Impact of Large-Scale Science on the United States Author(s): Alvin M. Weinberg Source: Science, New Series, Vol. 134, No. 3473 (Jul. 21, 1961), pp. 161-164 Published by: American Association for the Advancement of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1708292 Accessed: 29-07-2015 12:02 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Association for the Advancement of Science is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Science. http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.177.32.58 on Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:02:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 21 July 1961, Volume 134, Number 3473 SCIENC:E

I.s Big Science Ruining Sciencev

The English astronomer Fred Hoyle recently set off a lively controversy by arguing against the United Kingdonl's Itupact of Large-Scale Science going into large-scale space research. His argument, which applies to much 011 of Big Science, is twofold: first, that tlle United States the intrinsic scientific interest of space research is not worth the money and Big science is here to stay, but we have yet to make the manpower that goes into it and cer- tainly does not justify spending more hard financial and educatiollal choices it imposes. on it than on any other branch of sci- ence; and second, that wherever science Alvin M. Weinberg is fed by too much money, it becomes fat and lazy. He claims to see evidence that the tight intellectual discipline necessary for science is, especially in Throughouthistory, societies have ex- and the motivations of the church build- America, being loosened. I shall touch pressed their aspirations in large-scale, ers and the pyramid builders. We build later upon Hoyle's first point: Is Big monumental enterprises which, though our monuments in the name of scientific Science giving us our money's worth? not necessary for the survival of the truth, they b-uilttheirs in the name of For the moment I want to discuss his societies, have taxed them to their religious truth; we use our Big Science second point, which can be paraphrased physical and intellectual limits. History to add to our country's prestige, they as, "Is Big Science ruining science?" often views these monuments as sym- used their churches for their cities' I confess that I share Hoyle's mis- bolizing the societies. The Pyramids, prestige; we build to placate what ex- givings. In the first place, since Big the Sphinx, and the great temple at President Eisenhower suggested could Science needs great public support it Karnak symbolize Egypt; the magnifi- become a dominant scientific caste, they thrives on publicity. The inevitable re- cent cathedrals symbolize the church built to please the priests of Isis and sult is the injection of a journalistic culture of the Middle Ages; Versailles Osiris. flavor into Big Science which is funda- symbolizes the France of Louis XIV; The emergence of Big Science and mentally in conflict with the scientific and so on. The societies were goaded its tools as a supreme outward expres- method. If the serious writings about into these extraordinary exertions by sion of our culture's aspirations has Big Science were carefully separated their rulers the pharaoh, the church, created many difficult problems, both from the journalistic writings, little the king who invoked the cultural philosophic and practical. Some of the harm would be done. But they are not mystique when this was suflicient, but problems-concern science itself, sorne so separated. Issues of scientific or who also used force when necessary. the relation between science and our technical merit tend to get argued in Sometimes, as with the cathedrals,local society. I shall address myself to three the popular, not the scientific, press, pride and a sense of competition with specific questions, all of which arise or in the congressional committee room other cities helped launch the project. from the growth of Big Science: first, rather than in the technical-society lec- In many cases the distortion of the Is Big Science ruining science?; second, ture hall; the spectacular rather than economy caused by construction of the Is Big Science ruining us financially?; the perceptive becomes the scientific big monuments contributedto the civili- and third, Should we divert a larger standard. When these trends are added zation's decline. part of our eSort toward scientific issues to the enormous proliferation of scien- When history looks at the 20th cen- which bear more directly on human tific writing, which largely remains un- tury, she will see science and tech- well-being than do such Big-Science read in its original form and therefore nology as its theme; she will find in spectacularsas manned space travel and must be predigested, one cannot escape the monuments of Big Science the high-energy physics? These questions the conclusion that the line between huge rockets, the high-energy acceler- are so broad, and so difficult, that I journalism and science has become ators, the high-ux research reactors- cannot do more than raise them here. blurred. symbols of our time just as surely as Since they involve the issue of the sci- she finds in Notre Dame a symbol of entist's responsibility to his science and The author is director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn. This article is the Middle Ages. She might even see to his society, I believe I shall have based on a talk given before the American Rocket Society-Oak Ridge National Laboratory Space- analogies between our motivations for done some service merely by urging Nuclear Conference, Gatlinburg, Tenn., 4 May building these tools of giant science scientists to think seriously about them. l961,

