Jusu}Iedaq Jo

IIV

6€Z

Tes L6S SOL

L6S

ess LS

009

LEG $97 LLZ P77 ZET ZLZ 87Z 9LZ €l€ SSE ZIP 9LE 69€ 90€ SEE ZSE SSE 19€ 99€ 6PP sos 0zs

sapuesy

I9U3iO

ee

CS 91S Ly ZOS LES

89S LES css LOv LLY 8LP 187 L9P LOE LOV A 9St SEE 867 9ST OvT SSZ VCE

1és 87S 6€9 Ov9 8CP 990 CEE

Sv9

€CS £99

Os ZLLS S69 cs9

vy

OFT

009 ses CPS cos 9¢F

vss 6FS

£79 PEs

000Z—S4L0]vIIpuT SuuiaauiSuq 32 aouats

“sayias Tenuue ‘ASN pur ‘(6661 ‘WA ‘UOIUTY) E€€-66 ASN ‘ZF “IOA

IZ6I

PL6L

8261

9661 S661 F661 €661 7661 1661 0661 6861 8861 L861 9861 S861 F861 €861 7861 1861

(382) 6661 (482) 8661

‘saTqe | [RONSHRIS PaTleyad ‘6661 PUL ‘R66T ‘Z66L SIA [eOSTY UatUdojaaag puUk YIeasay IOJ spuNy [elapay ‘(SUS/ASN) SeIPNIS sadInosay 2oUatds JO UOISIAIG ‘UOHepUNOY edUaLDs [PUONEN ‘SAOUNOS “SIET]OP Z66L JULISUOD 0} SIe[[Op JUALIND WaAUOd 0} pasn sio}epap aud yorydunt yonpoid spsauIop ssor8 Ioj [-Z a[qe} xIpuedde aag , “AB19uq Jo yuoured -3d *S$"Q AU} IO} are Jayearay] pue //6[ JO} yep /UoMeNstuTUpy JUaWdojaaaq pue YIeasay ABIIUY IY} IOJ aI 9/61 O} HL6I IO} Bie ‘UOIssIMMMOD ABOU ITWO}V OU} JOJ ae €/61 0 OZET 10} BIL q ‘UOneSIUTWUIpy YeaL [eWay pue ‘asngy 8nIq ‘[oYooTy 2} epnypour YyI|eaIH JO seynzHsu] [eEUOHeN aU} JOF eye ‘Surpunol Jo asnedaq QOT [e}0} Jou Aeur saseyuaoIed -ALON ee

v8P

6€S

Sep OS? OCP

£79 88S

879 cso 18 6€8 9¢L

19€‘Z1

7ZE'L 7716 969'6 608'6 LEL'8 8r3'8 608'9 680'8 8S8'9 909'9 ZIL'9 Z6L‘L 9r8'S 981'9 866'S €76'S PLL'S 89S'S 0£6'F 97'S COOL L9¥‘0L0Z6‘OT

861'T

,SIETIOG Z66T WULISUOD JO SUOTTTIW

080‘TT ZETIT 67L'TL ST6‘01

1ZZ‘OL

€rl'Z

CPL s¢9'9

Sz8‘S L69'S 068'S

P8s‘€ 620'F LOL'¥ POLS 690°€ 6L7'€ F6E'E 97Z'E

6L6'7 L16'T 66£'7Z FE8'Z €68‘7

ZE0'9 Il€'9

£90'S €89'S €70'F €68'F O€L‘S

LST‘E PSP'E

O€Z'T €67'Z 100‘

SZ8'T

Sss‘T SIP'l 8LP'1 77S'‘T O19'T

ZOL'T

SST'T

000‘T 880'T

880'T

COLL¥8

989'T LZ9'T

OFS'T 86S'T

O€Z‘T 7ZE'T ZOP'T bLO'T 8L7'T cee SZ0'T 890'T €€l'T 8Z0'T

890'T 660'T SsSO'T

O198S9S09€v9seoLé9 SOs60S98S

STe'l €0€'T 98T'T bLS'T S089€8088cS6£66 Ses00sIssc8S LS9 €CL

ZET'T 9LF'T Z0Z'T €0F'T 029'T Z9E'T 8b7'T 960'T 97Z'T 6ZE'T 661'T COL c6S 029

vSEv6ES8YV

86S CLEOSTESC VCE

SSZ997£97997097¢697£O0€STE 897S9T 8ePiA 19€

evev6ELOVCSE CCVLIV L6E LEESSE 99€LLESPEpLE ILELOES9E 997VLE $9 ble 917

vor Ser Oe LE 6€€ ee 867 LST 8é7

L661

O86I 6Z61

LL61 9L61 S61

€L61 LOL

OL6I1

[e}0OL

6EL'6Z SEL'EE SIL‘9E B9L'8E FIC L88'6F 6HZ'ES 690'LS 901'6S SII'Z9 I8Z‘€9 + 868'S9 86€'89 $88'69Ih LEE'89 16L'89 6F0'69 €S9'TL 69S'EL 988'9L STP'SL

eax

O86T L861 Z86I E86T P86L S86T IB6L LE86T 886L 6861 0661 I66T Z66IL £661 F66T S66T 9661 L66I 866T 6661 0007

a19qeL Ss [eIepeaqGRY

69'E = ZS'SAT 698E = 867'F © 6LL'F = SIRS =S9s‘s 955'9 9Z0'L MLL 80€'8 — 9726 =SSO'OL O8Z'OL €66'0I § LOP'IT =L98'IL =OL9'ZI 9LS‘EL 6ST PTB‘ST =

[elouay

€€Z'T OFE'L 6SE'T ZOS‘T 9Z9'T 798'T €L8'T = 7b0'~ O9T'Z LEZ (OLF'Z Seg’ 659‘ 169° ONL F6L'7 9#8'Z EHO 09€'F 6&2‘ IS6'h

ABO[OUYDaL adUaIDg

8EL'Z DiLsae 8ST FELT 00€'% StL'7 £687 86E'E €89‘€ SOSH S9L'S IIS‘9 PPL'9 8869 PIPL 916L PrS'L br8'L 861'8 6€78 Cv'8

pue

yoreasay

aoeds

€09'€ 10S‘€ ZIO'E BLS‘ 18s‘% 68E'7 987% €S0'% 97'S 61r'~ 97L'7 €S6'% €sl'€ LL9'% SESE bP8'T IZs‘Z CLG 86 POLL 8re'l

A8IaUq

-suel] “By

288 698 16Z 918 OF0'T O€0'T L16 806 968 £90'T SP0'T Tec ScSur SeOnt 888'T €€8'T = S6L'T = S8Z'T = EE8'T = LSZaD OF8'T ss

suoTIW Jo

SO9DTAIIS

[esos =

sss 689 £69 7A iS Z9L 9€8 STs 778 788 206 0S6 CSOT SSI. CSL. €6l'l POL'T 9LT'L €0Z'T 6r7'T CSeie ZZS‘T 89F 862 877 681 002 0@Z 8hZ L9Z S87 LE PLE €eP S9e She eZe 69€ Tee €Le PPP LSP 16P

suRIa}9A § sygousg

S7L 091 Sol LLL Z6L O1Z I1Z £77 P77 6LZ SLE BLE IZE Z8E PSZ L87 7SZ 061 £91 Sol SII

STIR =

971 €Pl 6€1 LSI SIZ £61 €8I SIZ S61 Z1Z 91Z 612 StS OSz S9z LSZ 6SZ L9Z Z8S +19 £99

SQdIAIOg

Teuoyjeu pue

~=uautAo;durq -Iojuy

‘SuIUIeLL,

}yUsIIND sie]Jog

pue

‘uoleonpy

000Z-O86T

jyuautUOMAUGuopneyod amyn>

666 190'L $96 7S6 £96 6S0'T Z90'T €€L'T O9l'T SS7'L 98e'T 78ST 889'T Z08'T $98'T 886'T Z08'T 988'T Sse'L 87Z6'T Pr6'T

pue

saoInosay

yeinjen

‘AWOYINY Aq Ja8pngUN :UoRH [ost] SIeaX

asUsJeapPUON YITeaAH

[e10OL

9F6OFL €6L'FL €IPBI CEST OLO'%Z ShO'FT 9E6'FC ZESEL L87'67 FT L76 869'€E 68191 9Z6'9E €ZE9L ZST'6E LI6‘LIT 660'0F Z00‘61 S99'0F OSP‘IZ SZ6‘6E 9S8'€7 8ZE6E OLS‘9Z €80‘0F STE‘8Z = 6P7 sSE€9‘8z POL'LE Z9S‘0€ POZ'LE Z8S‘TE 108‘ZE 8bZ'TE = 16S‘6€ Z90'ZE = €78'6€ 9FZ'EE L8E‘0F 66h9€ OIZ'ZE BOLLE =

assuejeq

yeuonen

Je8png

I0L 901 FOL LOT OIL FIL IIL OIL ZL 8Z1 OFT 821 Z6L 0@Z ose Szs ZEP 60F 86€ LOP SbF

Wpao

SP rE Te LE PT LY If 6P Is SP tr. IS Is 64 oF 6S 9S 6S ZL 78 6S

jueurdojaaaq aoysnf

L¥ eF Ze ZE 97 Iz FL SZ €7 EG €€ O€ LE 9€ SP €P 91 6 81 LE FZ

uonenst

AyUNUTUIOD-urmpy

[euoIs3y jo

pue

a FOL £9 bP oF os 88 66 801 tL 19 88 S6 ZS 89 , YA os SF cP 6P 1s

§ad1aUTWIOD

SuIsnoy

pue

=AyIndeg

suIOSU]

Ce HG OL 9 ie ZI ial LI LI ST ZI $ F I 0 i: Zz Zz Zz G Z

yuamuTa

[eIauey

—_

9L cs bP

Is

8 91 CE 1é

LE ZI O£ Lé Oe Se Te Le Se £P OF cL 09

ce

Is

O9T 06 09 19 v9

L0c

6rL OLIe9L

6016LL

CL 16

8h

S6

OST €81

9S so

so

19€ 887£6€Soe CSEOse€8€

FIZ

67 61s88S Z9S

907LCE6SCLCCLETC&SSCCSPCVE CST6€79&7

SIZ

LETEve€SZ7897

p9T182 80€

0&7?

vPL vPL86

COVOFF

COE

Z6E

S9E6€ESSEEVE

CEE88

IL0'T

EE

66€OCP

€ZLe'l 10z'T Sell Peel

L97'T ZEL'T O6L'T vro'T $60'T SEL'T PLe'T

ZOE'T €ZS'‘T Ots'T 6L1'T vOL'T029'T 96S'T 9L0'T Seo'T 1Z0'T €0L'T 60L'T 96L'T SEL'T CZL'T 6S9'T SSL'T€ZS‘T €80'T 0Z0'T PLOT

8Z0'T 166

900'T £90'T 1Z0'T £86 66 Z10'T

€99'T 789'T 6£9'T

LP8'T PLL'T 9SZL'T 889'T 87Z9'T 88P'T €0F'T ZSE'T 99€'T Sel

SLP'~

9€8'Z 9LP'Z

820'9 9LE'S oze't PES‘E LOP'E 8h0'E

IZl'Z

DPET

08S‘Z S6S‘7 CLLIG 6S9'Z 7729'S 79P'Z £S9'Z L8S'7 LIS‘Z

6P6'T 650% TIT

€02'Z

PLO'L

LLY'E 9€0'E

619'F

169'8

L8U'L Pre L

9FU'L ese'Z €so'Z 808'9 vPL'9 ZOL'9 681'9 €60'S 760'F L60'F 16S‘€

9767 90L'€ LLL'Y

80¢'9

Ses €st'T STO'T

vEL'F €6S'Z €£9'7 es’

beE'T 9LE'%

080'Z 8507

£89'T ZP9'T

Ise‘, TLE SOe'T

SOL'Z 976'7 OF0'€ este 809'Z €€L'7

P8e'T 679'T $89'T

CH9'T

96F'T

SIe][Od Z66L WRSUOD Jo sUOTTTTI

197 Cle€0v68€ILE CLE

CCE

Lee6ST

OLT

Cv~LIT

C97697

II 907

8SP

CL os

oF cP LE ra bP

882

661

v9

bP ss Is es

col

SvL BEL cel crl evl LbL SPL

O¢Z

682

£8 9C1

LY cs IS

967'7

ez

6S 6S os

ZI8‘OL O€e'IL 8SF‘OL 96S‘OT 910‘0T Sso‘Or

S06'Z L6P'6 97'S 616'8 #06'9 6S‘S £68'S €16'9 1€z'9 PP6'S

966'IL ZOS‘EL €es‘€L

$S6'bZ 67S‘EZ €17'SZ

8S9'8E L8L'FE

O€Z'9F 99F'SE L1Z‘Lh

881 €80'0F

OFT'FE €OP'Se 681'SE 09S‘FE

‘OF CP PL8'Sh Sso'le 666 SLT'87Z IST‘€S

‘OF 78h 198'h

6F'69

S7Z6‘SE

ogz'se os7’‘Ze

Z00'S9 £90'L9 96h'F9 Z06'€9 606‘79 €L0'F9 £80'89 €00‘S9 86¢'89 1¢3‘Z9 918'89 088'89IL¥‘89 9S99'¢9 990'99 008‘TS19¢‘8S Z9T‘OS £08‘TS O86L

£861P86l

T86LC86L

Z86188616861

S86L9861

06611661C66L£661P66LS6619661L661866166610007

000Z—Slowr1puy SupaauiSug x2 aouaiog

0L9‘8Z CPE69F'87 STE'8Z8Z0'6Z 67 SPC'TE SEs‘TE 818'6z 6PE'LZ86827 €0Z‘61 €86'€7 O19'SZ ZS7‘0Z S09‘1Z OST'ZZ £S9'0Z

£96'81 SPL‘0Z

-(SUTWIODYOJ :WA ‘UOUTPY) OOOT-S66L $1vaX [bISIA suoNIUNA Jaspng Aq Suipuny CPYy [vlapa ‘(SAS/ASN) SerPNAS saoIMosay 2UEIDg JO UOTSIAI ‘UOTepuNoY eUsDs [LUOHEN *JOUNOS

PE 99 9F bY

‘Q0UdTDS [eI9US8 0} ASIDUS WI peVlsse]oeI a19M surer801d A81auq Jo yuauNredag Jo Jaquinu e ‘gg6T Ad Ul SuTUUISag Je3pNq OOOT Ad 2U} UO peaseq AreuTUTTaId ae OOOT PUL G66 JO} eJeq “AWOYINe Ja8pnq Jenjoe o1e g6-O6T 10J BILC :SALON

62

OTNNANN

a

SMA

jou

81 91 8 Z 8 8 bt cr cl cL 91 91 ZT 61 IZ £7 Le 9% LE 67 Te PE SE LE OF 6£ 8e 6£ IP ep

ZTE CTE 67E LOE £0€ OO€ LCE €ZE Olr CLP OFS b09 289 982 8r8 198 b76 806 LL8 806 876 F66 660'T 897'T 102'T 8h7'T SEL'T €Z0'T 910'T 901'T

dod

aouais 2

pleuoy “]

