|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Cooperating to Compete
| Article
# : |
12410 |
|
|
Section : |
SPECIAL SECTION
|
| Issue
Date : |
1 / 1987 |
3,635 Words |
| Author
: |
Lewis M. Branscomb
Lewis M.Branscomb is director of the Science, Technology and
Public Policy Program at the John F. Kennedy School of
Government at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
From 1972 until August 1986, he was chief scientist and a vice
president of IBM. He is a former director of the National
Bureau of Standards and former chairman of the National
Science Board. He was graduated summa cum laude from Duke
University in 1945 and earned M.S. and Ph.D degrees in physics
at Harvard University in 1947 and 1949, respectively. He holds
honorary degrees from twelve universities. |
Once again, in 1986, U.S. scientists garnered half of the Nobel Prizes. A U.S. company, IBM, proudly claimed two more--won by a German and a Swiss for their work in physics in the company's Zurich laboratory. American science continues to be the envy of the world. The U.S. scientific community, however, is concerned about where resources can be found to sustain its lead while also contributing to U.S. international competitiveness, military security, and the protection of health and the environment.
Six years of the Reagan presidency have seen a major shift of federal investments in research and development from civil to military purposes, growth of basic research in universities at the expense of other nondefense development, and reluctance to invest federal money in science and engineering education and social-science research.
The public's interests in science and technology have changed too. Environmental protection remains a high priority in Congress, but there seems to be a greater desire to balance benefits with costs. The public is still concerned about the negative side of technology, especially with potential problems related to nuclear power and genetic engineering. At the same time, more people are worrying about America's falling behind in the technology race.
It must be said, however, that the public's faith in the competence of government management of largescale technologies has been shaken, both here and in the Soviet Union, by the tragedies of Chernobyl and Challenger. The Reagan administration's plan to turn the space-transportation business over to the private sector has been greatly accelerated by the interruption in space-shuttle service and by recognition of its noncompetitive costs.
These disasters could, perhaps, not easily have been foreseen, but they will leave their legacy to the next administration: how to win back public confidence in the reliability of major technology systems. Damage to that confidence certainly makes the public even more skeptical about basing military security on extraordinarily complex technologies.
Science policy, as articulated by George A. Keyworth, the president's science adviser during his first term, "stresse[d] the need to maximize the return on national research and development investments, ensure long-term vitality of the U.S. science and technology base, and ensure that U.S. scientific leadership results in economic and defense
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