2 I JULY 1961 161

This content downloaded from 129.177.32.58 on Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:02:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Xn the second place, one sees evi- outwardly seem to be. I do not believe the onerous housekeeping function, the dence oiTscientists' spending money in- that we at Oak Ridge, or I suspect at layer of inevitable administrators and stead of thought. This is one of the other such institutions, are completely publicists, is already in being Profes- most insidiolls eSects of large-scale sup- successful in these efforts. We do the sors in such collaborating universities, port of science. In the past the two best we can, however; and at least, by who might be drawn in part, but not commodities, thought and money, have confining Big Science to such institu- wholly, from the existing scientific staSs both been hard to come by. Now that tions, we prevent the contagion from of the big laboratories,would not have money is relatively plentiful but thought spreading. to get involved so strongly in activities is still scarce, there is a natural rush to What really bothers me is the evi- not related to their science as they spend dollars rather than thought to dence that Big Science is invading the would if they had to start Big Science order a $107 nuclear reactor instead of 1lniversities. One need not look far to from the beginning. In addition, the devising a crucial experiment with the find Bev accelerators and megawatt re- big government laboratories have facil- reactors at hand, or to make additional search reactors on many campuses. The ities and technically trained personnel large-scale computations instead of re- justificationfor putting these devices on that are not now pulling their fllll ducing the problem to tractable dimen- university campuses is that such gadgets weight in the educational job which sions by perceptive physical approxima- of Big Science are now needed to per- must be done. tion. The line between spending money form large parts of basic research, and Exactly what pattern should be estab- and spending thought is blurring. that basic research is best done in con- lished would vary from institution to Finally, the huge growth of Big Sci- junction with education. But I think institution. The Rockefeller Institutefor ence has greatly increased the number there is a very grave danger to our Medical Research has recently been re- of scientific administrators.Where large universities in this incursion of Big chartered as the Rockefeller University sunls of public money are being spent Science. A professor of science is ---this is the most extreme possibility. there must be many administratorswho chosen becallse he is extrenaely well I think that a more generally appropri- see to it that the money is spent wisely. qualified as a scientist, as a thinker, or ate pattern would involve, first, a great Just as it is easier to spend money than as a teacher. If he becomes too in- expansion in the use of short-tenure, to spend thought, so it is easier to tell volved with Big Science he will have to postdoctoral fellows at the big labora- other scientists how and what to do become a publicist, if not a journalist, tories, and second, the establishment than to do it oneself. The big scientific an administrator,and a spender of big of independentgraduate schools of tech- community tends to acquire more and money. I do not for a moment suggest nology in close proximity to the big more bosses. The Indians with bellies that college professors are less able laboratories,and with some interlocking to the bench are hard to discern for all big-time administrators than are pro- staS. Such schools would have as mllch the