Prof. Davari Ardakani’s Notes on “Science, the Endless Frontier” Symposium

On February 26, 2020, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in association with the Kavli Foundation and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation held a symposium. The aim was to envision the future of science in America and in the world. Astonishing was the fact that there was not a single philosopher nor a sociologist of science among the eminent scientists and policy-makers. I will address the consequence of this exclusion later in this essay. 

The Symposium was mostly focused on Vannevar Bush’s report titled “Science: The Endless Frontier” released in July 1945.  At the time, Bush was the president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington and head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development, and science advisor to Franklin D. Roosevelt. In his report, he had recommended that the relationship between the federal government and the nation’s research enterprise should undergo a change and that in effect scientific research should be supported by the government. This suggestion had been made based on the observation that if WWII had proven anything, it is that “the power of a nation depends on science and research.”

The implementation of Bush’s plan brought about developments in science, economy and industries in America. As a result of these developments, and following the first manned spaceflight by the Russians, President Kennedy made efforts to extend the boundaries of knowledge and to revise the curriculum of schools.

NAS 2020 symposium was held 75 years after the release of Bush's report at the time of “the COVID-19 pandemic—an unprecedented health, economic, and social crisis that is disproportionately hitting racial and ethnic minorities the hardest. The Pandemic has shone a harsh spotlight on long-standing systemic and structural racial and economic inequities—a crisis of inequality for justice, health, education, freedom, prosperity, quality housing and food, and upward mobility…”[1]

The NAS, Kavli Foundation and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation along with a number of participants at the Symposium considered Bush’s recommendations very important and effective. Referring to Bush’s realization that “times of great changes bring equally great opportunities”[2], they found it necessary to change the manner of the cooperation between the government and universities. 

The symposium speakers elaborated on the status of science and research in America and occasionally compared it with the status of science and research in the world. However, they did not come up with a clear perspective for the future of science. They sufficed at suggesting that “in the years ahead, we can build a stronger and more resilient world by thinking carefully about how the lessons of the past can be applied to current and future challenges.”[3] 

Few recommendations were made in the symposium; for instance, Rafael Reif, president of MIT, stated that “From China to Europe, global competitors are deliberately setting out to take our lead, and we are to a large extent letting it happen because we have not pushed for a coordinated response across universities, industry, and government,”[4]. He also observed that a “promising approach would be to create a new technology directorate at NSF focused on high-stakes technologies, with the humanities and social sciences integral to the research …”[5]. The significant point in his view was his emphasis on “targeted research” where he said “… the responsibility for supporting targeted research inevitably belongs with the federal government.”[6]

Alan Leshner, former CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, also stated that “we have to train the next generation to be more multinational, and we need to have systems in place that can support international science.”[7] He believes that they need cultural changes and that “Such cultural changes are hard because people hate change.”[8]  He adds, “As long as we only reward [the] number of papers in Science, Nature, Cell, or whatever journal you pick, or the number of grants or the number of overall publications, nothing’s going to change.”[9] Others discussed the popularization of science and the relationship between scientists and scientific organizations with the public in order to bridge the gap, and to employ research outcomes to eradicate discrimination and oppression to achieve social justice.

As it is mentioned in the introductory part of the Persian translation of the report, the topics are based on the principle that science policy should consider the status of science and the services it can provide to people’s lives. This does not imply that research should be solely confined to applied research, but rather we need to develop a realization of the fact that the systems of science and society are so interwoven that they grow and develop hand in hand. 

A focus on the relationship of science and society, life and future would be exactly what we need in our context in Iran; we need to consider our position in science and all that it renders. A mere focus on increasing the number of our published papers and our rank in the publication competition without targeting the country’s problems do not get us to where we wish to move towards. Our scientists may justify such radical and blind engagement in the current publishing competition by saying that science is noble and should be held in high esteem. Now, it is the time for our scientists to reflect on the past and future of science in Iran and to provide thoughtful recommendations for relating our scientific endeavors with our current and future life.  In fact, it might be worthwhile to hold such a symposium to open the way for such an endeavor.

The US NAS president has stated that “If we don’t engage the American society in being excited about the scientific enterprise—all genders, all races, everyone, pulling from our full talent—we aren’t going to be at the top in science and technology anymore.”[10] She adds, “It used to be simply about wanting the public to support our budgets, but it’s much more than that right now.”[11]

It is clear that our difficulties and problems in science and research are not the same as those of the Americans; we need to consider the status of science in our country, whereas America is hoping to maintain its scientific status in the world. Our scientists may have good ideas, yet, none have been expressed publicly. It is important to actively contribute to such discussions and to deepen our thoughts in this regard. However, Iranian scientists seem to have consensus on the fact that science should support development. It is critical for us to reflect on such questions as “how can our universities and research centers support the development of our country in a situation where, we have no clear development plan? We need to aim at exploring new paths in science and development, we need to investigate the gaps between science, life, industry, agriculture, administration, economy and politics, and to put them all into a system. With this important matter in mind, the policy of publishing papers, for the sake of publishing, would not lead us to satisfactory results. In the current condition, the best thing our scientists can do is to carry out research, and to publish papers.  What is missing is coordination of research and publication with the development plan in the country, so that the research of the scientists can support the development plan. Reports like this help us reflect on our own case; a possible benefit is that we get informed about the views on the past and the future of science in America and the atmosphere of their scientific circles. The other benefit could be to envision “the future of science and how to position the research enterprise to best serve the nation and the society in the 21st century.”[12]