ZUTIIY) ‘UO :VA

SurssauiSuq

syaaW

“SaOUNOS[eEUONeN aduaIds

O€6'T TL6'L BLOC ALCOA

VN VN VN VN VN VN VN 68 lbp £9OF €7S 985 79 89Z 208 €h6 096 690'T S8I‘T IIP‘T SOS'T £89'L 9EZL'T SSZ'T €09‘L

JOd 0 0 0 c co 6 S S ST 8 OL S € v S v S 8 8 a 6 9 S S 9 8 €L cL 61 97 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I £ I IT 0 0 0 0 0 I c € LP 8 Be 6S 9S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c é o P P S S ay, S € £ v v Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 S = € € ¥ v 6 6 6 OL FL ST el al 91 ST ST ZI LY LI 91 9T 91 €L tL el i tL PL 91 S 9 9 6 OL ZE a 8 9 OL Fl IT ce a4 oe 6£ 8e Te LE TS ol 16 OIL 68 TOL OZ cs Is Zs ZS

sueIa}9A

VN VN WN VN VN VN] VN VN VN 0 0 0 0 ¥ £ tc ¥ Se Dee S43 § 9 9 8 Z Dec Oac 0 OL

CIV 8S€ LTE CEE ose 90€ 60€ £67 vIP O8h ELS 6SS Tes 9eS £19 SSL LSE LI6 FI0'R SUL TARA LE9T 90L'T =8EZ't OO8'T 796'l 86 T86T S60‘ 9Fz'S Cent LOW

VSVN SZ €27 89€ 76€ SIP 98h ¥CS AS) 8Z9 €€Z SIs £68 916 666 CoE COCA SL7'l VZSis SCP CEE 98ST 949'T ZPLl PPL'T TZ8'l SA6i LOO, 480% SOl'Z Chic

dSN

eee AinsearL = osieyy = Vvdd

JUaLIND (sre[[oq

ansnf = =LOG

SUOTITIW) Jo

VN 6£ VN CV VN eV VN 6h VN 60 VN ss VN oS VN $9 VN 99 VN €Z €9L'l cL 006‘T 18 SPL‘? OL Sle‘ €Ol #STSiG" OZT, €€Z'E SEL 6€€'€ €€l 8728’€ SEL 180% LZeL sse'r 68 669'F SOc OSO0'S 6@Z 6S0'S T€Z 69'S O€% ¥83'S £8 190'9-PE9'T ss S0S‘9 9S zSs8'9— 9S LOGL ZS LG 99

SHH

66-OZ61

WN VN VN VN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SUN

‘

000Z—Ss10joa1puy

aduUaIDg

‘66-IS6L ASN

yrvasay pup

jo2U0ISIET‘sa1qQv, [vISLI SivAK

“(SUS/ASN) jo1apay spun 10f

pajinjaq

s2dInoOsay SeIPNIS

‘SUS/ASN[olapa spung ‘Aaains

‘L66I ‘8661PUP

‘ZPE-66 3alOld ‘1a2gJO PleuoY “T

4uaudojaaaq [DISTT S10AX

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v v v S S S 9 S 9 b v £ € S @ c OL 6 6 0 0 0 0

VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN S ¥ v v S 9 Il 9 al cL cL Il Il

sapuesy

Isto

Ilv

SYPaW

‘EEe-66 pealoig ‘IAUJO

‘UO}BuTLY) :WA (6661

jeuoneN soyneuorey pur aoeds ‘a21auIWIOD Gog = yuouredag Jo -aq [eyUauTUONAUY uoNdajorg‘AOuasy

81 ST IZ a SZ ST 97 oe Se LE Iv SY cs 9S 9 IZ £9 cL SZ 08 8 86 86 COL vZL vl Lel O€T PEL CPL

Ayoyny

“uueaL ueluosyyIUISAaTIeA

“ysu]

“6661 ASN

uoNsenb you ‘BuNstxa Jo jou Sutaey ay) awes ‘uonruyap ur od ‘siead yasn = “$7 yueuredag Jo ‘/ammynousy WSWN = /UOnepunoy DYN = TeuOWeN ypreasay ‘TOuNOD IV= AQuasy 10y [euoHeuseyuy juaudopaag D0q = yuaunIedag Jo YIeaH pure URN] ‘sadtAIag [QO= JuaUnIedag Jo ay} ‘10}19}U] LOG = yuaUNIedaq Jo {UONeodsueLy Yaq=

VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN LG 81 IZ tL tI cL ST S £ v v S 6 8 S 9 9 v £ S 8

uonenpggOd

‘YoIeasay Ad

‘UOEpUNOY UOISIAIG JO

“(6661Pure

‘afqeoydde anp0} 2U} ADua8e ur /‘UoneNsturUIpy JSN= [eUONeN aduas ‘asuay Joq = yuaunredaq Jo ‘A8Ieugq SHH =

yN=

OIL 8IL LEL crl 9oFL PST IZt $07 £b7~ 9ST 9Le PIE Tee Z9E £6€ SUP cep OFF 18h S8P 61S 8ss S6S 919 909 S6S oss 06S 86S 609

90d

suoNeSITGQO 10J II1seg

sapuaSy VdSN

OZ6L 97Z6'T IZ6L 086'T cL6L L817 £Z6L CECE PL6L 88e'7Z SL6L 88S'Z 9L6L LOLT ZL61 6S7Z'€ 8Z6L 669'€ 6261 €61'F O86T $L9'F 861 10'S C861 78'S £86L 0929 P86L 290'L S86L 618'Z 9861 €St’s8 L861 76'8 8861 PLP‘6 6861= ZO9‘OL 0661 98Z'TI L661 IZU‘ZI Z661= 06r'ZI €661 66€'EL F661 PCS‘EL S66 LL8‘EL 9661 P9OF'FL =LE6T FL 7h6O 8661 Z98'ST 6661 PI6‘9L

rea,

IIvV

‘TeIOL

[eIapay

SIQeL 9

000Z—S4L0JOIIpuy Suuaaulsuyq 2 aIuais

“(6661 :VA ‘UO}UTIY) SYS “T P[PUOY ‘I29JO 32

-Aoua8y uoNda}o1g [e}USUTUOIAUY = yay {UONRYOdsueIy Jo yusuNIedaq = LOC ‘{1OMa}] ay} Jo yUoUNIedaq = [OC ‘sadtAIeg URUIN] pUe UVeeaH = SHH ‘A819ug Jo yusuedeq = FOC ‘asuey

-loid ‘LP£-66 ASN “66-LS6I S4vaX [vost ‘sajqu], [vIUOISIET pativjaq ‘Aading spun [o1apar ‘SAIPNAS S2dINOSIY BUATIS JO UOISIAIg ‘UOHEpUNo a2uaTys [PUCHEN pue “(6661 -VA ‘uoyBUTIY) Sea “T PleuoYy ‘TaOgIJO Walorg ‘E€E-66 ASN ‘6661 PUY ‘866I ‘L66I SAvaX [bISIY :JUadojaaaq puv Yosvasay 401 spuny [bLapad ‘(SAS/ASN) SEPM SedINOsey IUTIg JO UOISIAIG ‘uoQepUNOY ddUIIDS [EUOHEN :SFOUNOS

OL OL IL IL eL 9 Il 9 S ¥ v S 9 VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN AyWoyNy

0 0 0 0 8 8 OL Cc c S £ © 5 6 L Ls 8 as L 8 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

uUeTUOSY}IUIS

“ysu]

vel SIL OIL OIL STL sit 66 86 TOL 06 68 £8 £8 6L 16 8 Lie SL 69 69 89 69 £9 6S 19 L9 OZ so 8P 19 OYUN

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VN VN VN VN dSN

OSE CLGiRme 6es't 6081s CeCe O8Z'T 669'T ZPLT StL‘ £020 SPZ'T OL9'T Some ZESsPe O19'T S6r'l OLE'l PIET ZLE'l SLE'l LRE'L 6PE'T Oce'T 00z‘T POLI SZL'l OPT‘'T SII‘T 998 818 VSVN

(SS8T OOM €Z8'T SOST LES s98'T ¥#SZ‘T «8EZ't 9SL'T ASL #8S‘T L6Z‘T (S77.le Lebel 8S6 966 9F8 892 918 £46 76 S56 188 729 O9Z 628 810‘T 900'T Oro‘ S6l‘l dIV

EL mae O FZ aC Z 8 9 9 es € € ey eS: c v 9 0 0 0 0 VN VN VN VN VN VN WN VN WN Vda

os os oF LY so 96 £8 Ort 6 6L LS Te LE 8P 6b 6€ Of LY 91 £7 61 ra 81 Te eV 97 92 61 61 81 SIIeISV

tl cL cL IL el tL el 91 91 ZI 61 0c 07% 8L 07 TZ 61 61 £7 4 LE 81 61 0@ OL OL 6 OL OL 8L

Amseal,

0 0 0 0 0 0 Z P v £ € 9 9 o 9 S S £ v € 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOG

6P cs PE SE bP € c ip 0 0 0 0 0 I T S (i I é 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 é c I

ensn{

£7@ 91 Il IL 8 9 S S 9 OL 8 6 OL ie S 9 S v Z 9T ST 67 Il OL £7 9 9 0 0 0

IOd

8S os os IS Is 62 $77 T€Z 9€Z O@Z IlZ SPI €9l SOL 9LT 991 lvl OIL v7L Tek eel TeL Sel P7L Sel cel CPL Tel eel CEL

SHH

goa

7Pr6'T 8569 9€8'T ¥0S‘9 Z9L'T LeV'9 8SZ'T 9726'S 8 IS‘T 0g9'S L6S‘S — SZS‘T =«OSS‘'S)—(OTL'T 9E€Z'T 6S0'S 9EL'T 86'S 9I19'T «166% 8ZS‘T 906% I8E'T 9SZ'b 687Z'T 919% Té6l'T ILO’ €02'T 16S‘€ 960'T L9Z'E €S0'T OF6'% I%6 92ZL'% 006 VN 788 26% oss VN 9L8 VN 678 VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN

Z S e € S S Ss 8 6 S v S y 9 61 91 6L 07 ce oe 8e VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN VN

S96 L68 S16 LE0'T O9l'T CPL SEZ'T 660'T €Z0'T 810'T 090'T 7Z0'T S60'T OFT 660'T 6I1'T ZLO‘T S86 8726 C16 998 918 S6Z 6rL LEL 18 168 L66 PZ0'T 6S0'T

90d

LE 9€ SE ve LE 8 9¢ SE Se ee ce 9¢ te €f 0c Le 97 a St Le co £7 97 SZ 0c 1é 61 0 os 19

Ydsn

Tes 87S 8zS LOS ess LLS 009 S6s PLS ZSs CPS 19S 8es LZes 89S SIs 96Pr PLY 78h SOF ILP £8Pr Sty £6€ 6LE S6E SIP i 9LE L8E

sapuasy

PSL'FL =: 666 8661 910'FI L66T Z9E'EL 9661 SLU'EL S661 16871 F661 s9s‘Zl €66T FSO'EL O6r‘ZT = Z66T L661 8zZS‘ZI_ 9IL‘ZE = 066 6861 PSS'Il 8861 IvO'Il L86I €8Z‘OL 9861 SIL‘OL S86L LL6'6 P86L 6Z£'6 £861 €8S‘8 7861 798'L T86L CPL'L O861 S8g‘Z 6261 TOL‘Z 8Z6L 9se'L LLOL 8£6'9 9Z6L Ore’9 SZ6L gse'9 bL6l 6949 €Z6L S8P'9 cL6L €¢9'9 IZ6L 72679 OZ6L Ser'9

eax

dod

Iv ‘TeOL

uonenpg

————————————————————————————————

-aq Jo Juaunredag = qoq /ao1ewW0> jo yusuIedag = DO jUaudojasag [euOHeUIA\Uy 103 AQUa8Y = IV ‘TOUNOD YIeasey [PEUOHEN = OYN ‘UoHepunoy suaDdg [euUOHeN = ASN ‘UoeNsIUTWIpY aoeds pue soyneuoray [eUCNeN = YSVN ‘ainynou8y jo yuewyredaq ‘sq = Vasn ‘sieed sod ut ‘UOHTUYap owes dy} SuUIAeY JOU Jo ‘BuNsTxe jou uoysanb ut Aduase ay} 0} enp ‘atqeordde you = YN

sapuesy

AatieA

sueia}a/\

ruyO

“uueaL TT

IIV

(sIeTIOG Z66L JULISUOD JO SUOTTIIW) 66-OL6L AA *UoTeasay Itseg J0J suoMeS8ITGO [eIEpaT ZeiqeL

Table 8

Responses to and Mean Scores on the Attitude Toward Organized Science Scale, by Selected Characteristics: 1983-99 (Selected Years) TOSS

ISS

OSS

lOO

1992

1990S 5 1997

1999,

Percent of Public

Agree that ‘science and technology are making our lives healthier, easier, and more comfortable” Agree that ‘‘the benefits of science are greater than any harmful ef-

85

86

89

90

72

73

72

75

75

60

63

60

61

57

faith” 43 39 43 44 45 aaa

44

48 SS

46

fects” Disagree that way of life Disagree that on science

‘‘science makes our change too fast’’ ‘‘we depend too much and not enough on

84

86

87

84,

57

68

76

50

53

59

SOURCES: National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resource Studies (NSF/SRS), NSF Survey of Public

Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Science and Technology, 1999 (and earlier years). For a complete set of data from the survey, see J.D. Miller and L. Kimmel, Public Attitudes Toward Science and Technology, 1979-

1999, Integrated Codebook (Chicago: International Center for the Advancement of Scientific Literacy, Chicago Academy of Sciences, 1999); and unpublished tabulations.

Science & Engineering Indicators—2000

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

AAAS

American Association for the Advancement of Science

AAMC

Association of American Medical Colleges

AAU

Association of American Universities

ABM

Antiballistic Missile

ACDA

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

ACS

American Chemical Society

APS

American Physical Society

ARPA

Advanced Research Projects Agency

AUTM

Association of University Technology Managers

CIFS

Committee on the International Freedom of Scientists

CBO

Congressional Budget Office

COSSA

Consortium of Social Science Associations

DARPA

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DOE

Department of Energy

EPSCoR

Experimental Program to Stimulate Cooperative Research

FASEB

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

FEC

Federal Election Commission

FS&T

Federal Science and Technology

FAS

Federation of American Scientists

FY

Fiscal Year

GAC

General Advisory Committee, of Atomic Energy Commission

GAO

General Accounting Office

GDP

Gross Domestic Product

GRALE

General Research at the Leading Edge, Institute for

HHS

Health and Human Services, Department of

IRB

Institutional Review Board

ESE)

Informal Science Education

MIT

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

NAE

National Academy of Engineering

NAS

National Academy of Sciences

NASA

National Aeronautics and Space Administration /

491

/

7 -492~/

Glossary

NASW

National Association of Science Writers

NBS

National Bureau of Standards

NBS

National Biological Service (formerly National Biological Survey)

NIH

National Institutes of Health

NIST

National Institute of Standards and Technology

NRF

National Research Foundation

NSB

National Science Board

NS&E

National Science and Engineering

NSF

National Science Foundation

NSTC

National Science and Technology Council

OECD

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

OES

~

Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Bureau of, State Department

OMB

Office of Management and Budget

OPRR

Office for Protection from Research Risks

OSTP

Office of Science and Technology Policy

OTA

Office of Technology Assessment

PCAST

President’s Committee of Advisors for Science and Technology

PRA

Policy Research and Analysis, Division of, NSF

PSAC

President’s Science Advisory Committee

PUS

Public Understanding of Science

SBIR

Small Business Innovation Research

SGR

Science & Government Report

SRS

Science Resources Studies, Division of, NSF

SSE

Superconducting Super Collider

SST

Supersonic Transport

ST&H

Science, Technology and Health

STIA

Scientific, Technological, and International Affairs, Directorate of, NSF

UCS

Union of Concerned Scientists

Bibliography

Aerospace Facts & Figures: 1994-1995. Washington, D.C.: Aerospace Industries Association of America, 1994,

American Association for the Advancement of Science. AAAS Report XVII: Research and Development FY 1993. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Intersociety Working Group, 1992. ———.. AAAS Report XXIII: Research and Development FY 1999. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Intersociety Working Group, 1998. ———.. AAAS Report XXIV: Research and Development FY 2000. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Intersociety Working Group, 1999.