chiefs with bellies to the mahogany fessional administrators. I merely point claim to federal support as do the uni- desks. Unfortunately, science domi- out that the proper function of a pro- versities which receive money for direct nated by administrators is science un- fessor is to be a professor; that once educational purposes as part of their derstood by administrators, and such Big Science has invaded his precincts payment for conducting research. science quickly becomes attenuated if and he becomes an operator (even not meaningless. though a very effective one ), his stu- But it is fruitless to wring one's dents and his intellectual eminence and Is Big Science Ruining Us hands over the bad effects of Big Sci- proficiency are bound to suffer. Thus, Financially? ence. Big Science is an inevitable stage though my question "Is Big Science in the development of science and, for ruining science?" is irrelevant,since Big My second question is, Is Big Science better or for worse, it is here to stay. Science is here to stay, I do believe that ruining us financially? The present fed- What we must do is learn to live with Big Science can ruin our universities, eral expenditure on research and devel- Big Science. We must make Big Science by diverting the universities from their opment is 88.4 X 109, which is about Sollrish without, at the same time, primary purpose and by converting uni- 10 percent of the federal budget, about allowing it to trample Little Science- versity professors into administrators, 1.6 percent of the gross national prod- that is, we must nurture small-scale ex- housekeepers, and publicists. uct. The money spent on research and cellence as carefully as we lavish gifts Are there ways of bringing Big Sci- development is the largest single con- on large-scale spectaculars. ence into the educational stream other trollclbleitem in the federal budget in In respect to Big Science, huge labo- than by converting our universities into the sense that, unlike wheat subsidies or ratories like Oak Ridge play a central National Laboratories? One way which interest on the national debt, it can be role. They were established to encour- is tentatively suggested in the report of changed at the President's discretion. age Big Science yet to segregate it and the President's Science Advisory Com- It is not surprising, therefore, that the prevent it from taking over Little Sci- mittee, "Scientific Progress, The Uni- Bureau of the Budget has taken such an ence. Big-scale science's triple diseases versities, and The Federal Govern- interest in our research and develop- journalitis, moneyitis, administratitis ment," is to strengthenthe already close ment budget. have always been with us in the big relationships between the government The rate of change of our research laboratories. Being aware of these pit- laboratories and the universities. I and development budget, averaged over falls we have made conscious eSorts to would go a step further and propose the the past ten years, has been 10 percent cope with them by requiring internal creation of technical universities close per year; this correspondsto a doubling review of each publication, by occa- to or in conjunction with the large time of seven years. Since the doubling sionally sending an administratorback government laboratories. One advan- time of the gross national product is to his laboratory, by subjecting large tage of such a scheme would be that about 20 years, at the present rate we expenditures to enough scrutiny so that the National Laboratorieshave already shall be spending aII of our money on noney is not as easy to get as it may made their peace with Big Science- science and technology in about 65 162 SCIENCE, VOL. 134

