What future for medium‐energy physics?
DOI: 10.1063/1.3070723
According to Harvey Brooks, there are four main reasons for the support of scientific research: cultural, economic, social and educational. Needless to say, opinions differ as to the proper measure of Federal responsibility for each of these purposes. Brooks, who is chairman of the US National Academy of Sciences Committee on Science and Public Policy, goes on to describe four models of the research system based on these reasons for support:
▸ Science as a quasiautonomous, self‐structuring activity that ultimately benefits society but must be left to develop according to its own internal dynamics if the social benefits are to be realized most efficiently (model attributed to Michael Polanyi and Derek de Solla Price)
▸ Science as a social overhead on applied research and development, aimed at specific social objectives and missions (model attributed to Alvin Weinberg)
▸ Science as a social overhead investment, in which research and education—in the broadest sense of the development of institutional and individual capacity to the maximum potential—are inseparable objectives (unattributed)
▸ Science as a tertiary industry or consumption good, representing the nonmaterial, nonproduction aspect of the goals and activities of an increasingly affluent society (model attributed to Stephen Toulmin)
References
1. H. Brooks, “Models for Science Planning,” in Public Administration Review, May–June 1971, pages 364–374.
2. “Meson Factories,” Report of the Ad Hoc Panel to the Office of Science and Technology, March 1964.
3. L. Rosen, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, Geneva, Switzerland (1971).
4. PHYSICS TODAY, December 1971, page 69.
5. Nuclear Industry, 1970, US Atomic Energy Commission, Wash., D.C. 20545, page 213.
6. “Authorizing Appropriations for the Atomic Energy Commission for Fiscal Year 1972,” US House of Representatives Report No. 92‐325, 30 June 1971.
7. “Hearings Before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Fiscal Year 1966,” US Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C., page 401.
8. Fiscal Year 1972 Atomic Energy Commission Authorizing Legislation, “Hearings Before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 3, 4 February and 2 March 1971,” US Government Printing Office, Wash., D.C.
9. Science 174, 4004, 26 (1971).https://doi.org/SCIEAS
More about the authors
George A. Kolstad, Division of Physical Research, US Atomic Energy Commission.