——.. AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook 1997. Albert H. Teich et al., eds. Washington, DC: Committee on Science, Engineering, and Policy, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1997.

———.

Campaign Update. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1997.

——.

Congressional Action on Research and Development in the FY 1996 Budget. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Sci-

ence, 1996. ——.

:

Congressional Action on Research and Development in the FY 2000 Budget. Kei Koizumi et al. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Ad-

vancement of Science, 1999. American Council on Education. The American College President, 1998. Washington DG.:

American Physical Society. Their Most Productive Years. Prepared by Roman Czujko, Daniel Kleppner, and Stuart Rice. Washington, D.C.: Distributed by the American Physical Society, Office of Public Affairs, 1990.

——.

“Report to the American Physical Society of the Study Group on the Science and Technology of Directed Energy Weapons.” Review of Modern

——..

“Statement on Physics Funding and the SSC.” APS Council, January 20, one

Physics 59, no. 3, part 2 (July 1987).

Anfinsen, Christian B., et al. Letter to the editor. Science, May 3, 1985.

/

493/

(AOA)

Bibliography

Angell, Marcia, et al. “Disclosure of Authors’ Conflicts of Interest: A Follow-up.” New England Journal of Medicine, February 24, 2000.

Association of American Medical Colleges. “Developing a Code of Ethics in Research: A Guide for Scientific Societies.” Executive summary, 1997. . “Educating Medical Students: Assessing Change in Medical Education (1992).” The Road to Implementation (ACME-TRI report with sup-

plements). Academic Medicine Supplement vol. 68, no.%6, June 119933 Association of University Technology Licensing Managers. AUTM Licensing Survey: Fiscal 1996. Norwalk, Conn.: AUTM,

1997.

Baltimore, David, “Research Endangered.” Technology Review, May/June 1990.

Barfield, Claude E., ed. Science for the 21st Century: The Bush Report Revisited. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 1997. Barone, Michael, et al. Almanac of American Politics 1996. Washington, D.C.: National Journal, 1995.

. Almanac of American Politics 2000. Washington, D.C.: National Journal,

1999. Barzun, Jacques. Science: The Glorious Entertainment. New York: Harper & Row,

1964.

Blanpied, William A. “Inventing U.S. Science Policy.” Physics Today, February 1998.

Blumenthal, David, et al. “Participation of Life-Science Faculty in Research Relationships with Industry.” New England Journal of Medicine, December 9963 Boffey, Philip M. The Brain Bank of America. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

Bromley, D. Allan. The President’s Scientists: Reminiscences of a White House Science Advisor. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1994.

Brown, George E., Jr. “Defining Values for Research and Technology.” Chronicle of Higher Education, July 10, 1998. Brown, Kenneth. Downsizing Science: Will the United States Pay a Price? Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 1998. Bush, Vannevar. Science, The Endless Frontier. 40th anniversary edition. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation,

1990.

. Pieces of the Action. New York: William Morrow & Co., 1970. Cahn, Anne Hessing. “Eggheads and Warheads: Scientists and the ABM.” Ph.D. diss., MIT Center for International Studies, Science and Public Policy Program, 1971.

Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government. Science and Technology and the President. New York: Carnegie Commission,

1988.

. Science and Technology in U.S. International Affairs. New York: Carnegie Commission,

1992.

7

a

Carter, Richard. Breakthrough: The Saga of Jonas Salk. New York: Trident Press,

1966.

Bibliography

fi, 495.

Clinton, Bill. Health Security: The President’s Report to the American People. Domestic Policy Council, 1993. . A Vision of Change for America, 1993. Report accompanying address to joint session of Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 17, 1993. Cohen, Jordan. “IRBs: ‘In Jeopardy,’ or in Need of Support?” Reporter (newsletter

of Association of American Medical Colleges), August 1998. Congressional Budget Office. Federal Financial Support of Business. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office, 1995. . Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options: A Report to the Senate and House Committees on the Budget. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office, 1993. . Risks and Benefits of Building the Superconducting Super Collider: A Special Study. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Budget Office, 1988. Congressional Research Service. Analysis of Ten Selected Science and Technology Policy Studies. William C. Boesman, coordinator, 1997.

- Research and Development Funding: Fiscal Year 2000. Issue brief, 1999. Cook, Constance Ewing. Lobbying for Higher Education: How Colleges and Universities Influence Federal Policy. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1998. Council on Competitiveness. Challenges: Competing Through Innovation. Newsletter, winter 1999.

———.. The New Challenge to America’s Prosperity: Findings from the Innovation Index. Washington, D.C.: Council on Competitiveness, 1999. ———.. Gaining New Ground: Technology Priorities for America’s Future. Washington, D.C.: Council on Competitiveness, 1991. David, Edward E., Jr. “The Federal Support of Mathematics.” Scientific American, May 1985.

Davidson, Keay. Carl Sagan: A Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract of the United States. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1994. Department of Energy Advisory Board. Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National Laboratories. Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy, 1995: Dyson, Freeman. Imagined Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Ehrlichman, John. Witness to Power: The Nixon Years. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1982.

Eisenhower, Dwight D. Waging Peace: The White House Years: A Personal Account, 1956-1961. New York: Doubleday, 1965. England, J. Merton. A Patron of Pure Science: The National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945-57. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1982.

Enterprise University. Tucson, Ariz.: Research Corporation, 1997.

/

/

496

/

Bibliography

Fisher, Frank. Technology and the Politics of Expertise. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1990. Friedman, Jerome. “Meeting the Challenges of the 21st Century.” APS News, March 1999. Gardner, Marjorie. “How Does Ivan’s and Yelena’s Education Compare with Johnny’s and Helen’s?” CHEMTECH, August 1988. Garrison, Howard, et al. A Profile of the Members of FASEB Societies: NIH Awards, Degrees, and Institutional Affiliations. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, 1999.

Geiger, Roger, and Irwin Feller. “The Dispersion of Academic Research in the 1980s.” Journal of Higher Education, May/June 1995. General Accounting Office. Department of Energy: Contract Reform Is Progressing, But Full Implementation Will Take Years (GAO/RCED-97-18). Washington,

D.C.: General Accounting Office, 1997. ———.. Department of Energy: Funding and Workforce Reduced, but Spending Remains Stable (GAO/RCED-97-96). Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 1997,

———.. Department of Energy: Uncertain Progress in Implementing National Laboratory Reforms (GAO/RCED-98-197). Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 1998.

———.

Federal R&D Laboratories, Letter Report to Rep. John Kasich, Chairman, House

Budget Committee (GAO/RCED/NSIAD-96-78R). Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 1996.

———.. Federal Research: Evaluation of Small Business Innovation Research Can Be Strengthened (GAO/RCED-99-114). Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 1999.

———- Hospital Costs: Adoption of Technologies Drives Cost Growth (GAO/HRD-92120). Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 1992.

———.. Scientific Research: Continued Vigilance Critical in Protecting Human Subjects (GAO/HEHS-96-72). Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office,

1996.

———.

Space Station: Estimated Total U.S. Funding Requirements (GAO/NSIAD-95163). Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 1995. ———. Space Station: Information on National Security Applications and Cost (GAO/ NSIAD-93-208). Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 1993. ———.. Space Station: NASA’s Search for Design, Cost, and Schedule Stability Continues (GAO/NSIAD-91-125), Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 19908

George Washington University Center for the History of Recent Science. “Science in Crisis at the Millennium.” ‘Conference, September 19, 1996 (un-

published transcript). Gergen, David. “No Time for Complacency: The U.S. Economy Leads the World, but Its Foundations Are Rusting.” U.S. News & World Report, March

29, 1999,

Bibliography

fe AO

Gilbert, H., et al. “Are Increasing Survival Rates Evidence of Success Against Cancer?” JAMA, June 14, 2000. Gilpin, Robert. American Scientists and Nuclear Weapons Policy. Princeton, N_J.: Princeton University Press, 1962.

Gilpin, Robert, and Christopher Wright, eds. Scientists and National Policy Making. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. Gingrich, Newt. To Renew America. New York: HarperCollins, 1995. Glanz, James. “Human Rights Fades as a Cause for Scientists.” Science, October oF

1998. Golden, William T. Impacts of the Early Cold War on the Formulation of U.S. Science Policy: Selected Memoranda of William T. Golden, October 1 950-April 1951. Edited by William A. Blanpied. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1995.

. “Then and Now: Personal Reflections.” In Science and Technology Advice to the President, Congress, and Judiciary, ed. William T. Golden. New

York: Pergamon Press, 1988. Gottfried, Kurt. “Physicists in Politics.” Physics Today, March 1999. Gould, Stephen Jay. “Take Another Look.” Science, October 29, 1999,

Graham, Loren R. What Have We Learned About Science and Technology from the Russian Experience? Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1998. Greenberg, Daniel S. “David and Indifference.” Saturday Review of Science, September 30, 1972. ——..

The Politics of Pure Science. New York: New American Library, 1967. Reprint, University of Chicago Press, 1999.

——.

“Scientists Must Join the Fray.” Technology Review, February-March, 1996. “Venture into Politics: Scientists and Engineers in the Election Campaign.”

——.

Science, December 11, 18, 1964.

——.

“What Ever Happened to the War on Cancer?” Discover Magazine, March

1986. Greene, Mott T. “What Cannot Be Said in Science.” Nature, August 14, 1997. Hart, David M. Forged Consensus: Science, Technology, and Economic Policy in the United States, 1921-1953. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,

1998. Hartung, William D., et al. The Strategic Defense Initiative: Costs, Contractors and Consequences. New York: Council on Economic Priorities, 1985. Hartz, Jim, and Rick Chappell. Worlds Apart: How the Distance Between Science and

Journalism Threatens America’s Future. Nashville, Tenn.: First Amendment Center, 1997.

Hirsch, Eric. State Legislators’ Occupations: 1993 and 1995. Denver, Colo.: National Conference of State Legislators, 1996.

Horne, William. “When Higher Ed Lobbies.” University Business, July/August 1998. House, Peter W., and Roger D. Shull. The Practice of Policy Analysis: Forty Years of Art and Technology. Washington, D.C.: The Compass Press, 1991.

eh

/

498

/

Bibliography

Imura, Hiroo. “Science Education for the Public.” Science, June 11, 1999.

Industrial Research Institute. Industrial Research and Development Facts, 1997. Washington, D.C.: Industrial Research Institute, 1997.

Jankowski, John E. “Statistical Data and Their Impact on University Research Ef-

forts: Trends and Patterns of Academic R&D Expenditures.” Paper delivered at Conference on Performance Measurements for Research and Development in Universities and Colléges, sponsofed by the International Quality and Productivity Center, Washington, D.C., May 18-19, 1998. Johnson, Lyndon Baines. The Vantage Point: Perspectives on the Presidency 19631969. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971. Kassirer, Jerome P. “Goodbye, For Now.” New England Journal of Medicine, August

26999) Kassirer, Jerome P., and Marcia Angell. “The High Price of Product Endorsement.”

New England Journal of Medicine, September 4, 1997. Kennedy, Donald. Academic Duty. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997. Kevles, Daniel J. The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978. Killian, James R., Jr. Sputnik, Scientists and Eisenhower: A Memoir of the First Special

Assistant to the President for Science and Technology. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1977.

,

King, Jonathan. “The Loss of David Baltimore and the Role of the Dingell Hear-

ings.” MIT Faculty Newsletter, November 1989. Kistiakowsky, George B. A Scientist at the White House: The Private Diary of President Eisenhower's Special Assistant for Science and Technology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1976. Lane, Neal, “The Arlington Rotary Club.” American Scientist, May-June 1996.

Lanouette, William, with Bela Szilard. Genius in the Shadows: A Biography of Leo Szilard, the Man Behind the Bomb. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,

1992. Lederman, Leon. “The Privilege and Obligation of Being a Scientist.” Physics Today, April 1991. Lederman, Leon, with Dick Teresi. The God Particle. New York: Houghton Mifflin,

1993s Leiden, Jeffrey. “Gene Therapy Enters Adolescence.” Review of The Development of Human Gene Therapy, ed. by Theodore Friedman. Science, August 20, 1999° Lomask, Milton. A Minor Miracle: An Informal History of the National Science Foundation (NSF 76-18). Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1976.

Lubell, Michael S. “Inside the Beltway.” APS News, August/September 1998. Margenau, Henry, David Bergamini, and the editors of Life. The Scientist. Life Science Library. New York: Time, Inc., 1964.

Bibliography

/

499

Massy, William F., and Charles A. Goldman. The Production and Utilizati on of Science and Engineering Doctorates in the United States. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Institute for Higher Education Research, 1995. McCullough, David. Truman. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992.

Merrill, Stephen. “Keeping America’s Economy on Track.” The Scientist, August 30, 1999) Miller, Jon D. Public Understanding of Science and Technology in OECD Countries : A Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at the OECD Symposium on Public Understanding of Science, Tokyo, November Syl 99G6: ———.. The Public Understanding of Science and Technology in the United States 1990: A Report to the National Science Foundation, Public Opinion Laboratory. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University, 1991. Moore, John H. “Public Understanding of Science.” American Scientist, November—

December 1998. Morrison, Philip, and Phylis Morrison. “100 or So Books That Shaped a Century of Science.” The Scientist, November—December 1999, Mowery, David C. “The Bush Report After Fifty Years—Blueprint or Relic?” In Science for the 21st Century: The Bush Report Revisited, ed. Claude Barfield. Washington, D.C.: AEI Press, 1997. Mukerji, Chandra. A Fragile Power: Scientists and the State. Princeton, N.J.: Prince-

ton University Press, 1989. Mullis, Kary. Dancing Naked in the Mind Field. New York: Pantheon Books, 1998.

National Academy of Sciences. Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995.

. Forecasting Demand and Supply of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers: Report of a Workshop on Methodology (Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000. ———..

The Government Role in Civilian Technology: Building a New Alliance. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1992.

—..

Harnessing Science and Technology for America’s Economic Future: National and Regional Priorities. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press,

1999, ———.

Improving the Use of Science, Technology, and Health Expertise in US Foreign Policy: A Preliminary Report, 1998. National Research Council Committee on the Science, Technology, and Health Aspects of the

Foreign Policy Agenda of the United States (Robert A. Frosch, chairman). ——.

International Benchmarking of U.S. Immunology Research. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000.

———.. Observations on the President’s Fiscal Year 2000 Federal Science and Technology Budget. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999. Also in Research and Development FY 2000, AAAS, 1999.

/

/

SOO

47

Bibliography

. The Pervasive Role of Science, Technology, and Health in Foreign Policy: Imperatives for the State Department. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999.

——..

“The Presidential Appointment Process,” National Academy of Sciences, 2000. i . Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers. Washington,

D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995.