This content downloaded from 129.177.32.58 on Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:02:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions years. Evidently something will have to Table fl. Summary of shielding estimates and -ladiatioll closes. -111¢fLOso tor lllall is abotlt 500 -rem (ElOt rep); the military tolerance in 25 rern. [From T. Foelsclle, "Protection against solar flare pto- be done- or- Big Science will ruin us tons,s' a paper presented at the 7th annual meeting of the Amelican Astlonautical Society, Dallas Enancially. Tex., 16-18 Jan. 1961] The amount that we spend on re- Radiation dose search and development is only one- Shield Inllerbelt (D)) Flares (D)(rep) fifth of our military budget- and of weight course over 80 percent of the $8.4 X (g /cm2) Low energy High energy 109 is for military purposes. There are rem /hr rep /hr ( < 500 Mev) ( < 20 Bev) many analogies between research ex- 2 2500-25,000 2l 80400 penditures and military expenditures. 1,5 12 fl8-l80 7.5 23-80 25 4.2 6-50 In neither case can one guarantee that 4.5 2.5 23-50 anything useful will come of a specific expenditure; yet, on the average, we know that we must spend money for hardest of all to make if for no other individually would require about a ton. science and for'defense. In both cases reason than that no man knows enough These figures are not catastrophic. Yet there is a high rate of obsolescence. to make such comparative judgments I find them disturbing for several rea- Both our military and our scientific on scientific grounds. The incentive for sons. First, the measurements of the might are instruments of national pol- creating a favorable public opinion for solar-are radiation, if not of the Van icy. It therefore seems to me that the a pet scientific project will become Allen belt radiation, are still very un- general principles which have guided much greaterthan it now is; the dangers certain. Second, the values used in all our military-fiscalpolicy should be use- of creating a political "in" group of of the calculations on space shielding ful in guiding our science-fiscal policy. scientists who keep worthy outsiders for relative biological effectiveness of We have decided, though implicitly, from the till will be severe. Neverthe- fast heavy particles have been much that our military budget shall represent less, it is obvious that we shall have to lower than those used in estimates of about l0 percent of our gross national devote much more attention than we the shielding required for the manned product. In the same way we ought now do to making choices between sci- nuclear aircraft. This diSerence is soon to decide to devote a certain frac- ence projects in very dif3erentfields. usually justified by the difference in tion of our gross national product to energy of the radiations in the two nondefense science rather than pay for cases; the space radiation, being harder, each scientific expenditure on an Can We Divert the Course has a low linear energy transfer and ad /oc, item-by-item basis. At the of Big Science? therefore should have low relative bi- moment science grows much more rap- ological eSectiveness. However, the idly than does the gross national prod- As an example of the kind of choice total experimental evidence on the rela- uct. I suggest that we settle on some which we shall have to make, let us con- tive biological effectiveness of very fast figure say something less than l per- sider whether there are alternative sci- particles is not very large; in any event, cent of the gross national product as entific fields which ought to have prior the secondary particles produced in the' long-term bill for federally sup- claim on our resources, ahead of spallation processes, such as occur with ported, nondefense science, and that we manned space flight or high-energy energetic primaries, are in the binding- stick to it for a period of, say, 15 years. physics. energy, not the 100-Mev, region. Final- Our science budget will then increase It would be naive, if not hopeless, to ly, the biological effects of extremely only as fast as our gross national prod- argue that we should not use scientific energetic heavy particles are not fully uct does, but we scientists shall have to achievement as a means of competing understood. Although Curtis's experi- get used to that idea. with the U.S.S.R. Major Gagarin's feat ments on nerve cells suggest that these If we settle on an over-all science has caught the world's fancy, and we particles are not too dangerous (1), budget which is geared to the gross na- may as well face up to it. The ques- the matter is not really settled. tional product, we shall have to make tiOIlis, are we wise in choosing manned The radiation hazard does not clearly choices. At present each scientific ex- flight into space as the primary event make space an intolerable environment penditure is consiered separately. The in these scientific Olympic Games? I for man; on the other hand, it makes merits of desirable projects are argued shall argue against doing so, on three space a much more hostile environment by interested and clever proponents, but grounds hazard, expense, and rele- than we had suspected even five years the relative merit of a project in high- vance. ago. That man can tramp about with- energy physics as compared to a proj- It is my impression that the hazard out shielding for extended times on the ect in space or in atomic energy is not of space flight, particularlythe radiation moon's surface seems to me quite un- weighed in the balance. The system hazard, is not fully assessed as yet. An likely. The Lord, so to speak, provided works because the science budget is admirable analysis of the radiation haz- His children with a marvelous radiation expanding so fast. Fortunately, the ard of manned space travel is given by shield, the atmosphere, and He did not President'sScience Advisory Committee T. lSoelsche of Langley Field. Foel- intend them to poke their heads into and the Federal Council for Science and sche's estimates are given in Table 1. His unshielded reactors. The corollary Technology give us a mechanism for It is obvious from these figures that I draw is that, on the basis of what establishing an over-all science budget the radiation shielding for a space craft we now know, manned space travel is and for making the hard choices when could be formidable. To shield an en- not definitely feasible in the sense that we shall have to make them. These tire capsule against high-energy solar we can now really place a firm u}per choices, which wall require weighing flares with shielding of 25 grams per limit on the cost of a round trip to the space against biology, atomic energy square centimeter might require about moon; the estimates of $20 X 109 to against oceanography, will be the very 1() tons of material; to shield a man $40 X 109 for this mission are so large