One could imagine that if such symposium had been held in Iran and the talks were merely confined to the correlation of science, society, life and people, many of the participants might have become depressed due to not placing emphasis on the number of publications in journals. Whereas, in NAS symposium there was only a brief mention of publications and even in that, publication of papers in Science and Nature was considered insignificant. It would benefit us to be attentive to the latter point, and to restrain ourselves from maintaining or adhering to policies that only engage our scientists in mere effort in conducting research and publishing papers that are not targeted at solving our country’s problems. For example a scientist like Professor Ahmad Shaabani elaborates on his own field of expertise, i.e. chemistry, in a very interesting paper[13] in the Basic Sciences, a publication of the Academy of Sciences of IR- a good step in the right direction-, yet, when there is no established plan and no link between science and the infrastructure of the country, such efforts often gets lost and do not lead to fruition. The scientists are then caught between a rock and a hard place. They can rightly say that they have done whatever they could and should, out of love for science and research. The very question that we need to reflect on is why shouldn’t we aim at identifying the dimensions of science in the life of the country and then take steps into putting it to practice? 

Although, the NAS symposium report does not entail a clear and comprehensive account of the status of science, its past and future, it enables us to have a general idea of the status of science, its strengths and shortcomings in America and it can serve as a starting point to compile the science policy in America.

On the whole, the covert message of the symposium is that America is struggling to maintain its leading position in science and technology competing with Europe and China. However, the report entails some recommendations that are at times idealistic, it is not clear how to implement them. For instance, it is a good idea to connect scientists with the public by using science to serve them. But this is just a well-known ethical viewpoint and not a science policy. 

Vannevar Bush’s recommendation to the federal government to put science and technology at the service of the country’s development was a new responsibility for the government to be put into practice at a time when the country’s policy had to be at the service of science and technology. Nevertheless, there is no authority for generating public enthusiasm in the study of sciences and improving confidence in science, and no organization or department can be responsible for the achievement of this aim. 

Science development could neither be achieved through motivating a society in getting involved in science and research nor by securing funds for it. Material and human resources could not guarantee development of science and research unless the intellectual and ethical bases are provided.

Reflecting on this report reveals American scientists' expectations and attitudes towards science, as well as points on the future of America’s science, research and technology. The questions that were of interest to me were whether or not America’s science, research and technology are moving forward with certainty and confidence in its future, or dubious about their directions? What is the basis of its confidence or uncertainty? These are important issues vested in the two questions for a country whose power is rooted in its science, research and technology.

The report is a good reminder for us, to know that we need to consistently assess and consider the status of science and research in our country as well.  We need to establish modular systematic relationships among science and history, society, life and politics. We need to realize that science is not an ornamental object owned by special groups and societies; it belongs to the whole society and should contribute to the development of the country. 

In countries where politics drives science, the politicians and not the scientists and their scientific achievements determine the direction of development plans. This includes the decisions and policies that determine the status of science itself and the responsibilities of the scientists. In the current situation where scientists cannot be in the real sense involved in solving the country’s problems, due to the lack of a thoughtful planning scheme, they have no choice other than getting involved in research fields which are neither problem-based nor essential for the country’s development.

As was mentioned, the report emphasizes that science, should both lead and serve the society by offering solutions to the problems of everyday life of the people, including problems such as discrimination and injustice. Iran’s science policy should take this point in the report seriously. Overall, it seems that the Symposium is not very confident about the future of science, research and technology in the U.S. 

Evidently, in post-World War II, after the shameful atomic bombardment of Japan, -at the time when Germany had surrendered- the victorious US, and her scientists were more optimistic about the future. At the time, America was hopeful and its scientists were able to reflect this hope. However, now it is a different time. In the past seventy five years, America has been directly or indirectly involved in many local and regional wars but has won none. So how can it trust its future? The wars which have had no winner, and has led to a loss for all involved parties and the world, specifically propelling the developing countries in futile feuds, conflicts and massacres. Unfortunately, warmongering has become a goal in itself with no outcome except destruction, massacre, poverty and homelessness; and these are perhaps trivial for America or even considered as gains.

It seems that presently America is not concerned about the future, including the future of science, as its main concern is the national and international currents. Locally, it is worried about ethnic and racial changes and disputes, the advent of new waves of protests and riots, endangering stability and order.  This is ironic, as historically, it was America that had a great role in disturbing the world order and stability, while benefiting from local order and stability. Now, it should be concerned about its own stability. America’s concern about science is merely confined to losing its leading place in competition with Europe and China. Of course, the Report does include signs of hope, yet, they are not expressed with confidence. 