;

"

———.. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998. ——.

Securing America’s Industrial Strength. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999.

———.. Trends in the Early Careers of Life Scientists. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Exploring the Unknown: Selected Documents in the History of the U.S. Civil Space Program, vols. 1-3, ed. John M. Logsdon. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing OfCCPL SOO G L998: National Institutes of Health. Report to the Advisory Committee to the Director, NIH,

from the Office for the Protection from Research Risks Review Board, Bethesda, Md.: Office for Protection from Research Risks, National Institutes of Health, 1999.

National Science Board. Commission on the Future of the National Science Foun-

dation, proceedings, 1992. (Unpublished transcript, in NSB files.) ———.. The Competitive Strength of U.S. Industrial Science and Technology: Strategic Issues, report of the NSB Committee on Industrial Support for R&D (NSB 92-138). Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 11997;

- Environmental Science and Engineering for the 21st Century: The Role of the National Science Foundation, 1999 (NSB 99-140). Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 2000.

. A Foundation for the 21st Century: A Progressive Framework for the National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, November 20, 1992.

———.

Government Funding of Scientific Research, A Working Paper of the National Science Board (NSB 97-186). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print-

ing Office, 1997. . In Support of Basic Research (NSB 93-127). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993. . Science Indicators 1972 (NSB ahs Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972. ——.

Science Indicators 1976 (NSB 77-1): Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing ‘Office, 1976.

Bibliography ——.

a

Oily,

Science Indicators, 1980 (NSB 81-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1980.

———-. Science Indicators: The 1985 Report (NSB 85-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985. ———.. Science & Engineering Indicators, 1991 (NSB-91-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991. ———. Science & Engineering Indicators, 1998 (NSB-98-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1998. ——.. Science & Engineering Indicators 2000, vols. 1 and 2 (NSB-00-1). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2000.

National Science Foundation. Data Brief, 1997 (NSF 97-305).

. Data Brief, 1997 (NSF 97-328). ——.. Data Brief, 1998 (NSF 98-325). ———. Directory of Federal Research and Development Installations for the Year Ending June 30, 1969 (NSF 70-23). ——.. Federal R&D Funding by Budget Function: Fiscal Years 1998-2000 (NSF 00S03) el oO9: ———.

Federal Support to Universities, Colleges, and Selected Non-Profit Institutions, Fis-

cal Year 1978 (NSF 80-312).

———.. Infrastructure: The Capital Requirements for Academic Research, Division of Policy Research and Analysis (PRA Report 87-3), 1987.

———.. International Science and Technology Data Update 1986 (NSF 86-307). ———. Issue Brief, Counting the S&E Workforce—It’s Not Easy (NSF 99-34), 1999. ———.. Issue Brief, How Has the Field Mix of Academic R&D Changed? (NSF 99-309), 1999" ———.. NSF in a Changing World: The National Science Foundation’s Strategic Plan

(NSF 95-24), 1995. ——..

National Patterns of R&D Resources, 1996 (NSF 96-333).

——..

National Patterns of R&D Resources, 1998 (NSF-99-335).

———.. National Science Foundation Long-Range Plan FY 1989-1993 (NSF 88-56),

1988. ——.

Retention of the Best Science and Engineering Graduates in Science and Engineering (NSF 99-321), 1999.

——.

Science & Engineering Degrees, 1966-1995 (NSF 97-335).

——..

Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 1997 (NSF 99-323).

——..

Shaping the Future: New Expectations for Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology (NSF 96-139), 1996.

——_—.. The State of Academic Science and Engineering (NSF 90-35), NSF Division of Policy Research and Analysis, 1989.

Nelson, Deborah, and Rick Weiss. “How We Uncovered the Hidden Fatality in a Clinical Trial.” ScienceWriters (National Association of Science Writers), spring 2000.

i

5O2.

7/

Bibliography

New York Academy of Sciences. The Crisis Facing American Science: A Preliminary Report on the Effect of Decreased Federal Support of Scientific Research and Education. Conference proceedings, 1968.

Nixon, Richard M. The Memoirs of Richard Nixon. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1978. Nye, Bill. “The Marks of a Good Exhibit? Few Words, Flying Sparks. ” New York Times, April 21, 1999.

Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government. Fiscal Year 1993. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President. Research Misconduct: A New Definition and New Procedures for Federal Research Agencies. Fact sheet, 1999 (informationostp.eop.gov).

. Technology for America’s Growth: A New Direction to Build Economic Strength. White House paper, 1993. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Anti-Satellite Weapons, Countermeasures, and Arms Control, 1985. Reprinted as Strategic Defenses (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986).

———.. Ballistic Missile Defense Technologies, 1985.

———.. Demographic Trends and the Scientific and Engineering Work Force: A Technical Memorandum, 1985.

. Proposal Pressure in the 1980s: An Indicator of Stress on the Federal Research System. Daryl E. Chubin, staff paper, 1990. Ornstein, Norman J., et al. Vital Statistics on Congress: 1997-1998. Congressional

Quarterly, 1998.

“Overoptimism about Cancer.” Unsigned editorial. The Lancet, January 15, 2000. Paine, Thomas O. The Mars Project. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1991. Panofsky, Wolfgang K. H. “Memories of Casting a Wide Nyet at Geneva Talks.” Letter to the editor. Physics Today, August 1988. Parkinson, C. Northcote. Parkinson’s Law or the Pursuit of Progress, London: John

Murray, 1961 edition. Pielke, Roger A., Jr., and Bradford Byerly Jr. “Terminology and Science Literacy Issues Extend the Debate on Revamping Science’s Relation to Society.” Letter to the editor. Physics Today, August 1998. Podhoretz, John. Hell of a Ride: Backstage at the White House Follies 1989-1993. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993.

Poundstone, William. Carl Sagan: A Life in the Cosmos. New York: Henry Holt, 1999) Press, Frank. “Growing Up in the Golden Age of Science.” Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 1995. Price, Don K. The Scientific Estate. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1965. Price, Derek J. de Solla. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia Universi ty Press, 1963.

Bibliography

i

HOSE

/

Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: Civic Disengagement in America. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000.

Rennie, Drummond.

“Fair Conduct and Fair Reporting of Clinical Trials.” JAMA, November 10, 1999.

Rosenberg, Leon. “Research Is in Ruins.” New York Times, September 2, 1990.

Ruksznis, Elizabeth. “Giving Psychology Away.” Observer (American Psychological Society), January 1999.

Sanders, Stephanie A., and June Machover Reinisch. “Would You Say You ‘Had Sex’ If. . . ?” JAMA, January 20, 1999.

Savage, James D. Funding Science in America: Congress, Universities, and the Politics of the Academic Pork Barrel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1999) Schilling, Warner R. “Scientists, Foreign Policy, and Politics.” In Scientists and Na-

tional Policy Making, ed. Robert Gilpin and Christopher Wright. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. Revision of a paper by Schilling in American Political Science Review, June 1962. Schwartz, Stephen I., ed. Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1998. Sigma Xi Forum. Vannevar Bush IJ—Science for the 21st Century: Why Should Federal Dollars Be Spent to Support Scientific Research? Sigma Xi, 1995.

“Significant Books of the Last 75 Years.” Foreign Affairs, September/October 19972 Singer, Maxine (president). Annual Report. Carnegie Institution of Washington,

1994. . Address at Inauguration of David Baltimore as President of the California Institute of Technology, in Engineering & Science, no. 1, 1998.

Smith, Bruce L. R. The Advisers: Scientists in the Policy Process. Washington, D.C.:

Brookings, 1992. Smith, Hedrick. The Power Game: How Washington Works. New York: Random House, 1988.

Snow, C. P. The Two Cultures and a Second Look. New York: Mentor Books, 1964.

Stent, Gunther H. The Coming of the Golden Age: A View of the End of Progress. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press, 1969. Stockman, David A. The Triumph of Politics. New York: Harper & Row, 1986. Stokes, Donald E. Pasteur’s Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation.

Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1997.

Stone, Jeremy. Every Man Should Try: Adventures of a Public Interest Activist. New York: Public Affairs Press, 1999, p. 73.

Thomas, Anne. “Public Support for Medical Research—How Deep, How Endur-

ing?” Academic Medicine, February 1998. Tomkins, Calvin. Eric Hoffer: An American Odyssey. New York: Dutton, 1969.

£504

Bibliography

Union of Concerned Scientists. The Fallacy of Star Wars. New York: Vintage Books, 1984. U.S. House. Authorization for NSF. Report No. 95-993, June 1, 1978.

U.S. House Appropriations Committee. Subcommittee for Department of Transportation and Related Agencies. Appropriations for Fiscal 1971: Hearing. 91st Cong., 2d sess., April 15-17, 1970. _ % U.S. House Budget Committee. Establishing Priorities in Science Funding: Hearing. 102d Cong., Ist sess. July 11, 1991.

U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Financial Responsibility at Universities: Hearings. 102d Cong., 1st sess. March 13 and May 9, 1991.

U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East. United States-Soviet Scientific Exchanges: Hearing. 99th Cong., 2d sess. July 31, 1986.

U.S. House Government Operations Committee. Costs, Justification, and Benefits of NASA’s Space Station: Hearing. 102d Cong., 1st sess. May 1, 1991. U.S. House Science Committee. Restructuring the Federal Science Establishment: Hearings. 104th Cong., 1st sess. June 28, 1995. . Unlocking Our Future: Toward A New National Science Policy. Report to Congress by the House Committee on Science. 105th Cong., 2d sess. Sep-

tember 24, 1998.

U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Academic Earmarks: Hearings. 103d Cong., 2d sess. Part 3, 1994. - 1988 NSF Authorization: Hearings. 100th Cong., 1st sess. February 1 and 25 and March 11 and 24, 1987.

- Report of the Task Force on the Health of Research. 102d Cong., 2d sess. July 1992; . University Research Facilities Revitalization Act: Hearings. 100th Cong., 1st sess. June 25, 1987.

U.S. House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. Projecting Science and Engineering Personnel Requirements for the 1990s: How Good Are the Numbers? Hearings. 102d Cong., 2d sess. April 8, 1992. U.S. House Science and Technology Committee. Bibliography of Studies and Reports on Science Policy and Related Topics, 1945-1985. 99th Cong., 2d sess. Task Force on Science Policy, 1986. . Scientists and Engineers: Supply and Demand: Hearings. 99th Cong., 1st sess.

July 9-11 and 23-25, 1985.

U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development. Appropriations for

Fiscal 1993. Report, 102d Cong., 2d sess., July 23, 1992. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. National Sci-

ence Foundation Director’s Views on Science and Technology Policy: Hearing. 101st Cong., 2d sess. August 2, 1990.

Bibliography

WAN O)S),

Vaughn, John C., and Robert C. Rosenzweig. “Heading Off a Ph.D. Shortage.” Issues in Science and Technology, winter 1990-91.

White, Robert M. “Science, Engineering, and the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.” Address to annual meeting, National Academy of Engineering, October 2, 1990. White, Theodore H. The Making of the President 1964. New York: Atheneum, 1965S. Wilson, Edward O. “Scientists, Scholars, Knaves and Fools.” American Scientist,

January-February 1998. Wilson, Robert R. Testimony before the Congressional Joint Committee on

Atomic Energy. 91st Cong., 1st sess. April 16, 1969. Wood, Robert C. “The Rise of an Apolitical Elite.” In Scientists and National Policy Making, ed. Robert Gilpin and Christopher Wright. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964. Zachary, G. Pascal. Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century. New York: The Free Press, 1997. Zuckerman, Sir Solly. Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Frontiers of Public and Private Science. New York: Taplinger Publishing Co. 1971.

ff

;

7

es

“

_

ister, jeriomn ube WA aie ia ante REraateighrMm ONE RNOT Aamptin nee oti

We Ta

inet fag

va

iy

te tea

lf

eee: vee nid dai ‘| ivkeay Oiled sendy Aadetategaiat aged van ani ea ateODA sro omnatecint Seotihondi ee

ee)

LE

ee

eee B

ae P| CT Fee

i

dees

OVE tbe

es

Relay

pie

'

a

ay i

:

vy

(@ Sp thieg

+

> Saree

ty wee

“TAS ayes, ‘

abs

hyrhh fe

:

24

eee

Ti,

a

1 oA

Ns

heey Tene 2 el ay

cout Rape fh

nat, Vaatinan :

Tih, dresig

rey Pa

ee

os

=Y

iM

me

Jiiwe

: z

rae

‘ett

roe

5

i

yin

—_—-

”

"

;

te

anes oy

win

fn,

>

ati

.

\

:

boy

:

4

S.A

mm

§

Opie.

é

9

ei

ett ; .

¥y

Faxt® Ovexy

{a>

yoru?

| SHactehe

Nal

aa

a

ul

i

A

‘

Sapa ants

ehirey

ie Fie

aie

=

-

at ; Sha a os ee

5

9

=

;

TP:

Pees

=

Ben

tyra’,

Sa 4 Oe

Some,

je

Tiveaef

ay

SO)

‘(etre

-

ihe

Re oe kD eeRe

iy wy)

ere

Camelia agit ainglana aieol

Canta pnatasckdeter eae thigan

highs SRP ty

et Aaa us nd

ee Cpe eas

OM einielSin Line

_

weetteites B

ee nen wet |

hel

mt sien

nice Pyeng

araly gel Miele ms

Pe Whe

sees

aires & wunyEnae: he pCig aby +e! ws i nea ears

2oo

‘

Nees

ca

7

ik)

5

index

AAAS. See American Association for the Advancement of Science AAMC. See Association of American Medical Colleges abbreviations, 491-92

ABM (antiballistic missile) program, 167. See also Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) ACDA (Arms Control and Disarmament Agency), 167 acronyms, 491-92 ACS (American Chemical Society): anti-

budget cuts lobbying efforts, 448; executive officer’s salary, 196-97 Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding, 197-99 Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), 31 Advanced Technology Program (ATP): budget increase under Clinton, 427; creation and purpose, 424— 25; financing of commercially relevant research, 427; vs. SBIR funding, 434; survival of, 459 AEC (Atomic Energy Commission), 48,

49, 244-45 Aerospace Industries Association, 191

aerospace industry: decline in workforce, 87; space station backing and, 414

Agnew, Spiro, 169 Alberts, Bruce: comments on Rep.