21 JULY 1961 163

This content downloaded from 129.177.32.58 on Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:02:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions and cover so wide a range as to make man's welfare, than have either high- clear practical applicationsand its strollU, the outsider doubt their validity on a energy physics or manned space travel. bearing on the rest of science, l-athel- priori grounds. May I remind you that There are several such areas, and we than physics in the Bev region, with its about ten years ago the Lexington are generally very far ahead in them. absence of practical applications and its Project predicted that the cost of the The most spectacular is molecular bi- very slight bearing on the rest of sci- nuclear-powered aircraft would be $ l ology a field in which the contribu- ence. What I am urging is that these X 109 and the time required, ten years. tion from the East is minimal. We have choices have become matters of high As it turned out, after ten years and an learned more about the essential life national policy. We cannot allow our expenditure of $ l X l 09, we have processes-growth, protein synthesis, over-all science strategy, when it in- words, not nuclear airplanes, flying. and reproduction during the past dec- volves such large sums, to be settled by Just because a project is very big and ade than during all previous history. default, or to be pre-empted by the very expensive does not mean that the In my opinion the probability of our group with the most skillful publicity project will be very successful. synthesizing living material from non- department. We should have extensive The other main contender for the living before the end of- the century is debate on these over-all questions of position of Number One Event in the of the same order as the probability of scientific choice; we should make a scientific Olympics is high-energy phys- our making a successful manned round choice, explain it, and then have the ics. It, too, is wonderfully expensive trip to the planets. I suspect that most courage to stick to a course arrived at (the Stanford linear accelerator is ex- Americans would prefer to belong to rationally. pected to cost $ l 00 X 1 06 ), and we the society which first gave the world In making our choices we should may expect to spend $400 X 1063 per a cure for cancer than to the society remember the experiences of other year on this area of research by 1970. which put the first astronaut on Mars. civilizations. Those cultures which have The issues with which such research I mention also the group of eco- devoted too much of their talent to deals have greater scientific validity than nomic-technical problems which arise monuments which had nothing to do those dealt with in the mclnned space from the increasing pressure of popula- with the real issues of human well-being program, but its remoteness from hu- tion on resources. Of these, nuclear have usually fallen upon bad days: man affairs is equally great. It has the energy is the best known. Here the history tells us that the French Revolu- advantage, from our point of view, that Western lead is clear, and it is impor- tion was the bitter fruit of Versailles, we are ahead of the Russians in high- tant to consolidate the lead. There and that the Roman Colosseum helped energy physics. are others the problem of water, or not at all in staving off the barbarians. But even if it were possible to gen- atmospheric pollution, or of chemical So it is for us to learn well these lessons erate around high-energy physics the contamination of the biosphere, for ex- of history: we must not allow ourselves, same popular interest that arises natu- ample. Each of these is a technical by short-sighted seeking after fragile rally in connection with manned space issue which can lay claim to our re- monuments of Big Science, to be di- travel, I am not persuaded that this is sources a claim that will have to be verted from our real purpose, which is the battlegroundof choice. I personally heard when we make choices. the enriching and broadeningof human would much rather choose scientific is- But it is presumptuousfor me to urge life. sues which have more bearing on the that we study biology on earth rather world that is part of man's everyday than biology in space, or physics in the Reference environment, and more bearing on nuclear binding-energy region, with its 1. H. J. Curtis, Science 133, 312 ( 1961 ) .

CURRENT PROBLEMS IN RESEARCH has been made by the U.S. Army in developing methods of excavating tun- nels and constructing chambers in gla- cial ice and snow. Similarly, compacted snow areas were used as roads and parking areas for thousands of automo- Ice Alloys biles during the 1960 Winter Olympics at Squaw Valley, California, and com- pacted snow roads and ice runways for For arctic operationsice and snow can be improved aircraft have been used during IGY as structuralmaterials by appropriatealloying. activities in Antarctica ( l ) . In such construction, the physical properties of the material used determines to a large W. D. Kingery extent the operational capabilities of the product. Present limitations on the use of ice and snow as structuralmate- rials are of two kinds: (i) the engi- Ice and snow have been used as each of these uses the properties re- neering properties of ice and snow in construction materials by indigenous quired of the material are not strin- the natural state are rather poor, arctic peoples for a long time. Applica- gent, and the builders have usedn by (ii) improved processing techniques are tions of ice include roads, bridges, and and large, the natural, unimproved needed for forming the raw materials staging areas for logging operations; -materials. into useful shapes. The present dis- snow has been used for houses. In More recently, extensive progress cussion is lirnited to consideration of

164 SCIENCE, VOL. 134

This content downloaded from 129.177.32.58 on Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:02:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions