genetic, physiological, and emotional consequences of this drastic limitation of family size!?!?

Suggesting that social dangers can arise from the widespread use of technologies, including the medical ones, does not imply either a defeatist attitude, or hostility against science and technology. What is at stake here is to make these technologies subservient to the welfare of the human being in the long run. Piecemeal engineering, while it may achieve temporary alleviation of a social problem, commonly engages society in channels from which it cannot escape, and that lead to disaster. From now on, technological proposals must be based on analysis of how they are likely to support or to interfere with the attainment of accepted goals. A meaningful assessment cannot ask only, "Where is technology taking us?" but must also ask, "How can technology help us get where we want to go?"

Scientists do not have special qualifications to formulate goals for society, but they can and should play a role of unique importance in trying to determine what is feasible or not, what kind of knowledge is required for certain undertakings, and what are the likely consequences of various courses of action. This purely technical aspect of goal-formulation will increasingly involve the introduction of teleological thinking in the organization of science or rather in the selection of areas of emphasis in the support of science. I shall illustrate this statement with a few general remarks concerning the problem of conservation.

Every thinking person is now greatly concerned about the threats posed by certain technological and social developments to natural resources and to other aspects of the natural environment, including those which affect the physiological, emotional, and esthetic qualities of human life. The word "conservation" encompasses the various modalities of this problem. But the word "conservation" means different things to different persons. For example:

Preserving as much of nature as possible in its primeval state;

Maintaining unspoiled certain aspects of the world that we consider particularly enjoyable and desirable; such as the wildlife of marshlands, the beautifully humanized fields and barns of the Pennsylvania Dutch country, the temples, cathedrals, palaces, and homes that constitute witnesses of human life in the past;

Manipulating the environment in such a manner that it evolves in harmonious relationships with human beings, whether these elect to live in isolated cottages or in skyscrapers.

All these different philosophies of conservation have their merits and can lead to the formulation of legitimate social goals. But the philosophies can be viable, and the goals reached, only if certain ecological imperatives are respected. The definition of these imperatives demands a new kind of scientific knowledge far different from what our school system encourages and from what our present research institutes develop.

It is at present impossible to plan in detail for the teaching and development of this knowledge. But it is possible to create institutions in which the intellectual institutions in which the intellectual atmosphere and technical facilities will be favorable for the development of the kind of complex ecological thinking that will be required if conservation is to become more than a sentimental but empty word. Teleologically, the goal would be to develop the kind of science that would help in preventing the destruction of the environmental values with which human values are enmeshed.

Epidemiological evidence leaves no doubt that many, if not most, of the chronic and degenerative disorders which are responsible for the most difficult and costly therapeutic practices have their origin in environmental insults and in the ways of life. Hardly anything is known now of the manner in which the events of prenatal and postnatal life affect-often probably in an irreversible mannerthe expressions of the phenotype, especially the behavioral and pathological expressions later in life.

Our medical schools and research institutes elected half a century ago to emphasize the detailed aspects of body structure and functions and have paid little heed to the responses that shape the total organism in the course of its development and the responses (healthy or pathological) that it makes to the environment. Medical science has eliminated the phrase "human constitution" from its vocabulary.

Scientific knowledge per se cannot define or impose values to govern behavior. But since science can help in predicting the likely consequences of various behavioral, social, and technological practices, it may contribute to the develop

ment of values by providing a more factual basis for option. In many cases, awareness of consequences play a large part in decision-making. On this ground, scientific knowledge might become one of the criteria for the acceptance or rejection of old value systems, and for the development of new ones.

Ignorance of the law, the saying goes, is no excuse. Similarly, ignorance of science should be no excuse in technicized societies because all important decisions now have scientific determinants. This does not mean that everyone should be a science graduate, any more than everyone should have a law degree. But it implies that responsible citizens should acquire the kind of general understanding that facilitates recognition and evaluation of the social consequences of science and technology. For lack of this understanding, the citizen will have to submit to the tyranny of the expert, who will then become a decision-maker without being answerable to the community. In contrast, if the public can share in a more enlightened manner in the decision-making process involving scientific problems, democratic societies may regain the social coherence which is the condition of their survival.

In brief, the formulation of public policies inevitably implies value judgments as to what is good or bad, desirable or unacceptable. Ideally, the value judgments should be made not by politicians, administrators, or technical experts, but by the human groups concerned. This is just as true for technological innovations as for social innovations. The general public should influence technological planning by participating directly in the formulation of goals, after having been made aware of the probable consequences of the innovations.

The execution of any technological program demands, of course, specialized knowledge and must therefore be delegated to experts; likewise, the prediction of the probable consequences of a given course of action is the province of experts. But the general public has a role just as important as that of experts in all programs that are socially meaningful, because goals and their probable consequences are in the long run more significant than technical means in the formulation of plans for all enterprises. Decision as to desirable goals is the public's business in a democracy.

While it is useful that the facts of scientific progress be reported to the lay public as adequately as possible, this is not enough to help the public pass judgment on the social aspects of science. The general assessment of science and its implications is of still greater importance.

Scientists must discuss in public the implications of their findings with regard not only to practical applications but also to their relevance regarding man's place in the order of things. The philosophical and social uncertainties that are emerging from scientific progress must be emphasized just as much as the prospects of technological breakthroughs. Science and the technologies derived from it will increasingly create economic, educational, and ethical problems for which our communities can make responsible choices only if steps are taken to increase their scientific awareness (which is not the same as up-to-date knowledge of recent developments).

Public discussions of the sociology of science should reach into the organization of the scientific enterprise itself. The Congressional hearings, in the Senate and the House, have made clear that new social techniques must be developed to determine more rationally the relative amount of support for the different forms of the scientific enterprise which are rather frequently classified as free basic research, mission-oriented research, and applied research. There is no doubt, furthermore, that certain fields of science are neglected even though their exploration would be of benefit to human understanding and welfare. For a balanced and orderly development of knowledge, it is essential that the public be given the opportunity to participate in the formulation of the overall strategy of scientific research.