Brown, 254; election to NAS presidency, 263; mention in newspapers, 346; NIH study member,

(ae Ola,

26; political activism, 20; salary,

195 Albright, Madeleine, 310, 319-20, 328

Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology. See Press report American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS): attendance at annual Washington seminars, 202-3; board rallying statement for scientists, 446-47;

decline in membership, 341; early “establishment” member, 5; executive officer’s salary, 196;

goal 237; tion, ence

of education in science, lobbying efforts contribu447; partnership in TV scidrama, 236-37; posthu-

mous tribute to Rep. Brown, 254;

publication and science-affairs activities, 339-40 American Chemical Society (ACS): anti-

budget cuts lobbying efforts, 448; executive director’s salary, 196-97 American Council on Education, 82-

83 American Dental Association,

180

American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 180

American Mathematical Society, 64 American Medical Association (AMA):

endorsement contract controversy, 352-53; political contributions, 180; political JAMA article controversy, 355; role in ethics

of profession, 349-50

/

508

/

Index

American Physical Society: anti-budget

Atkinson, Richard C., 122

cuts lobbying efforts, 448; his-

Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), 48,

tory of political activism, 333-

49, 244-45 atom smasher. See Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) ATP. See Advanced Technology Pro-

34; on merits of SSC, 409; report on NSF commission, 385n16;

SDI study, 288; trend away from social involvement and, 337

American Psychological Society, 454 Andelin, John, 136-37 Anderson, E. Ratcliffe, 355 Anderson, Philip, 408-10 Angell, Marcia, 353-54, 357, 358

Annals of Improbable Research, 10 antiballistic missile (ABM) program,

167. See also Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) Apollo, 98 Apple, Martin, 255 Applied Physics Laboratory, 189 appropriations: constituents’ interests and, 203; definition, 70n9; earmark process. See earmarks Argonne National Laboratory, 189 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), 167 Armstrong, John, 378

ARPA (Advanced Research Projects Agency), 31 Associated Universities, Inc., 189

Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC): anti-budget cuts lobbying efforts, 447; call for eth-

gram ~

ie

Auden, W.H., 25 Augustine, Norman R., 306 Aylesworth, Kevin, 128 Baker, James, 318 Baldwin, Wendy, 223

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, 332 ballot-box politics. See elective politics and science Baltimore, David, 62, 71, 460 Barrie, Joel L., 137 Bartlett, Roscoe: block to NSF name change, 34-35; novelty of “science-candidates,” 266 Barzun, Jacques, 261

basic vs. applied science argument: Vannevar Bush and, 45-46, 46n5; distinction between, 4n1; federal

obligations for basic research (1970-99), 488 table 6, 489 table 7; industry’s reluctance to finance basic research, 465; military funding of applied, 426; military funding of basic, 48-49,

ics guide, 352; president's salary, 196; report on resistance to change, 28-29; territorial protec-

senate hearing on basic research

tion activities, 37

need, 421, 421-22nS. See also

Association of American Universities (AAU): anti-budget cuts lobbying

50-51; NSF board’s basic research reaffirmation, 400-401;

collection, 201-2; earmarking

technology and applied research support Bayh-Dole Act (1980), 15 Bay of Pigs, 281

opposition, 200; federal research support to members, 188-89;

behavioral sciences. See social and behavioral sciences

efforts, 448; earmarked funds

indirect costs reduction opposition, 82-83; status and presence in Washington, 194-95

Association of University Technology Managers,

16

Bement, Arden L., Jr., 370 ,« Berger, Samuel R., 346 Berkner, Lloyd, 312, 322 Bernthal, Frederick M., 130, HSIR397 Bethe, Hans, 288

Index

/2 509:/

biomedical research. See medical sciences

foreign SSC support, 406; on

Bishop, Michael, 238 Blanpied, William A., 54

bership in Washington Advisory Group, 347; political activism, 20-21; on political duty to

Bloch, Erich: appointment to NSF, 109-10; background, 107-8; on Vannevar Bush, 52; changes to PRA, 115-16; end of NSF term, 129n2; endorsement of work-

force study, 119-20; management style, 114-15; membership

in Washington Advisory Group, 347; political activism, 21; re-

sponse to hearing, 143-44; Science Watch founder, 255n2;

shortage prediction and, 125, 140-41, 140n10; University of Florida gain of management contract, 201n35

Bloembergen, Nicolass: participation in SDI study, 288; space station concerns, 413

Bloom, Joseph D., 191 BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics), 95 Boehlert, Sherwood, 134-35 Boffey, Philip M., 262

Boggs, Lindy, 378 Boland, Edward P., 129, 200 Boright, John, 323 Boston University, 185, 188

Boylan, Myles G.: on Bloch’s management style, 114; pipeline study start and, 115, 117, 118, 125; on

reorganized PRA, 131 Brademas, John, 307

keeping research labs, 36; mem-

president, 179; Science Watch founder, 255n2; on State Depart-

ment science competence, 3181OP325) Bronk, Detlev: participation in political group, 151; status in science com-

munity, 162 Brookhaven National Laboratory, 189 Brown, George E., Jr., 66; background, 133; comment on Cold War and science budget, 210; earmarking

opposition, 191; lack of campaign contributions from scientists, 252-53, 254-55; plans for Science Committee, 134; posthumous tributes to, 254; predic-

tion of reduced R&D spending (1991), 372; record of election wins, 253-54; science support rating, 256; treatment by NIH, 193;

warnings of reduced science funding (1995), 429, 448-49 Brown, Harold, 151 Brown, Kenneth, 62 Brownstein, Charles: on NSF commission’s creation, 378; on NSF com-

mission’s success, 402; preface rewrite efforts, 393, 394; role in

NSF study, 385n16 budget cuts and science interests: Clin-

The Brain Bank of America, 262

ton’s switch to increase for NIH,

Branscomb, Lewis: argument for gov-

443-44; impact of impasses (1995), 444; NIH proponents in

ernment-industry research programs, 383-84; on commissions,

Congress and, 437-39, 440; NIH “steady state” forecast (1995),

296; NSF study committee member, 378; NSF study report com-

429, 435-36; prophesy of re-

ments, 389; political activism, 21

duced funding (1995), 429, 448-

breast-cancer research funding, 207 Breslow, Ronald, 26 Brode, Wallace, 313 Bromley, D. Allan: background, 283; on Bloch, 129n2; on chances for

49; R&D spending increases (1994-2000), 436; Republican inattention to SBIR, 433-34; Repub-

lican spending reductions plans, 431, 433, 449; rhetoric vs. real-

USO)7

budget cuts and science interests (continued)

ity, 459-60; slowing of increases for NIH (1993-95), 429-30; social sciences funding reduction attempt, 453-56 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 336, 338, 338n9 Bumpers, Dale, 194

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), 95 Bureau of Mines, 459

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs (OES), 314, 315, 320. See also State Department Bush, George, 308, 309

Bush, Vannevar: basic vs. applied science argument, 45-46, 46n5; ca-

Index

scientific capacity, 311-12, 31516 Carter, Jimmy, 307 Cassidy, Gerald S.J., 185

Cassidy & Associates, 185, 190 Catholic University, 185 Cehelsky, Marta, 138, 385-86n16, 393 Celera Genomics, Inc., 27 Challenger, 411 Chapman, Orville, 356 Chappell, Rick, 226 Chemical & Engineering News, 26, 449 Christian Coalition, 204

Christopher, Warren, 319 Chrysler, Dick, 437 CIFS (Committee on the International Freedom of Scientists), 337 Clinton, Hillary Rodham: NIH visit,

reer highlights, 43; criticisms of

422; Republican anger over state-

NRF report, 54-55; decline of

ments, 423-24

NSF board appointment, 50; distress over Steelman report, 4748; emphasis on “hard sciences,” 451; insistence on science political independence, 46-47, 49; legacy of, 51-53, 54; loss of influence, 47, 47n6; myths sur-

rounding his results, 54n24, 5558; political reaction to NRF recommendation, 44, 44n3; post-WWII

support of science proposal, 4244; research clinics concept, 46;

resurfacing of science support plan (1992), 380-81; status in science community, 41-42

business owners as proportion of legislators, 258 Bye, Ray, 121, 393

Canada’s space station participation, 411 Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government: advice

on presidential science adviser position, 295, 307-9; participants, 306-7; purpose of, 305,

306; report on State Department

Clinton administration: ATP budget increase, 427; assertion of interest

in science, 417-18; claim of NIH

funding support, 422-23; health reform strategy of prevention, 420; overhead allocation reduc-

tion attempt, 82; popular facilities support, 31, 36; public access to research data mandate, 27879; science adviser selection, 441; science budget (1998), 73;

science-technology policy (1992), 58; space station support, 414; SSC funding termination, 404;

technology emphasis implications, 398; turnaround in support for science, 443-44 Cohen, Jordan: AAMC lobbying activities, 198-99; defense of IRBs, 361; on ethics in science,

364n26; salary as head of AAMC, 196 Cold War: influence on science funding, 7, 95; as rationale for more graduates, 95, 98-99. See also

post-Cold War research funding Colglazier, E. William, 320

Index

Sill)/

Columbia University: consistency in R&D funding support, 38; licensing income, 16; lobbying activities, 185, 200

Cook-Deegan, Robert M., 302

Colwell, Rita, 29, 445, 459

Council of Public Representatives, 208 Council of Scientific Society Presidents, LISh2ZS9 Council of Scientists and Engineers for

Commission on the Future of the National Science Foundation, 377

Committee on Discovery and Development of Scientific Talent, 89

Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 90 Committee on the International Freedom of Scientists (CIFS), 337 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, 333 Conant, James, 48—49

Congress: appropriations definition,

Cornell University, 38 Cosmos Club, 275 Cotton, F. Albert, 63

Clinton-Gore,

181

Council on Competitiveness: Bloch and, 130n2; call for more money, 295; report of loss of

U.S. competitiveness, 366-67; report on R&D spending, 112n7, 212, 213-14

diction, 136-44; inability to

Council on Economic Priorities, 288 Council on Government Relations, 82 Crow, Michael M., 210-12 Crum, John, 196

downsize existing organizations,

CSSP Leadership Award, 198

35-36; legislative timidity over inquiry into science, 9-10; NIH

Culliton, James J., 85-86

relationship, 197-98, 437-39,

civilian research financing, 44;

Dale, Edwin L., Jr., 183 D’Amato, Alphonse, 189 Danforth, William, 378 DARPA (Defense Advanced Research

programs due to political pressure, 38; social sciences budget

Projects Agency), 31 David, Edward E., Jr.: appointment as

70n9; creation of OSTP, 177;

hearing on Ph.D. shortage pre-

440; political motivation for facilities support, 36; principle of

cut attempt, 453-54; studies on

need for change, 39-40. See also earmark process; House Science Committee Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA): conflicts with

White House science adviser,

172; membership in Washington Advisory Group, 347; on neglect of mathematics, 64-65; on Nixon’s dislike of MIT, 66-68; on Nixon’s view of scientists, 249;

NSF, 136-37; doctoral shortage debate, 104-6; grant system supply and demand impact, 101-2;

political activism, 21 “The Dean.” See TV science drama Defense Advanced Research Projects

Ph.D. demand forecast and, 94— 95; results of criticism of SDI,

Agency (DARPA), 31 Defense Science Board, 5

288-90 Consortium of Social Science Associations, 454 Conte, Silvio O., 200

Contract with America: design for shrinking government, 431; Gingrich’s leadership of, 430; implication for NIH, 435-36

defense spending: applied research funding, 50-51, 426; Vannevar

Bush’s proposal of civilian research control, 44; federal ob-

ligations for academic R&D (1970-99), 484-85 table 4; Navy funding of basic research, 48-49;

Pentagon’s industrial research fi-

Loean/, defense spending (continued) nancing, 50-51, 426; percent of federal budget for (1985, 2000), 210; R&D spending on (1968), 159; scientists’ conflicts with military, 248-49; total R&D budget

proportion, 75 Democratic party science support ratings, 256 Denmark, 213

Department of Agriculture obligations for R&D (1970-99), 484-85 table 4 Department of Commerce: science department proposal and, 32-33. See also Advanced Technology Program (ATP)

Department of Defense. See defense spending ; Department of Energy (DOE): budget, 51; change recommendation,

Index

doctoral degree production: annual number of doctorates, 103; call

for more grant support (1990), 123-24; Cold War as rationale for more graduates, 95, 98-99; conflicts among cited statistics, 122-23; demand forecast difficulties, 94-95; demographicbased predictions of Ph.D. needs, 117-19, 139; detachment from job market, 144-46; doctoral de-

gree importance, 91; employment of Ph.D.’s, 92, 92n5, 9395; employment status (1996), 122n19; federal assistance for

Ph.D. training, 92-93; foreigners as proportion of, 91; grant sys-

tem supply and demand impact, 101-2, 102n25; postdocs employment abuse, 93-95; post-WWII

475; commercially relevant re-

belief in need for increase, 8990; shortage debate, 104-6; un-

search financing, 427; Human

employment rates of postdocs,

Genome Project and, 27; inabil-

103-4, 126-28; voluntary reduc-

ity to downsize existing organiza-

tion unlikelihood, 146-47. See

tions, 35; obligations for aca-

demic R&D (1970-99), 484-85 table 4; report on effectiveness

also Ph.D. shortfall prediction controversy DOE. See Department of Energy

(1995), 297-98; science department proposal and, 32-33; SSC

Dole, Bob, 30, 437, 439 Domenici, Pete, 62-63

responsibility, 405, 408-9; TV science drama funding request and, 237 Department of Science, 32-34 de Solla Pool, Ithiel, 162 de Solla Price, Derek J., 89, 244 Deutch, John, 251

Developing a Code of Ethics in Research: A Guide for Scientific Societies, 352 Dingell, John, 71, 84, 85

Draper Prize, 125n26 DuBridge, Lee A.: background, 166; on first AEC committee, 245; loss of White House post, 171-72; sup-

port of Mars mission, 169 Duderstadt, James J.: dislike of NSE re-

port preface rewording, 393, 394, 395; NSF's future report and, 389, 390, 391, 392; Science Watch founder, 255n2; shortfall report investigation and, 135, 136n9

discretionary spending budget, 431-32 Division of Policy Research and Analy- ’ Duffey, Joseph D., 441 sis (PRA). See Policy Research and Duke University Medical Center, 361Analysis, Division of 62, 363 Division of Science Resources Studies, ; Dulles, John Foster, 313 (SRS): investigation into NSF Dunne, Finley Peter, 205 and, 137; role in NSE, 111-13 Dyson, Freeman, 330

Index

OS.

Eagleburger, Larry, 318 earmarks: appropriated research

employment in sciences, 92, 93-95. See also doctoral degree production

amounts (1997-99), 187; concen-

endowments, 28, 81

tration of distributions, 187n6,

engineering: challenge to science Ph.D.

