Science Community Must Reexamine Its Own 'Contract With America'

As the new Republican majority takes its place in Congress, we're beginning to see a fundamental questioning of a wide range of basic assumptions about how our government works. For example, I anticipate a serious examination of exactly what taxpayers should expect from the "technical experts"--scientists and engineers--whose research they fund. So, as one of those engineers, I propose that we must be prepared for that examination with a clear and honest account of our reasons for expecting support. And, in fact, we should be prepared to forge a new social contract between us and our clients, the taxpayers--our own "Contract with America." Given that so much--the nation's economy, health, environment--depends on trust and candor between these two groups, perhaps we should seek a breakthrough in understanding one another to rival the breakthroughs in our laboratories. First, we should be prepared to admit that the public's "technical experts"--scientists and engineers--have basically been telling a few little white lies to their clients. For one thing, we must admit that we do have some selfish reasons for wanting to do research supported by public tax dollars. Our explorations are fun and exciting, and we enjoy the deep satisfaction of knowing that our work may benefit the public that pays for it. And even though we won't get as rich as investment bankers, the pay is not bad. But if we know what's good for us, we'd better make sure our clients understand the full range of reasons for supporting our research. Of course, much basic research seeks to understand disease--a purpose the public can readily rally 'round. And, until now, we properly justified much of our development work as necessary for defense. But with the Cold War over, many scientists have come to advocate the concept of turning military research resources into a "peace dividend" that aims, for example, to increase health-care efficiency. While some have questioned the validity of such "swords-into-scalpels" research initiatives, this is, indeed, a highly valid reason for supporting research. For example, the military and the health-care system are experiencing parallel evolutions in the forces that drive them. While in the past, both military and health-related research have concentrated on high performance rather than low price, this culture is changing, with citizens and policymakers emphasizing the need for both affordable military defense and affordable health care. As a consequence of these changes in fundamental values, there will be enormous changes in public expectations of the research community, and vice versa. Such changes, as well as the fact that the public demands that its researchers solve some very emotion-laden problems, creates high expectations and some considerable tension. This tension is heightened by the public's long-standing fears of some fruits of technology--fears that show no signs of abating. They are being driven by today's headlines, which warn of global warming, nuclear disasters, and a sea of hazardous wastes. Clear Explanations Needed If we are to begin forging a new contract of understanding between the public and its experts, the scientists and engineers, we must be crystal clear about the realities of research. For example, we must explain clearly that most research investigations do not directly lead to inventions or discoveries that benefit the public. True, they may have value in showing researchers what does not work, which may pave the way to ultimate success. But in reality, few research projects result in eurekas. Rather, perhaps the major benefit of such projects is to provide an education in the hard lessons of failures for the young graduate student-participants. Too often the research community is fearful of revealing these obvious (at least to the participants) truths. Yet despite such shortcomings in research outcomes, the return on our long-term investment in science and technology has been little short of astounding. How many citizens of the developed world can imagine life without automobiles, airplanes, telephones, televisions, fax machines, and E-mail, for example? And that doesn't even address improved health care and the scientific revolution in agriculture. What might be the essential elements of a new social contract between technical experts and the public? First of all, the public should be willing to recognize that, fundamentally, it does not invest in science and technology per se, but rather in scientists and engineers. The national interest demands that we educate generations of technologists, including some over the course of their entire careers. The latter we usually choose to call researchers, but they might more accurately be termed "life-long learners," as both educators and creators of new knowledge. On the other side, scientists and engineers need to encourage a significant number of the people we educate to participate more fully in public life as policymakers, planners, legislators, and administrators. That way, the laws of nature may be taken more into account in crafting and implementing the laws and financial appropriations of Congress and state legislatures. Third, we must commit to the idea that a technical education should encompass far more than technology. It should also instill in students that what they do will have ethical consequences, as well as societal, economic, and environmental impacts. Scientists and engineers also need to reach out more--working with our partners in K-12 education and community colleges as well as other intellectual disciplines within our own university system. Science and technology encompass a wide range of the scholarly landscape, but are most effectively pursued in the context of the broader liberal arts tradition. Finally, we scientists and engineers, as well as the public, must realize that technology is not something we store in a warehouse or a reserve depository, but rather something that is performed by people who are an important and essential portion of the educated populace. Moreover, we must avoid the notion that the number of engineers and scientists is determined by the short-term employee recruiting needs of industry, rather than the long-term strategic interests of the United States and the world. With these understandings, the social contract to support science and engineering might be based upon: the public's willingness to support a critical number and variety of research and teaching universities that offer education from bachelor's to postdoctoral degrees; educators and corporate citizens providing career paths that take an engineer or scientist from academia or business into government service and back again; universities rewarding their scientists and engineers for their interaction and substantial involvement with other elements of the educational enterprise; and the public's recognizing that engineers and scientists are the foundation of a prosperous and productive citizenry in the 21st century and beyond. With this new contract in place, the next time the national budget or the cost of a scientific or technical education is debated, we'll have a better basis for understanding between client and expert--the public and the engineer or scientist. Earl Dowell is dean of engineering and J.A. Jones Professor of Engineering at Duke University. Many of the ideas in this article were stimulated by his participation in a recent study leading to the October 1994 report "Engineering Education in a Changing World," published by the American Society for Engineering Education.

Science Community Must Reexamine Its Own 'Contract With America'

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of