All important human activities have given rise to a highly sophisticated profession concerned with the criticism of their values, achievements, trends, and potentialities. The professional critics of art, music, literature, economics, government, etc., play a creative role even when they do not themselves contribute directly to the fields of activity that they evaluate. Some of the most eminent critics of art or of government have never composed anything or held public office. Science would benefit from this kind of evaluation that professional critics give to other human activities. Whether scientific criticism should develop from within the community of experimental scientists or outside of it remains a moot question. But what is certain is that the higher criticism of science cannot have much vitality without public participation.

APPENDIX 7

WHEN IS RESEARCH THE ANSWER?

KNOWLEDGE CAN BE THE POWER ONLY WHEN THERE ARE ABLE PEOPLE TO USE IT

(J. R. Pierce 1)

Recently I unexpectedly heard that a large mission-oriented organization proposes to inaugurate a multimillion-dollar program of "basic" research. Among the reasons given was that their large program of "applied" research has proved ineffective in advancing their field of responsibility.

My violent and continued reaction has been that the organization needs basic research like it needs a hole in the head. My diagnosis is that people have not been doing their daily work well and thoughtfully, that they have not been doing their job better day by day, and that they now think that the magic of basic research will sweep away or supplant their troubles. My prognosis is that if they get and spend the money, and even if good research is done as a result, the organization and its mission will benefit not at all. No one will be in a position to interpret, exploit, and apply valid new findngs and to reap new benefits.

This brings to my mind some unfortunate laboratories I have visited, which have no clear, pressing, and challenging obligations and are not making any very important contributions. These are the places most apt to boast that they do research. Often it is shoddy research; but, if it were good, they would be in no position to use it to solve pressing and important problems.

I think also of organizations that spend money for research in universities, but that have no adequate mechanism for recognizing and exploiting any important potentialities that may be opened up. The research may be good work of national importance, but is it of any direct good to the organization which pays for it? If not, how can it be made useful?

I hope that no one doubts that good research is essential to technological progress, along with good and aggressive development, trial, production, distribution, and continual evaluation and improvement. Harvey Brooks has pointed out that whether research is basic or applied can depend on one's point of view. I think the distinction between good and bad research is more meaningful and useful. Good research substantially or usefully increases our understanding of important things or our ability to do important things.

The substantial or useful part is vital. Beyond some point, either polishing or extending results is not worth the effort. Sometimes polishing or extending is important for very practical reasons. Valuable as such necessary work is, it can be justified only by a real need for the results.

Important is more difficult than substantial or useful. Important to what? Research can be important to medicine, communication, music, or to the understanding of the universe, including man. It is difficult to establish criteria that will separate important areas of work from unimportant areas; it is also difficult to establish criteria that distinguish between good and unimportant books, but no one doubts that there are both, and that people can somehow tell them apart, fallibly but well above chance.

Thus, good research should substantially or usefully increase our understanding of important things or our ability to do important things. While understanding for its own sake can be laudable and worthy, society will presumably pay most generously for understanding which leads to doing important things. And we all know how increased understanding can shove things forward.

But, increased understanding can result in better doing only under favorable circumstances. The transistor spurred a vigorous electronic industry which, through development, manufacture, and distribution, was able to bring it

1 The author is executive director of the research-communications sciences division of the Bell Telephone Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey.

quickly and effectively into use. Penicillin and other antibiotics would have been useless without a well-developed pharmaceutical industry and medical practice. New plastics and alloys have worked wonders in a wide range of advanced technology.

From society's point of view, research is useless in a practical sense unless it is exploited. Such exploitation requires some successful, aggressive, forwardlooking, satisfactorily organized mechanism for development, trial, production, distribution, evaluation, and improvement.

In this country, bright go-getters fresh from the university can, with energy and enterprise, still get backing and found new businesses that leave older competitors in the background. But large organizations can be enterprising, too. If their development people are up-to-date and imaginative, they are continually frustrated by their lack of understanding and their inability to realize essential functions. These lacks hold them back. They know that only research can provide a way through or around their difficulties. Researchers see the same limitations, and good ones are receptive to both the needs and the ideas of others.

From this glowing picture of the path of progress, as real as it is admirable, let us turn to the organization mentioned in my first paragraph and to its problems and responsibilities. Is it doing well now? Probably not, as judged by its own admission that its applied research has not been successful. Probably, it cannot evaluate things well enough to tell the good from the bad. Is it full of bright people at the end of their tether, doing admirably but needing more understanding or better tools to do outstandingly better? Could it tell a good research result from a useless one? Could it make use of a good result? I doubt it. If the organization does support basic research, and if by a miracle something potentially useful comes from this research, what then? Perhaps an enterprising outsider will exploit the research to his own profit and society's. That would be gratifying, but it wouldn't cure the organization's problems.

When, then, is research the answer in improving the performance of realizing the aims of an organization? The answer is: when such research is good research, and when effective use can be made of the understanding and inventions which good research provides.

The effective application of understanding and invention requires the effective and interrelated carrying out of many functions other than research, including development, trial, production, distribution, and continual evaluation and improvement. Good research may or may not-find use through various fortuitous mechanisms of society. But unless the other functions necessary for its exploitation are provided and organized in a satisfactory way, even good research is unlikely to be the answer to the problems of an organization.

Indeed, unless these other essential functions are satisfactory, research carried out by or for an organization is not only unlikely to be effective, it is unlikely to be good research. Under unfavorable circumstances, research is a distraction from the urgent problems of an organization rather than a solution to them.