188-89; elite universities’ opposition to, 200-201; management contracts examples, 189, 189n11; noncompetitive contract awards and, 190; peer-review vs., 187-89; “pork” in 105th Congress bill, 186;

process description, 185-86; role of appropriations chairs, 193; Washington-based science representatives and, 192-93

education in science: competition for science funds, 100-101; enrollments in medical schools, 37-

38n21; enrollment trends in science courses, 235n4; museums’ role in, 224n44; organized programs for, 224-26, 224n44; qual-

ity of U.S. vs. USSR facilities, 97; response to 1990s glut of degrees, 90-91. See also public understanding of science; TV science drama Ehlers, Vernon, 39, 52, 266 Ehrlichman, John, 168, 173 Eisenhower, Dwight D.: acknowledgement of science advisers, 344;

warning against scientists’ possible power (1960s), 246-48, 247nn(4/6)

elective politics and science: call to remain nonpolitical, 177-78; gen-

eral lack of organized efforts, 180-82; need for involvement, 473-74; past organized effort;

political action committees absence, 181; vote winning ability of science, 9, 268. See also Scien-

tists and Engineers for JohnsonHumphrey; scientists’ scarcity in organized politics

electron tunneling microscope, 115 Elion, Gertrude, 255n2 Ellis, Gary, 360, 362n23

shortfall prediction, 125-27; lack

of equal status with science, 124-25n26, 124-26; missing from Nobel Prize, 125n26; NSF

board’s basic research reaffirmation, 401; shortfall theory vs. unemployment realities, 126-28 Enterprise University, 356 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): creation of, 31; Nixon’s

relationship with scientists and, 176; science department proposal and, 32-33

EPSCoR (Experimental Program for the Stimulation of Competitive Research), 39, 101, 115

ethical erosion of science: academeindustry ties implications, 17, 356-57, 470; AMA controversy over political JAMA article, 355;

AMA endorsement contract controversy, 352-53; examples, 469-70; financial interest disclosure rule lapses, 357-58, 362-63;

informed consent requirements, 359, 363; IRB inadequacies, 35961; marketing of NEJM brand name, 354; money as a moti-

vating force, 469; OPRR crackdown, 361-62; overview of

concerns, 3—4; pharmaceutical industry ties to science, 349-52;

power of exposure, 473 European Space Agency, 411 Experimental Program for the Stimulation of Competitive Research

(EPSCoR), 39, 101, 115 F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine, 37-38 The Fallacy of Star Wars, 288 FASEB. See Federation of American Soci-

eties for Experimental Biology

fe OVAS7, Fechter, Alan, 105, 138 Federal Research Investment Act, 196 Federation of American Scientists, 336,

338 , Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB): antibudget cuts lobbying efforts, 447; claim of being against political action, 339; lobbying activities, 192-93, 192n18; response

Index

GAC (General Advisory Committee), 166, 244-45 Galvin, Robert, 297, 378, 382

GAO. See General Accounting Office Garth, David, 153 Garwin, Richard: anti-SST comments,

169-71; participatfon in SDI study, 288; political activism, 20; science adviser position, 282; sta-

tus in science community, 171n9

to indirect costs revision plan, 82 fellowship programs, 448, 473

Gates, Bill, 73, 91 Gell-Mann, Murray, 182 Gelsinger, Jesse, 363

Fermi, Enrico, 245

General Accounting Office (GAO): cost

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,

234, 404

estimate for space station, 412; IRB oversight, 360-61; number

Field, Hyman, 226

of federal R&D installations, 32;

financing strategies of universities: AAU status and presence in Washington, 194-95; earmarked

report on DOE, 35; report on net

funds collection, 201-2; earmarks vs. peer-review, 187-89;

elite universities’ opposition to earmarks, 200-201; lobbying activities and results, 184, 191-93,

192n17, 196-97; paid lobbying firms use, 184-85, 188-89, 190; presence in Washington, 199;

professional societies presidents’ salaries, 195-96 Finland, 213 fluconazole, 350 Folkman, Judah, 215

Ford, Gerald: participation in Carnegie Commission, 307; restoration of science office, 31

Foreign Affairs, 345 foreigners: as proportion of doctoral population, 91; employed as scientists and engineers in the United States, 117 Forrestal, James, 47-48

Fox, Marye Anne, 382 Friedman, Jerome, 211 Frosch, Robert, 323, 347

Fuqua, Don, 132n6, 191

effect of medical advances, 420 General Advisory Committee (GAC),

166, 244-45 General Research at the Leading Edge (GRALE). See TV science drama

gene therapy, 8; reporting of disappointments in, 219-20; trial failure, 363 Genovo, Inc., 362 Gibbons, John: background, 441-42;

defense of own job approach, 457-58; on Department of Science proposal, 33; on discussion of space station and SSC, 415-—

17; hired by State Department, 327; on importance of scientists’ lobbying, 203; menticn in newspapers, 346; move from OTA, 290; policy disagreement with House science chair, 450; on

State Department science competence, 319; on White House view of science, 180 * Gilpin, Robert, 164 Gingrich, Newt, 33, 39; Contract with e America, 430; design for shrinking government (1995), 431;

endorsement of NIH budget in-

Index

i

ONO)i

creases (1999), 442-43; ethical

Handler, Philip, 160-61, 177

lapses, 435n10; interest in pri-

Harkin, Tom: commission of report on

vate research, 432

Glenn, John, 267-68

research budget, 300; NIH sup-

port from, 421

glossary, 491-92

Hart, David M., 44n3, 53-54

Goldberg, Milton, 82

Hartz, Jim, 226 Harvard Medical School, 83

Golden, William T.: on Vannevar

Bush’s influence, 47n6; donation

for State Department report, 322, 325; participation in Carnegie Commission, 306, 306-7n2;

on State Department’s science staffing, 312-13 Golden Age of Science: current dollar support (1990s), 75n20; for math-

Harvard University: consistency in funding support, 38; licensing income, 16; limitations on faculty commercial involvements,

17;

lobbying activities, 199 Harwit, Martin, 224n44 Hatch, Orrin, 439

Hatfield, Mark O., 191, 437-38

ematics research, 64-65; relation-

Hays, Jim, 130

ship to government funding, 59; variations in reports of, 60-64

health care reform: effect on NIH budget, 443-44; H. Clinton’s NIH funding statements, 422-23; NIH dislike of strategy of prevention, 420; Senate hearing on basic re-

Golden Fleece Awards, 10, 451 Goldin, Daniel, 263 Goldman, Charles A., 145

Goldwater, Barry: scientist organization against, 149-50, 153-55; scien-

tists’ radio attack on, 155-57 Gore, Al, 31, 417 Gottesman, Michael, 25 Gottfried, Kurt, 331 Gould, Stephen Jay, 342, 464

graduate education system. See doctoral degree production Graham, Daniel, 289-90 Graham, Loren R., 98 GRALE (General Research at the Lead-

ing Edge). See TV science drama grant system: indirect costs inclusion, 81-82; proposal pressure impact, 101-2, 102n25 Gray, Paul E., 200 Greenwood, M.R.C., 254

search need, 421, 421-—22n5 Healy, Bernadine, 26-27, 108n1, 421,

421n3 Hébert School of Medicine, 37-38 Herter, Christian, 313 Hoffer, Eric, 294 Holleman, Edith, 129, 135

Holt, Rush: campaign support from science community, 266-67;

comments on Rep. Brown, 254; fellowship programs and, 448; novelty of “science-candidates, ”

265-66 Hornig, Donald: lack of acknowledgement from Johnson, 345; non-

political nature of advisory position, 152; participation in political group, 151 House, Peter W.: on Bloch’s role in

Haldeman, H.R., 67n2

Hale, Alan, 205

Hamburg, David: Carnegie Commission start and, 305-6, 308; politi-

cal activism, 21; State Department study member, 323, 327

“shortfall” reports, 140-41; criticism of pipeline studies, 117-18; direction of PRA, 111, 116; goal

for PRA, 114; paper on “shortfall” vs. “shortage,” 121; removal from PRA, 131; response to criti-

OTC

Index

House, Peter W. (continued) cism, 138-40; response to peer

pharmaceuticals’ ties to academe, 349-52; reluctance to fi-

review questions, 141-43; work-

nance basic research, 465; univer-

force book and, 119-21

sities’ concerns about ties, 17,

House Science Committee: Rep. Brown’s plans for, 134; early “establishment” member, 5; es-

356-57, 470; university research support, 16, 81, 468 Informal Science Education (ISE), 224,

tablishment of, 131; hearings

226

on Ph.D. shortage prediction,

Innovation Index, 212-13

136-44; importance of chair, 21;

Institute for Advanced Study

opening of NSF investigation, 135; science department creation

(Princeton), 245

Institute for Human Gene Therapy, 362-63 institutional durability of science enterprise: conservatism of uni-

attempt, 32-34; social sciences budget cut attempt, 453-54; status and purpose, 131-33; Walker as chair, 440

versities, 27-29; downsizing obstacles, 35—36; federal sci-

House Un-American Activities Committee, 245 Huang, Alice S., 242-43

ence department establishment attempt, 32-34; government sponsored changes, 31-32; new institution creation difficul-

Hubbell, Stephen P., 30 Human Genome Project, 8; NIH role in, 26-27; publicity for, 344 humanities funding levels, 24, 24n2

ties, 29-30; Pentagon’s medical

school support, 37-38; politicians’ support for facilities, 30-

Ig Nobel Prizes, 10 indirect costs: controversies over billed items, 84-86; funding separation

31, 36; resistance to change ex-

amples, 25-26, 27-29: resistance

to indirect-cost funding reduction, 82-83; universities’ funding

from grants, 81-82; official rates,

83-84; overhead allocation reduction attempt, 82; payments as percent of total funding, 82; university response to revision plan, 82-83 industrial R&D: ATP budget increase

sources, 24-25; university fund-

ing concentration, 38-39 Institutional Review Boards (IRBs): inadequacies of, 359-61; OPRR crackdown, 361-62

International Space Station. See space station Intersociety Working Group, 447 Iowa State University, 202 Irving, Frederick, 314 ISE (Informal Science Education), 224, 226 _Issues in Science and Technology, 470

under Clinton, 427; benefits

from government research spending, 46, 446; decline in workforce growth (1989-94), 87; employment of Ph.D.’s, 92, 92n5; funding, 425, 467; Gingrich’s in-

terest in private research, 432; government-industry research programs support, 157-58, 159, 384; NSF funding and, 382, 445-

46; Pentagon’s industrial research financing, 50-51, 426;

JAMA. See Journal of the American Medii

cal Association Jankowski, John E., 93 Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, 350

Index

fe ON);

Japan: commercial exploitation of science, 365-66; space station participation, 411 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 189 Johns Hopkins University, 38

Johnson, Lyndon B.: election support from scientists, 153, 158; erosion

of scientists’ support for, 161-62; memoir’s limited mention of science, 345

Joint Research and Development Board, 47 Journal of Irreproducible Results, 10

Journal of the American Medical Associa-

Kistiakowsky, George B.: acknowledgement from Eisenhower, 344;

comments on Brode, 313; comments on Goldwater, 155-56;

nonpolitical nature of position, 152; participation in political group, 151; resignation from military project, 248-49; status in science community, 162 Kitchel, Denison, 157 Klausner, Richard D., 70 Kleppner, Daniel, 1, 105

Knapp, Edward, 109 Knapp, Richard, 198

tion (TAMA): circulation and sub-

Korn, David, 348

scription cost, 354n7; contro-

Kornberg, Arthur, 225-26 Koski, Greg, 362n23

versy over political article, 355; report on duplicate publication practice, 350-51; role in ethics of profession, 349-50 Kansas Board of Education, 231 Kasich, John, 433, 447 Kassirer, Jerome P., 353-54

Kraut, Alan G., 456

Krebs, Martha, 188

Krimsky, Sheldon, 348 Lancet, 351 Land, Edwin, 173, 177n

Lane, Neal, 65; belief in Clinton sup-

Kelley, Paul X., 190

port of science, 417; comments

Kendall, Henry, 288 Kennedy, Donald, 27-28, 84-85

on Rep. Brown, 254; mention in

Kennedy, John F.: relationship with science adviser, 279-81; support of

ment with House science chair,

science, 285 Kevles, Daniel J., 48, 52

Keyworth, George A., III: background, 290-91; denouncement of SBIR

newspapers, 346; policy disagree451; on public support for science, 208-9; Rotary Club speaking invitation, 276-77; socialscience research defense, 454;

unity theme emphasis, 458

spending, 434; on political duty to president, 179; private opin-

Lanouette, William, 246n2 Lawrence Livermore National Labora-

ion of SDI, 292; quoted on NSF,

tory, 36 lawyers as proportion of legislatures, 258

110; on science bureaucracy, 34;

SDI and, 284, 291-92; on State Department science competence, B19 Kibble, Melinda, 322 Killian, James R., Jr.: acknowledgement from Eisenhower, 344; on Garwin’s SST testimony, 171; science

adviser post, 245 King, Jonathan, 71

Lederberg, Joshua, 306 Lederman, Leon: background, 234; on basic research need, 127; com-

ment on public understanding of science, 210; Golden Age of science funding and, 61, 75;

motivation for support of Rep. Brown, 255; objections to SSC

fhSOI S77,

Lederman, Leon (continued)

termination, 234-35; political activism, 20; science TV drama idea, 235; Science Watch founder, 256n2 Lehrer, Tom, 466 Levin, Richard, 99-100

licensing income for universities, 16 Liebowitz, Harold, 343 Livingston, Bob, 435n10

lobbying activities of science groups: annual effort for NIH, 197-99;

annual Washington seminars attendance, 202-3; earmarks and science representatives, 192-93; lobbyists-for-hire, 188-89, 190; organizational awards, 198-99;

Index

Mars mission, 168-69, 168n3 Marston, Robert, 175

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): conflict-of-interest episode, 470;.consistency in fund-

ing support, 38; earmarking opposition, 200-201? indirect-costs billing controversy, 85-86; lobbying activities, 199; loss of management contract, 201n35; Nix-

on’s interest in cutting funding, 66-68, 68n3

Massachusetts Medical Society, 354 Massey, Walter E.: agreement with NSF commission’s conclusions, 391-— 92; comments on TV drama script, 242; on European view of

techniques used by professional

U.S. science, 369; resignation an-

societies, 196-97

nouncement, 397; on shortfall controversy, 143, 144; start at NSF, 131; study commission,

Lobbying Disclosure Act, 192n17 lobbyists-for-hire: fees, 184-85; links with former government employees, 190-91; use by universities,

188-89, 190 Long, Franklin, 167-68 Los Alamos National Laboratories, 30,

36, 189, 203 Loweth, Hugh: on Congress’s relationship with NIH, 197; endorsement of Peter House, 114; on

378; support for NSF technology role, 376-77 Massy, William F., 145

mathematics and Golden Age for funding, 64-65 McAuliffe, Christa, 411 McCain, John, 186-87

McCarthy, Joseph, 245

Nixon’s MIT budget cut request,

McElroy, William D., 168 McNamara, Robert S., 248

68n3; on Nixon’s new technol-

McNamara

ogy program, 174-75

McTague, John, 381 medical sciences: contrast between funding and complaints, 87,

Loy, Frank E., 326, 327

Lundberg, George, 355 Lysistrata tactic, 285 MacArthur, Diana Taylor, 150-51, 153

MacArthur, Donald: activities to organize scientists, 150-51, 153; ad-

vice on scientists’ support to

Line, 248, 249

126; dislike of health reform strategy of prevention, 420; en-

rollments in medical schools, 37-38n21; federal research support (2000), 51; gene therapy disappointments, 218, 363; Hébert

Johnson, 161-63 Mack, Connie, 438

School of Medicine support, 37-

Magruder, William, 174 Malone, Adrian, 238 j Manhattan Project, 9, 35, 282n4 Mansfield Amendment, 64-65

progress, 28-29; NIH funding

38; medical-curriculum reform

and (1997), 62-63; NIH longterm research emphasis, 419;

NIH secondary support of indus-

Index

i

try research, 426-27; opposition to NRF proposal, 45; research

funding as campaign issue, 264; science news reports of breakthroughs, 215-18; U.S. leader-

ship in immunology studies, 214 Merton, Robert K., 463 Meselson, Matthew, 176-—77n20

Metropolitan Club, 275 Michigan State University, 16 Microsoft antitrust case, 18

military. See defense spending Mink, Patsy, 314 Mir space station, 414 missile-defense program, 108 mission agencies, 51, 54

MIT. See Massachusetts Institute of Technology Moe, Henry Allen, 89 Moore, John H., 211-12 Moore, Mike, 338n9 Moore, W. Henson, 33-34 Mowery, David C., 54 “Mr. Science.” See Brown, George E., Jr. Mullis, Kary, 236, 331-32 Murphy, Robert D., 314

9)7,

sentment of engineers’ status, 125 National Academy of Sciences (NAS):

