ACS News
1
ACS News COMMENT Needed: an informed scientific community Following the publication of the com- ment, "Needed: champions for an in- formed public" (C&EN, June 26, page 25), several readers suggested a related comment focused on the scientific community. Value judgments made by the public will delineate the boundaries that set limits on the benefits society will derive from science and technology in the fu- ture. These value judgments can be no better than the capacity of the public to understand the nature of the innovative process and also understand probable consequences of the options made possible by the scientific and techno- logical community. Herein lies the argument for the promotion of mean- ingful education in science for the total public. Such education in science would have quite different goals and probably quite different structures from conven- tional programs for those who have professional goals that require technical competence. Public is being used here to include all of those who have the right to speak and the right to vote and in this sense en- compasses the scientific community. Such a public can be considered as a broad spectrum of individuals having diverse levels of information concerning science and technology. Such a spectrum has at one end those who are extremely well informed and at the other end those who are very poorly informed. Meaningful communi- cation presumably would be most probable between those who are simi- larly positioned in this spectrum but, ideally at least, meaningful communi- cation could occur between individuals widely separated in the spectrum. The nature of that communication would be limited by the magnitude of the infor- mation gap. In terms of this science and technol- ogy information spectrum, those of us in the scientific community cluster at one end of the spectrum. We are, or at least we should be, relatively well informed about scientific matters. To stop the analysis here is to be irresponsible and to bury our heads in the sand. How prepared is the scientific com- munity to participate in meaningful dis- cussions of public policy relating to scientific and technological matters? Policy decisions should certainly be consistent with scientific knowledge and technological capabilities. The decisions are, however, value judgments strongly influenced, if not determined, by social, economic, and political considerations. I doubt that many of us would care to argue that the support for the U.S. space program in the 1950's and 1960's was motivated solely, or even primarily, by a commitment to the extension of sci- entific knowledge. We also must consider the public in terms of three additional information spectra and analyze the distribution of scientists in these spectra. One of these spectra is based on social knowledge, one on economic knowledge, and the other on political knowledge. For any one of these spectra, scientists would be widely scattered. For any one scientist, positions on the three spectra could/ would be quite diverse. Many scientists are "moving up" in these social, economic, and political information spectra. This is the conse- quence of activities associated with job responsibilities, the consequence of personal interests in the formulation of public policy, and the consequence of personal convictions concerning re- sponsibilities to participate in the for- mulation of public policy. Why we are making these transitions is not as im- portant as the fact that some can and are making these transitions. If we are to participate in achieving a realistic environment for science and technolo- gy, more of us must make these transi- tions. Science and technology are so thor- oughly a part of the social, economic, and political matrix of our society that an understanding of the relation of science and technology to society is now as essential to technological innovation as scientific and technological compe- tence. The nation undoubtedly will support a few pure scientists in the same sense that it supports a few scholars in all disciplines. The preferred support of pure science in the past has been an act of faith that pure science eventually does lead to technological innovations that benefit society. This is the support argument that the scientific community has made in the past. It is, to me, a valid argument. However, the important question is: How valid is this argument to the surrogates of the public who ap- propriate public funds to support pure science? What of the youth of the nation? Are they interested in the relation of science and technology to society at the time they make professional choices? There is, of course, no documented answer. Many are attracted to the sciences by the intellectual content. This is a nec- essary condition to make the decision to become a chemist or a chemical engi- neer. For many, however, it is not suffi- cient. Economic opportunity and the role of the profession in society also are powerful factors. These two are very closely coupled; both are strong moti- vating forces. The role of a profession in society is, I believe, of particular concern to many of the most able young people of the nation. We shall serve the chemical profession well by giving more attention to the role of the profession in society when counseling students. We shall serve society well by facilitating, but not requiring, their attainment of social, economic, and political knowl- edge and perspective. We also shall serve ourselves and society well by assisting each other to attain social, economic, and political knowledge and perspective. There are many mecha- nisms by which we can pursue these goals. Not the least of these is for each of us to endeavor to be articulate about our concerns. Anna J. Harrison ACS president Dec. 18, 1978 C&EN 53
Transcript of ACS News
ACS News
COMMENT
Needed: an informed scientific community
Following the publication of the comment, "Needed: champions for an informed public" (C&EN, June 26, page 25), several readers suggested a related comment focused on the scientific community.
