Excerpts from American and European media on the conduct of science.
| |
Show Some Muscle
-"Can British
Universities Recover?"
Nature, p. 381
October 2, 1986
With Friends Like That
Many people believe-as once was said about war and generals- that science is too important to be left to the scientists. To whose care, then, shall the future of science be entrusted? We scientists ourselves must become more involved in determining how science will serve society and how society will influence the progress of science.
If education is the nutrient for a healthy science, freedom is the oxygen science must breathe. But those outside the discipline who place the highest economic and military value on science are just the ones most likely to place limitations on the movements of scientists and scientific ideas. Thus it is not the enemies of science-the modern Luddites-who most threaten scientists' intellectual freedom; it is those who expect the nation to benefit from scientific success. Science may well have most to fear from its admirers.
-Lewis M. Branscomb "The Scientific-
Technological Enterprise"
American Scientist, pp. 462-463
September-October 1986
What's In a Name?
Should not the name of Ernest 0. Lawrence be removed from the title of the Livermore National Laboratory? As Lawrence's widow, I have felt for some years that this government-owned facility should no longer be using his name....
First, I am unalterably opposed to the continuing escalation of the nuclear-arms race, and because this is now the primary activity of the Livermore laboratory-both in terms of the research conducted there and of lobbying conducted in Washington-I consider today's Livermore facility in no way a suitable memorial to my late husband.
It is time to put Lawrence's defense work in proper perspective with his contributions to basic scientific knowledge, peaceful applications and worldwide dissemination of such knowledge. These contributions should be the basis for his place in scientific history but the use of his name at Livermore serves only to distort the picture.
-Mary B. Lawrence
Letter to the Editor
Physics Today, pp. 11-12
October 1986
Looking to the Stars
the scientists aren't worried about a few days. "If it went off even this month, I think a lot of people would think this is a good prediction," says Ken Johnston of the Naval Research Laboratory. Certainly better than a lot of economic forecasts.
-"Asides"
The Wall Street Journal, p. 32
October 10, 1986
Zinos, Winos and Reality
Review of "The Nature of Reality,"
by Richard Morris
The New York Times
Book Review, p. 54
October 5, 1986
Planck's Other Law
"A revolution in sophisticated equipment has driven 'Planck's Other Law' faster than Planck probably could have imagined, and the result is heavily expensive science in all the disciplines."
Speech delivered September 18,
1986 at Reed College's 75th
anniversary in Portland, Oregon
High Hopes
Chemistry in Britain, p. 773
September 1986
Congress Knows Best
. . . It goes without saying that all federally supported activity should be carefully scrutinized. ... a strong case can be made for projects supported through direct Congressional appropriation, since the members of Congress who ap prove the projects are directly ac countable to the citizens who elected them. The scientists and experts who sit on peer-review panels are not fiscally or otherwise ac countable to the public for the projects they approve.
" 'Pork-Barrel Science'
vs. Peer Review"
The Chronicle of
Higher Education, p.96
October 8, 1986
Setting Up Shop in Space
Shuttle Manifest"
Aviation Week & Space
Technology, p. 17
October 6, 1986