Vannevar Bush legacy, 55; early “establishment” member, 5; fail-

ure to elect Sagan, 263; funding for studies, 287n12; investigation into NSF and, 138; membership election prestige, 262-63; noncompetitive contract awards to, 190; political role of president, 19-20; on postdoc employment abuse, 94; president’s salary, 195; reasons for no SDI study, 287; report on postdocs (2000), 104; reports production, 295; response to 1990s glut of graduate degrees, 90-91; State Department science report, 321-22 National Association of Science Writers (NASW), 206-7 National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, 82-83 National Biological Service (NBS), 450,

459 National Bureau of Standards, 35

NAE. See National Academy of Engineering

NAS. See National Academy of Sciences NASA: government’s role in research and, 31; political position of administrator, 19; political vs. scientific benefits of space program, 280-81, 280n2; publicity success, 223; resistance to budget cut (1980s), 72; science department

proposal and, 32-33; space station rationale, 410-11

NASW (National Association of Science Writers), 206-7

National Academies. See National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Engineering (NAE): founding, 124; internal politics, 343; rebuff of Ph.D. shortfall prediction, 125-27; re-

National Cancer Act, 176 National Cancer Institute, 207

National Democratic Club, 275 National Education Association, 180

National Endowment for the Humanities, 24

National Ignition Facility, 36 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 35, 424 National Institute for the Environment,

29-30 National Institutes of Health (NIH): break-up recommendation, 475; budget (2000), 51; budget, real gains in funding (1990), 69; budget growth (1995-2000), 80, 147,

442, 458; budget increases slowdown (1993-95), 429-30; budget

percentage spent on own labs, 92n5; Clinton’s claim of funding

ieeS 20n 7 National Institutes of Health (NIH) (continued) support for, 264, 422-23, 424,

Index

plications, 102n25; directorates,

428; Clinton’s switch to budget increase for, 443-44; concern

111; directorship appointment process, 109-10; engineering and technology expansion, 367-69; environment institute proposal

over public understanding of sci-

reaction, 29-30; EPSCoR, 39,

ence, 208, 223; congressional relationship, 32-33, 197-98, 437-39, 440; director’s role, 19;

101; Indicators report, 112-13;

dislike of health care reform strategy of prevention, 420;

industry benefits from funding, 15-16, 445-46; legislative charter, 271; move from Washington, 274-75n6; name change attempts, 34-35, 474-75; obligations for academic R&D (1970-

doctoral program proposal, 25; Healy’s strategic plan, 108n1; honoring of supporters, 19394, 194n20; lobbying by Ad

War role study, 377-79, 378nS;

Hoc Group, 197-99; long-term

public education program, 224-

research emphasis, 419; medical

25; resentment over Bloch-House relationship, 116; Science De-

research funding (1997), 62-63;

obligations for academic R&D (1970-99), 484-85 table 4; po-

litical posturing for funding, 178n22; post-Cold War gains in share of funds, 87; revered status of, 22; review system reorganization proposal, 25-26; secondary support of industry research, 426-

99), 484-85 table 4; post-Cold

partment proposal and, 32-33; science-technology balance review (1994), 370; social and be-

havioral sciences support issue, 451-S4; technology centers support, 368n5; TV science drama funding request and, 236; uni-

versities funding support, 24-25.

27; “steady state” funding forecast (1995), 435-36 National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), ol National Republican Club, 275

icy Research and Analysis, Division of National Weather Service, 437 Nature, 340

National Research Council, 146 National Research Foundation (NRF):

NBS (National Biological Service), 450,

political independence recommendation, 46-47; proposal for, 42, 44-45; realization as NSF, 50

National Science and Technology Council, 272-73 National Science Board (NSB), 50 National Science Foundation (NSF): appointments and board control,

50; attempt at non-political position, 19; budget (2000), 50; bud-

get growth (1996-2000), 458; declaration of methods and goals,

271n2; decline in new grant ap-

See also NSF future; Ph.D. short-

fall prediction controversy; Pol-

Navy, U.S., 48-49, 189

459 Nelson, Richard R., 46n5 Neureiter, Norman P., 328

New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM): circulation and subscription cost, 354n7; disclosure of reviewer’s industry ties, 357-58; on ethics of endorsements, 353-54; market-

ing of brand name, 354 ,New York Academy of Sciences, 60-61 New York Times: hype vs. caution in science reporting, 218, 219; on success of Technology Review, 338; re-

Index

[oe

port of reduced science funding (1995S), 449; reports of science breakthroughs, 215 Nichols, Rodney, 151, 153 Nicholson, Richard, 196, 341 NIH. See National Institutes of Health NIST (National Institute of Standards

and Technology), 35, 424 Nixon, Richard: anti-SST comments by Garwin, 169-71; attitude toward scientists, 31, 172-75,

249; budget politics and Mars mission, 168-69; controversy over NSF director choice, 16768; distrust of Jews, 67n2; distrust of science advisers, 31, 249; enemies list, 176—77n20; interest

in ending MIT funding, 66-68, 68n3; lack of negative effect on science funding, 176; memoir’s limited mention of science, 345;

reports of anti-Nixon PSAC discussions, 165n1; science adviser

choice, 166; science adviser post termination,

175-76; statement

on own poor understanding of science, 245n1

NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration), 31 Nobel Prize and engineering, 125n26

NRF. NSB. NSF. NSF

See National Research Foundation See National Science Board See National Science Foundation future: argument for government-

industry research programs, 38384; board’s basic research reaffirmation, 400-401; Vannevar Bush’s vision and, 380-81; con-

flict over report preface wording, 393-96; congressional direction on technology, 375-76; defense

of traditional research support role, 381-82; director’s agreement with commission, 391-

92; director’s choice of options, 379-80; implications of Clinton’s emphasis on technology,

398-99; limited influence of NSF in policymaking, 391; science

enterprise’s opinions on, 38586n16, 385-87; study commis-

sion formation and purpose,

377-79, 378n5, 402; study commission members report concerns, 389-91; study commission’s recommendations, 38789; U.S. competitiveness and,

376-77 nuclear weapons: lack of science knowledge in State Department, 310; scientists’ activism against, 336; scientists’ limited role in policy, 245, 279-80; scientists’ position on test-ban treaty, 156; scientists

against Goldwater, 153-57 Nye, Bill, 226

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 31 obligations definition, 70n9 OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), 96 OES (Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scien-

tific Affairs), 314, 315, 320. See also State Department Office for Protection from Research Risks (OPRR): funding and staffing inadequacies, 361; re-

naming of, 362n23; surprise crackdown, 361-62 Office of Naval Research, 48-49

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). See president's science adviser Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). See Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Ohio State University, 16 O'Leary, Hazel R., 251 Olver, John, 266 O’Neill, Tip, 200 Oppenheimer, J. Robert, 244

OPRR. See Office for Protection from Research Risks

LePS2207);

Index

Oregon Health Sciences University, 191 Organization for Economic Coopera-

135, 136-44; doctoral shortage debate, 104-6; engineers’ chal-

tion and Development (OECD),

lenge to NSF claims, 125-26, 129; House on Bloch’s role in shortage reports, 141-43; House’s response to congressional inquiry, 138-40; internal NSF inquiry, 130-31; opening of

96 Osheroff, Douglas D., 229 OSTP (Office of Science and Technol-

ogy Policy). See president’s science adviser

OTA (Congressional Office of Technology Assessment): grant system supply and demand impact,

NSF investigation, 135; PRA scar-

city prediction, 119; response to peer review questions, 141-43;

101-2; Ph.D. demand forecast and, 94-95; results of criticism

theory vs. unemployment reali-

of SDI, 288-90

ties, 126-28

“shortfall” vs. “scarcity,” 121-22;

pharmaceutical industry ties to science: duplicate publications practice, 350-51; relationship with scien-

PACs (political action committees),

180-81 Panel on Scientific Boundaries for

tists, 349; research design control and, 351-52

Review, 26

Panofsky, Wolfgang K.H., 310

Physical Review Letters, 219 physicians as proportion of legislators, ; 258 physics community and SSC, 408

Park, Robert, 377 Parkinson, C. Northcote, 294 Patel, Kumar, 288

patent rights for federally funded re-

Pickering, Thomas R., 315 Pierre, Percy A., 385 Pings, Cornelius J., 256

search, 15, 467, 468

peer reviews: vs. earmarks, 200; PRA shortfall report and, 120, 136,

Policy Research and Analysis, Division of (PRA): Bloch’s changes to,

138, 141-44 Pentagon: industrial research financing,

115-16; Bloch’s directions to,

426-27; medical school, 37-38;

107-8; congressional hearing on

R&D spending for, 50; science department proposal and, 32-33; university research funding, 50S1

workforce study, 135, 136-44; House’s direction of, 111, 11920; internal praise of workforce

study, 119-21; jurisdiction over, 113-14; pipeline study start, 118; prediction of graduate scar-

Perot, Ross, 430 Perry, William J., 251, 306 “The Pervasive Role of Science, Technology, and Health in Foreign Pol-

city, 119; reorganization, 131 political action committees (PACs),

icy: Imperatives for the State Department,” 326 Petersen, Anne, 456

Petroski, Henry, 125n26 Pfizer, Inc., 350

Ph.D. shortfall prediction controversy: Bloch’s response to hearing, 143-44; congressional hearing,

r

180-81 politicians’ role of science: conflicts with military, 248-49; congressional science support ratings attempt, 255-56; general lack of organized efforts, 180-82, 250; limited influence on policy, 27881; low level of campaign contri-

Index

je S26) butions, 252-53, 254-55; partici-

pation in early nuclear policy

The Power Game: How Washington Works (Smith), 344

issues, 245; politicians’ need of

PRA. See Policy Research and Analysis,

scientists’ knowledge, 246; rarity

Division of president’s science adviser: background

of scientists in elective office,

251; science adviser position be-

to position, 152, 165-66; Carne-

ginnings, 244-45; space program decisions and, 280-81, 280n2; vote winner status, 9, 268; warn-

gie Commission advice on, 3079; creation of OSTP, 177; early “establishment” member, 5; Gib-

ing against scientists’ possi-

bons’ defense of own job ap-

ble power (1960s), 246-48, 247nn(4/6); White House role,

proach, 457-58; Nixon’s abolishment of, 31, 175-76; origins of

248, 249. See also scientists’ scarcity in organized politics; Strate-

position, 244—45, 458; policy disagreement with House science

gic Defense Initiative (SDI);

chair, 450; political duty to presi-

Washington, D.C., culture and

dent, 178-80, 249, 291; status in

science

politicking by report. See research reports The Politics of Pure Science, 5 Pollack, Herman, 314 Pollack, Robert, 145-46

pork barrel money. See earmarks Porter, John: NIH support from, 42324, 438-39; science support rating, 256 Porter, Michael E., 212

post—Cold War research funding: academe vs. industry workforce growth, 87; claim of decline in science support, 210-11, 212,

228-29; expectations of decline, 365, 366; growth in federal obligations, 87-88; increase in pur-

Washington, 274-75 President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC), 152, 165, 169. See

also president’s science adviser Press, Frank, 72; blank check comment,

127; on currency of Golden Age, 63; on legacy of Vannevar Bush, 56; membership in Washington

Advisory Group, 347; political activism, 20; on political duty to president, 179; on reasons for no NAS SDI study, 286-87;

report on research budget, 300303; on role of graduate students, 94, 145n13; on sufficiency of number of scientists, 107; thoughts on NSF’s future, 381; on USSR R&D investment, 96;

chasing power (1969-98), 86-87; lack of accuracy in statistics, 7879, 78n1; long-term support rec-

on Wiesner-Kennedy relationship, 279 press and science: contrived optimism’s

ord, 80; public understanding of science and, 210-12; R&D financial realities (1990s), 79-80; total

role in reports, 220-21; exposure

hype vs. caution in reporting,

R&D spending increases since

218-20; need to be skeptical,

end of Cold War, 212n20; univer-

472-73; relationship with science, 465; reports of science breakthroughs, 215-18; tumor eradication technique reports, 215-16, 216n29

sity support increases, 81, 47980 table 1 Powell, Jody, 190 Powell, John Wesley, 275

of ethical violations and, 473;

POA ee),

Press report: cost, 301-2; findings and recommendations, 301; impact, 303; purpose, 300-301 Price, Don K., 247

Index

also education in science; TV science drama Public Welfare Medal of the NAS, 263 Putnam, Robert D., 336

professional scientific societies: call for ethics guide, 352; decline

in memberships, 341-43; president’s position and role, 343; salaries of presidents, 191, 196-97.

See also lobbying activities of science groups; specific societies protection of humans in experiments: informed consent requirement, 359, 363; IRB inadequacies, 35961; OPRR crackdown, 361-62 Proxmire, William, 10, 451

PSAC (President’s Science Advisory Committee), 152, 165, 169. See

also president's science adviser public understanding of science (PUS): assumed connection with financial support, 205-6, 209, 223;

barriers due to complexities of science, 464; claim of post-Cold

War decline in science support,

R&D spending: academic research support, by sector, 478-80 table 1;

budget authority (1980-29000), 486-87 table 5; on civilian and military research (1968), 159; current dollar support (1990s), 69-70, 75n20; dollar amounts vs. percent of GNP (1988-97), 112n7, 212, 213; dominance of

industry over government, 467; earmark funding, 189; federal ob-

ligations for academic agencies, 484-85 table 4; federal obligations for basic research (197099), 212n20, 488 table 6, 489 table 7; financial realities (1990s), 79-80; focus on favored topics, 86-87; increases in (1994-2000), 436; increase since Nixon administration, 68-69; MIT and, 66-

210-11, 212, 228-29; contrived

68; nonmilitary research support

optimism’s role in, 220-21; enrollment trends in science courses, 235n4; formal education’s role in, 231-32; hope vs. caution in press reports, 218-20; ignoring of favorable public atti-

adequacy, 75; NSF Indicators re-

464, 481 table 2; rebuff of Ph.D. shortfall prediction and, 125-26;

tudes, 222, 230-31; lack of dem-

U.S. vs. worldwide, 74, 96, 213,

onstrated relation to funding, 207-9, 209-10n13; low science

ports, 112-13; as percent of federal budget (1985, 2000), 210; as percent of GDP (1981-98), 96,

481 table 2

ganized science education pro-

Rabi, I.I.: AEC and, 245; on growth in research, 15; remarks on socialscience research, 452-53 Raborn, W.F., 156

grams, 224-26, 224n44; reports

Raines, Franklin, 231-32

of low levels, 444n20; responses to attitude towards science poll, 490 table 8; science community’s role in, 233; science news

“rainmaking,” 199 Ray, Dixy Lee, 314

literacy levels implications, 2067, 209; NSF future and, 388; or-

reports of breakthroughs and, 215-18; science’s misperceptions of, 222-24; survey report on deficiencies in, 227-28. See

* Raymond, Kenneth N., 26

Reagan administration: downsizing plan, 31-32; patent rights and, 15; President’s SDI program enthusiasm, 281-82; SDI funding, 108; SSC start, 405

Index

f-(925) 7

Rennie, Drummond,

350

Republican party: Contract with America, 430, 431, 435-36; government-shrinking platform (1995S), 72-73, 431, 433, 449; inattention to SBIR, 433-34; predic-

tion of science funding reduc-

Rudolph, Walter M., 312 Ruina, Jack, 288

Russ Prize, 124n26 Safina, Carl, 330

Sagan, Carl: accomplishments and awards, 262, 263; NAS failure to

tions due to, 256-57n4; science

elect to membership, 262-63; on

support ratings, 256

public support for science, 209, 234

Research!America, 198-99, 222 research clinics concept, 46

Research Corporation, 356

Sakharov, Andrei, 334 Salk, Jonas, 468

research facilities, quality of U.S. vs.