Value judgments made by the public will delineate the boundaries that set limits on the benefits society will derive from science and technology in the future. These value judgments can be no better than the capacity of the public to understand the nature of the innovative process and also understand probable consequences of the options made possible by the scientific and technological community. Herein lies the argument for the promotion of meaningful education in science for the total public. Such education in science would have quite different goals and probably quite different structures from conventional programs for those who have professional goals that require technical competence.
Public is being used here to include all of those who have the right to speak and the right to vote and in this sense encompasses the scientific community. Such a public can be considered as a broad spectrum of individuals having diverse levels of information concerning science and technology.
Such a spectrum has at one end those who are extremely well informed and at the other end those who are very poorly informed. Meaningful communication presumably would be most probable between those who are similarly positioned in this spectrum but, ideally at least, meaningful communication could occur between individuals widely separated in the spectrum. The nature of that communication would be limited by the magnitude of the information gap.
In terms of this science and technology information spectrum, those of us in the scientific community cluster at one end of the spectrum. We are, or at least we should be, relatively well informed about scientific matters. To stop the
analysis here is to be irresponsible and to bury our heads in the sand.
How prepared is the scientific community to participate in meaningful discussions of public policy relating to scientific and technological matters? Policy decisions should certainly be consistent with scientific knowledge and technological capabilities. The decisions are, however, value judgments strongly influenced, if not determined, by social, economic, and political considerations. I doubt that many of us would care to argue that the support for the U.S. space program in the 1950's and 1960's was motivated solely, or even primarily, by a commitment to the extension of scientific knowledge.
We also must consider the public in terms of three additional information spectra and analyze the distribution of scientists in these spectra. One of these spectra is based on social knowledge, one on economic knowledge, and the other on political knowledge. For any one of these spectra, scientists would be widely scattered. For any one scientist, positions on the three spectra could/ would be quite diverse.
Many scientists are "moving up" in these social, economic, and political information spectra. This is the consequence of activities associated with job responsibilities, the consequence of personal interests in the formulation of public policy, and the consequence of personal convictions concerning responsibilities to participate in the formulation of public policy. Why we are making these transitions is not as important as the fact that some can and are making these transitions. If we are to participate in achieving a realistic environment for science and technology, more of us must make these transitions.
Science and technology are so thoroughly a part of the social, economic, and political matrix of our society that an understanding of the relation of science and technology to society is now as essential to technological innovation as
scientific and technological competence.
The nation undoubtedly will support a few pure scientists in the same sense that it supports a few scholars in all disciplines. The preferred support of pure science in the past has been an act of faith that pure science eventually does lead to technological innovations that benefit society. This is the support argument that the scientific community has made in the past. It is, to me, a valid argument. However, the important question is: How valid is this argument to the surrogates of the public who appropriate public funds to support pure science?
What of the youth of the nation? Are they interested in the relation of science and technology to society at the time they make professional choices? There is, of course, no documented answer. Many are attracted to the sciences by the intellectual content. This is a necessary condition to make the decision to become a chemist or a chemical engineer. For many, however, it is not sufficient. Economic opportunity and the role of the profession in society also are powerful factors. These two are very closely coupled; both are strong motivating forces. The role of a profession in society is, I believe, of particular concern to many of the most able young people of the nation. We shall serve the chemical profession well by giving more attention to the role of the profession in society when counseling students. We shall serve society well by facilitating, but not requiring, their attainment of social, economic, and political knowledge and perspective. We also shall serve ourselves and society well by assisting each other to attain social, economic, and political knowledge and perspective. There are many mechanisms by which we can pursue these goals. Not the least of these is for each of us to endeavor to be articulate about our concerns.
Anna J. Harrison ACS president
Dec. 18, 1978 C&EN 53
