PUBLIC VALUE SCIENCE

Why should the United States government support science? That question was apparently settled 75 years ago by Vannevar Bush in Science, the Endless Frontier: "Since health, well-being, and security are proper concerns of Government, scientific progress is, and must be, of vital interest to Gove...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Issues in science and technology 2020-07, Vol.36 (4), p.34-41
Main Author: BOZEMAN, BARRY
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Boats
Economic growth
Economic Progress
Economics
Government (Administrative Body)
Income inequality
Industrial policy
Innovation
Innovations
International trade
Living Standards
Population
Retraining
Rewards
Science
Science and technology
SCIENCE, THE ENDLESS FRONTIER AT 75
Society
Socioeconomics
Standard of living
Stock exchanges
Stocks
Tax rates
Taxation
Technology
Trade policy
Trade relations
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Why should the United States government support science? That question was apparently settled 75 years ago by Vannevar Bush in Science, the Endless Frontier: "Since health, well-being, and security are proper concerns of Government, scientific progress is, and must be, of vital interest to Government. Without scientific progress the national health would deteriorate; without scientific progress we could not hope for improvement in our standard of living or for an increased number of jobs for our citizens; and without scientific progress we could not have maintained our liberties against tyranny." Having dispensed with the question of why, all that remained was for policy-makers to decide, how much? Even at the dawn of modern science policy, costs and funding needs were at the center of deliberations. Though rarely discussed anymore, Endless Frontier did give specific attention to the question of how much. The proposed amounts seem, by today's standards, modest: "It is estimated that an adequate program for Federal support of basic research in the colleges, universities, and research institutes and for financing important applied research in the public interest, will cost about 10 million dollars at the outset and may rise to about 50 million dollars annually when fully underway at the end of perhaps 5 years." But I argue that this principle has now been soundly falsified. In an economic environment characterized by growth but also by extreme inequality, science and technology not only reinforce inequality but also, in some instances, help widen the gap. Science and technology can be a regressive factor in the economy. Thus, it is time to rethink the economic equation justifying government support for science not just in terms of why and how much, but also in terms of who.
ISSN:0748-5492
1938-1557