Sandia National Laboratories, 30, 36,

USSR, 97-98 research policy reports: categories and quantities of, 295; delivery pro-

Savage, James D., 190, 202 SBIR (Small Business Innovation Re-

203

cess, 299; hidden role of, 296; increase in number produced, 76,

search), 433-34 Schilling, Warner R., 313

76n24; money raising goal, 297; number of articles published by

Schmitt, Harrison (Jack), 72, 257 Schmitt, Roland W.: on Golden Age of Science, 61; NSF science-

country, 482-83 table 3; preface

importance, 394; production process, 298-99; reports on reports, 302-3n9; request and preparation example, 300-303; science’s

use for, 296-97; State Department commission of science

capabilities report, 322 Rettig, Richard, 422n Rhodes, Frank H., 347 Richardson, Bill, 251 Richardson, Elliot, 172

Ride, Sally, 181, 390, 390n20 Ris, Howard, 342 risperidone, 350 Robinson, David Z., 307 Rogers, William, 172 Rollefson, Ragnar, 313-14 Roosevelt, Franklin, 42

Rose, Frank, 190 Rosenberg, Leon E., 69 Rosenzweig, Robert M., 109, 123 Ross, Ian: comments on NSF’s future re-

port, 390-91; NSF study committee member, 378 Rowe, James H., Jr., 153, 199

Rowland, F. Sherwood, 255n2

technology balance review and, 370; political activism, 21;

on science’s lack of political strength, 269; Science Watch founder, 255; State Department study member, 323 Schriesheim, Alan, 347 Schweitzer, Glenn E., 323 Science, 339

Science, The Endless Frontier (Vannevar

Bush): government support of science theme, 41-42, 44; myths surrounding influence of, 53, 54, 55-56, 57; omission from sig-

nificant books list, 346; quoted at NSF commission meeting, 382 Science: The Glorious Entertainment (Barzun), 261

Science & Engineering Indicators, 112-13 Science & Technology and the President, 308 science adviser post. See president's science adviser

Science Advisory Board, 45 Science and Public Policy, 47

826)7. Science and Technology in U.S. Interna-

tional Affairs, 311 Science Coalition, 199 Science Committee. See House Science Committee Science Resources Studies, Division of (SRS): investigation into NSF and, 137; role in NSF, 111-13

science’s interest in politics and social causes: economic realities of research and, 331-32; examples of activism, 332n3, 336, 334-35,

333-34, 332-33; lessening of antinuclear activism, 339; lim-

ited mention in political histories, 344—45; low profile of science-politicians, 346-47; rise in

numbers of scientists vs. decline in memberships, 340-43; trend away from involvement, 336-39 Science, Technology and Economic Policy (STEP), 73 Science Watch, Inc., 255-56, 255-5S6n2

Scientific, Technological, and International Affairs (STIA), 111 The Scientist, 248, 296-97

Scientists and Engineers for ClintonGore, 181

Scientists and Engineers for JohnsonHumphrey: initial organization efforts, 151; mission statement, 153; motivation for organization, 149-S0; nuclear bomb issue,

153-S5; organizing and funding successes, 154-55; postelection

concerns Over science political group, 158-61; radio attack on Goldwater, 155-57 Scientists Committee for Information,

158 scientists’ scarcity in organized politics:

career track and personality factors, 152, 259-62, 259n9; lack of

public attention for scientists, 259-60n10; lack of science as a

campaign issue, 264-65, 267-68; novelty of “science-candidates,”

Index

265-66, 266n21; proportion in legislatures, 257-58; science’s dis-

like of celebrity, 262-64 SDI. See Strategic Defense Initiative Semiconductor Research Cooperative, 108 Sensenbrenneér, James Jr.*209, 441 Shakhashiri, Bassam, 235n4 Shandwick, 185

Shapiro, Harold, 384 Sharansky, Anatoly, 335 Shaw, David, 215 Sherman, Wendy, 321-22

shortfall controversy. See Ph.D. shortfall prediction controversy Shultz, George P.: on Carnegie State De-

partment report, 316n17; chastisement of scientists, 285-86 Silber, John, 188-89, 190 Silver, Howard, 454, 456 Simon, Herbert, 255n2

Singer, Maxine: comments on Clinton’s support of science, 428; on grant application process, 66; on lack of liberal element in scientists’ education, 260-61; political activism, 21; praise of Vannevar

Bush, 53; on science’s role in public education, 233; Science Watch founder, 255n2

Sinisgalli, Allen J., 39 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR), 433-34 Smith, Hamilton O., 27 Smith, Hedrick, 344 Smith, Philip, 323 Smithsonian Institution, 224n44 Snow, C.P., 53, 95, 246, 374 social and behavioral sciences: characterization as “not science,” 45253; congressional budget cut attempt, 453-54; defense of social-science research, 454; final budget outcome, 456 ' Solow, Robert M., 306 Soviet Union: education and research

facilities quality, 97-98; paid par-

Index

ERSTE) ticipation in space station, 414;

postcollapse assessment of conttributions, 98; U.S. estimates of R& D investment, 95—96; U.S. need to be competitive against, 96-97;

U.S. scientists’ concern for dissi-

dents, 334-35

:

space program. See NASA Space Shuttle, 411 space station, 9; cost estimate, 412; for-

eign participation advantages, 411-12; NASA’s rationale for,

410-11; political attractiveness of continuation, 414, 416; questions over science value, 413;

White House discussion about

keeping, 415-17 Specter, Arlen, 438 Spock, Benjamin, 155, 155n2 Spoehr, Herman A., 312

Sputnik, 98, 131 SRS. See Science Resources Studies, Division of

SSC. See Superconducting Super Collider SST (supersonic transport), 169-71 Stahr, Elvis J., Jr., 190 Stamp, Josiah, 78

Stanford University: consistency in funding support, 38; indirectcosts billing controversy, 84-86; indirect-costs rates, 83; licensing income,

16

Star Wars. See Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)

State Department’s view of science: capabilities report final recom-

foreign science attaché purpose, 316, 316n16; general indifference to science, 310-11; lack of science staff, 317; new environmental focus impact, 319-20; resistance to scientific input, 311-13, 322n22; science adviser management history, 312-15;

science and technology adviser position, 328; scientists’ opinion of department abilities, 31819; study committee members, 323 The State of Academic Science and Engineering, 121 steam engine, 45 Steelman, John R., 47, 49 Stent, Gunther S., 60n1 STEP (Science, Technology and Eco-

nomic Policy), 73 Stephens, Michael A., 193 Stern, Scott, 212

Stever, H. Guyford: on control of spending, 102; participation in Carnegie Commission, 306; political activism, 20; president’s science

adviser role, 176 STIA (Scientific, Technological, and In-

ternational Affairs), 111 Stimson, Henry, 152 Stockman, David, 72 Stokes, Donald E., 4n1 Stokes, Louis (Laboratories), 194 Stone, Jeremy, 177n, 338, 339n13

Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI): chastisement to scientists over protests, 285-86; cost estimates,

mendations, 326-27; capabilities

108, 281-82; independent stud-

report interim observations and recommendations, 324-25; capabilities report request, 321-22; Carnegie report recommenda-

ies conclusions, 288; OTA criticism of, 288-90; Reagan’s reliance on Teller, 282, 284; reasons

tions, 315-17, 316n17; claim of

ence adviser’s defense of, 291-

interest in science, 326; congres-

sional OES funding cut attempt, 315; downsizing of science-

92; scientists’ protests against, 332 Sunbeam Corporation, 352-53

related duties (1990s), 317-18;

Sununu, John, 251, 274

for no NAS study, 286-87; sci-

i528)7,

Index

Superconducting Super Collider (SSC): budget’s infringement on other research, 407; congressional termination of project, 9, 404, 40910; expectations of benefits, 404;

Teller, Edward, 282, 283-84 Tevatron, 234, 404

The Institute for Genomic Research (TIGR), 27 Thomas, Anne, 208n6

Lederman’s objections to termi-

Thornburgh, Dick, 307

nation, 234-35; promise of for-

Tilghman, Shirley,25

eign money, 405-6; questions

Tissue, Brian M., 356 Tosteson, Daniel C., 347

over research value, 407-9; reasons for termination, 235n2;

start by Reagan, 405; White House discussion about keeping, 415-17 supersonic transport (SST), 169-71 Sweden, 213 Szilard, Leo, 246, 246n2

132n6

Tatum, Edward L., 158

technology and applied research support: ATP budget increase under Clinton, 427; ATP creation and purpose, 424-25; basic vs. ap-

plied science argument, 4n1, 4546, 46n5; Clinton’s endorsement of, 374-75, 424; Japan’s commer-

cial exploitation of science, 36566; NSF delayed budget growth, 372-73; NSF expansion into, 367-69, 368n5; NSE science-

technology balance review (1992), 370; Pentagon’s indus-

trial research financing, 426; prediction of reduced R&D spending (1992), 371-72; reports of loss of U.S. competitiveness, 366-67; U.S. science reputation in Europe, 369. See also

NSF future; space station; Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) Technology for America’s Growth: A New Direction to Build Economic Strength, 398

Technology Review, 338° Teich, Albert H., 70, 254

tracked amphibious vehicles, 41-42n2, 43 Truman, Harry S: reaction to Vannevar Bush report, 42, 47, 47n6; sci-

ence adviser position beginnings, 244-45 Trumble, Robert R., 142

Task Force on Science Policy of the Science Committee, Tate, Sheila, 190

~

Tufts University, 185 tumor eradication technique reports, 215-16, 216n29 TV science drama: advisers’ comments, 241-43; advisory panel, 238-39; fate of, 243; grant acquisition,

236-37; idea for, 235; main themes and characters, 239-41;

ratings predictions, 238 “21st Century Research Fund,” 303

U.S. News & World Report, 297 Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS), 37-38 Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS): decline in membership, 342-43; Keyworth criticism of, 292; SDI report, 288 universities: Cold War as rationale for more graduates, 95, 98-99;

competition for science funds, 100-101; current dollar support increases, 81, 479-80 table 1; employment of Ph.D.’s, 92, 104;

ethical concerns about industry ties, 17, 356-57, 470; facilities’ importance to status, 99;

funding concentration in elite schools, 38-39; funding sources, 16, 24-25, 48-49, 50-51, 467; indirect costs funding; industrial

Index

(O29)7:

support for research, 16; licensing

agreement with science adviser,

income importance, 16; postwar government patronage of, 43-44;

450; reassessment of social sciences’ importance, 455-56; retirement announcement, 191, 44041; on SBIR vs. ATP, 434; Science

resistance to change, 27-29. See

also financing strategies of universities; indirect costs University of California, 38, 122, 199 University of Florida, 99, 201n35, 202

University University University University University University University University

of of of of of of of of

Maryland, 202 Michigan, 199 Nebraska, 202 Pennsylvania, 221, 362 Pittsburgh, 202 Rochester, 202 Washington, 38, 199 Wisconsin, 38

Urey, Harold, 156

USSR. See Soviet Union USUHS (Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences), 37-38 Vancouver Guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 351 Vannevar Bush Award, 52 Van Scoyoc Associates, Inc., 193 Varmus, Harold: appointment to NIH,

145, 421; on budget-reduction program effect, 435; comments on behavioral sciences, 453,

453n15; Council on Public Representatives, 208; H. Clinton’s NIH visit, 423; elective politics and,

Department creation attempt, 32-34; science support rating, 256 Wall Street Journal, 217, 218 Warnke, Paul, 288 Washington, Warren M., 243

Washington Advisory Group, 347 Washington, D.C., culture and science: dispersion of science agencies, 270-72, 271n1; local office desir-

ability, 269, 274, 274—75n6; outsider status of science, 273-75; scientists’ remoteness, 276-77;

social circles of scientists vs. politicians, 275; White House sci-

ence complex management attempt, 272-73 Waterman, Alan, 452 Watson, James, 216 Watson, W. Marvin, 163

Waxman, Henry, 439 Webb, James, 251, 280-81 Webre, Philip, 407 Weinberg, Alvin, 403 Weisskopf, Victor, 288 Wells, William G., Jr., 204, 346-47 Wexler, Anne, 441

Wexler Group, 191, 441

182; NIH doctoral program pro-

Wheeler, Gerald, 237

posal and, 25; warnings of slow-

White, Robert M.: membership in Washington Advisory Group,

ing increases, 429 Vaughn, John C., 123 Venter, J. Craig, 27 Ventura, Jesse, 265 Vest, Chuck, 416

Vietnam War: erosion of scientists’ support for Johnson and, 161-62;

scientists’ activism against, 336 von Braun, Wernher, 169, 466

Walker, Robert: on budget cut for social sciences, 453-54; policy dis-

347; political activism, 21; rebuff

of Ph.D. shortfall prediction, 125-27; State Department study member, 323 White, Theodore, 158 Whitehead, John C., 316n17 White House Office of Science and

Technology Policy (OSTP). See president’s science adviser White House science adviser. See president’s science adviser

Ls G30)1/ White House Science Council: Bromley’s comments on, 283-84; ex-

clusion from decisions, 284-85 Whitman, Walter, 313-14 Widder, Joel, 130. Wiesner, Jerome B.: comments on Goldwater, 156; comments on Van-

nevar Bush, 52-53; Nixon’s enemies list and, 67n2, 176n20; on

nonpolitical nature of position, 152; participation in Carnegie Commission, 306; participation in political group, 67, 151; postelection concerns over science

political group, 159; on pressure for space program, 280; relationship with Kennedy, 67, 279; status in science community,

162

Index

Wood, Robert C., 247

Woolley, Mary, 198-99 workforce issues: decline in technology sectors, 87; demographic analysis of Ph.D. needs, 117-19, 139;

Ph.D. under-/unemployment, 146 + ~ Worlds Apart: How the Distance Between Science and Journalism Threatens America’s Future, 226-29

World War II: fear of postwar decline in science support, 42-44; “political scientists” and, 5; postwar assumptions of government science support, 48-49 Wulf, William A., 125n Wyngaarden, James B.: call for indirect-

costs changes, 82, 83; member-

ship in Washington Advisory Group, 347; on quality of Soviet labs, 97

Wilson, Edward O., 260 Wilson, James M., 362-63 Wilson, Kenneth, 255n2 Wilson, Linda, 238, 241-42 Wilson, Robert R., 408 Wirth, Timothy, 320, 326

Yale University, 99-100

Wolpe, Howard: acceptance of investigative chairmanship, 134;

York, Herbert, 155 Young, John A., 21

X-ray laser, 284, 287, 288, 292

background, 131, 135n8; con-

gressional hearing preparation,

Zachary, G. Pascal, 53

136-38; questioning of House, 138-41; SSC questioning, 255

Zare, Richard, 65

Zuckerman, Solly, 466

AN

\

;

, =

Yew

‘

7

re

oe

7

ahi

9

:

4

- :

: 4. ;

|

4

os

;

7

aa

Mine. teake a a

er ty

7

7

cari

soc

ic

an

A, 1

7

oi)/

a)

beans foeathe ‘ech a ar livena Pai Gms Sh Pee R

rs

ra,

LIB)Lp

——

a

ay

=

:

oa

Mea Sh

ne