There are some other important issues that have been ignored and remained untouched in the Symposium. For example, there is no mention of the direction towards which America’s science and research have moved and the developments they achieved during the past seventy five years. Obviously, when the past developments are ignored, the future conditions are not considered either. Such retrospective and prospective assessments are necessary, as science is not absolute, static and context-free and hence societies cannot benefit from it without contextualizing it. The report should have included an assessment of the achievements of science, its impact on people’s lives and the probable improvements and drawbacks it had during the past seventy five years in America.

The other gap in the report is that it did not at all set forth important current issues such as environmental solutions to issues including air and ocean pollution, or life in the digital and virtual age. How can one think of the future of American society or any other society without taking into consideration its relationship with the virtual environment and technology? How can such negligence be justified in a symposium on science policy in a country like America in 2021? This is too important an issue, and dangerous to neglect.  It seems to me that this omission is intentional.

I have already mentioned the surprising absence of historians, philosophers and sociologists of science in the Symposium. This might be due to the dominance of American philosophy of pragmatism which somehow disregards history. In pragmatism, truth is not relative in its popular meaning rather it is congruent and modular. Congruence and cohesion are necessary for the smooth running of affairs. However, as the two latter conditions are context-based, they are dynamic and cannot be considered as static fixed criteria for truth. Looking into the history of civilization, it is clear that congruence and modularity could contribute to the realization of a utopian order and hence provide an ideal status for development, but they do not drive history.

In his slim yet important book, “America,” Jean Baudrillard’s postmodern observations of America, he states that “America has never been short of violence, nor of events, people, or ideas, but these things do not of themselves constitute a history. Octavio Paz is right when he argues that America was created in the hope of escaping from history, of building a Utopia sheltered from history, and that it has in part succeeded in that project, a project it is still pursuing today. The concept of history as the transcending of a social and political rationality, as a dialectical, conflictual vision of societies, is not theirs”[14]. Baudrillard’s “America" sheds light on the Report and uncovers its implicit strengths and weaknesses. It seems that America’s escape from history is represented in the Symposium through the absence of historians, philosophers and social scientists.

As a matter of fact the symposium has failed to shed light on America’s future of science, research and technology. It has confined science to techno-science and totally excluded human sciences, without regard for the existing state of American society. 

The administrators of science gathered in this symposium to express their wishes and to state that they will administer science as they did before, with an attempt to be more attentive to the public so that they gain more benefits from science, research and technology. It is perhaps the right time to quote Baudrillard’s pessimistic view of the future of America in the conclusion of this paper. “…The Americans are not wrong in their idyllic conviction that they are at the center of the world, the supreme power, the absolute model for everyone. And this conviction is not so much founded on natural resources, technologies, and arms, as on the miraculous premise of a Utopia made reality, of a society which, with a directness we might judge unbearable, is built on the idea that it is the realization of everything the others have dreamt of - justice, prosperity, rule of law, wealth, freedom….”[15].

Nevertheless, the Report is important for us in the sense that in it, the relationship between science, society, economy and everyday life has been taken for granted. This can remind us that science should not be in the custody of scientific centers. Instead, we should aim at establishing an authentic relationship between science and our society. We must not confine our academic mission to publishing papers that do not play any role in the country's development. Authentic science and research should improve the daily lives of people by developing order and discipline, and betterment of lives and a community who demands development, order and discipline cultivates authentic science and research. Therefore, in a situation where there is no desire for applying sciences into improving people’s lives, the result would not be beneficial, even if scientists are conducting rigorous research.

In conclusion, the main message of the NAS report appears to be that America will continue its approach to science, research and technology with an increase in the involvement of the federal government in research affairs. Politics is no more aimed at strategic management, and in the best case, it fulfills the demands of technique. When there is no plan, or when the implementation of a plan is not possible. Science needs a home to reside in so that it does not digress. Science that is not rooted in intellectuality and ethics does not flourish and does not lead to development. Universities and research institutes may only become sciences’ home, if they can develop an authentic and real connection between science and other aspects of everyday life and have the cooperation and full support of policy makers including but not limited to the government.

 

 

[1] Steve Olson, Rapporteur; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine, proceedings of The Endless Frontier: The Next 75 Years in Science (2020), p1.

[2]  Ibid, p2.

[3] Ibid,p2.

[4]  Ibid, p10.

[5] Ibid, p10.

[6] Ibid, p10.

[7] Ibid, p13.

[8] Ibid, p13.

[9] Ibid, p13.

[10] Ibid, p34.

[11] Ibid, p34.

[12] Ibid, p4.

[13] Shaabani, Ahmad. 2021. “The Status of Chemical Sciences and its Role in Sustainable Development”. Name-ye-Oloom-e Paye (Review of Basic Sciences Quarterly). The Academy of Sciences (IRR).

[14] Baudrillard, J., (1988), America, London: verso Press. P80.

[15] Baudrillard, J., (1988), America, London: verso Press. P77.