2009 APS April Meeting
Volume 54, Number 4
Saturday–Tuesday, May 2–5, 2009;
Denver, Colorado
Session G7: Science Policy: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
8:30 AM–10:18 AM,
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Room: Governor's Square 12
Sponsoring
Units:
FHP FPS
Chair: Daniel Kleppner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Abstract ID: BAPS.2009.APR.G7.3
Abstract: G7.00003 : Science as a Model for Rational, Legitimate Government
9:42 AM–10:18 AM
Preview Abstract
Abstract
Author:
Lewis Branscomb
(Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University)
Before WWII science was largely dependent on support through
teaching, and
a few foundations. In the last half century, thanks to the
contribution of
applied science to winning the second world war, government became a
deep-pockets source of support for science. While many academic
scientists
were deeply suspicious of government as a sponsor, the research
universities saw an opportunity to build their institutions around
government support. Government saw science as a means for
sustaining its
military primacy. Thus a marriage was consummated by partners --
science
and politics -- who needed each other, but for quite different
and to some
degree conflicting motives.
In the U.S. democracy, the relationship between science and
politics has
never been easy. The search for truth in science and for
legitimacy in
politics both require systems for generating public trust, but these
systems are not the same, and indeed they are often incompatible.
The most
profound area of mismatch between science and politics is found
not in
conflicts over what kinds of research are deserving of public
funding, but
rather in conflicts over the advice government receives from
scientific
and technical experts.
It is no accident that democratic America fostered progress in
science and
technology. Both American democracy and modern science are
products of the
Enlightenment, with its emphasis on reason and openness rather
than on
prejudice and traditional authority. American democracy has always
benefited from a pragmatic willingness to learn from experience,
very much
as science relies on experiment. Progress in science is based
transparency
and accountability; these are also basic principles of democratic
government.
If science is corrupted by government, government itself is in
danger of
becoming corrupt. In recent years we seemed to be going down that
path.
It is no accident that President Obama and media commentators
speak often
of the ``new pragmatism,'' or that he appointed exceptionally
well-qualified
scientists to top posts in his government. Both democracy and
science
stand to benefit enormously when our political leaders understand
that the
ethos of science and ethics of democracy have common roots.
To cite this abstract, use the following reference: http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2009.APR.G7.3