A variety of factors caused it: including restrictions on the functions of the federal government, the Republican Party's pursuit of the concept of "small government", the mutual check relationship between executive and legislative, the military-dominated but diverse federal science and technology funding system during the Cold War, and scientists relying on the government but worried about being controlled by the government
picture
Text | Wang Zuoyue
The formulation and implementation of a country's science and technology policy is often affected by many aspects, including the political system, historical traditions, and the interaction between science and technology and the economy, society, and government at a specific time. When examining the science and technology systems of various countries in the contemporary world, a meaningful phenomenon is: on the one hand, many countries, including China and India, have established science and technology departments of considerable scale, while some technologically advanced countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, do not. Department. Why hasn't the United States set up a science and technology department so far?
Due to the leading position of the United States in science and technology in the world, this issue has not only attracted the interest of American science historians and science and technology policy researchers, but also attracted the attention of scholars and policymakers in other countries. For example, in the 2004-2005 discussion on China's formulation of medium- and long-term science and technology plans (2006-2010) and science and technology policies, some scholars mentioned this phenomenon and pointed out that the establishment of a large Ministry of Science and Technology is not a necessary condition for the development of science and technology. However, the historical background of the absence of a Ministry of Science and Technology in the United States is not very clear to many people, including Americans. This problem involves many aspects of American politics, society, and science, including its institutional restrictions on government functions, the check relationship between the executive system and the legislative system, and the military-dominated but diverse federal science and technology funding during the Cold War system, and the delicate relationship between scientists and governments that is both dependent and wary.
Due to space limitations, this article will focus on a national review of science and technology policy in the United States after the successful launch of a satellite by the Soviet Union in 1957 after a brief introduction to the early debates on science and technology policy in the United States. One of the central issues of the 2010 is the debate on "whether to establish a Ministry of Science and Technology." The attitudes of various departments, walks of life, and interest groups in the United States towards the Ministry of Science and Technology are also very representative. When the debate ended, it essentially set the tone for America's science and technology policy system for decades to come, including the consensus not to have a science department.
picture
Debate over the Establishment of the Department of Science in the Early Years of the United States
Although the early days of the United States were not as utilitarian and ignorant of science as is commonly imagined, its pragmatism and federalism did greatly limit the setting of its central scientific agency. Among the founding fathers of the United States, there are many thinkers deeply influenced by the Enlightenment Movement, such as Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826), James Madison (James Madison, 1751-1836), etc., as well as the world-famous great scientist Benjamin Franklin (Benjamin Franklin, 1706 -1790), they all wanted the federal government to play a catalytic role in promoting the country's science, education and trade. For example, at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Franklin proposed authorizing the federal government to build canals, and Madison proposed establishing a national university in the capital. But their proposal, which was seen as representing the interests of large states, was opposed by representatives of small states and others who did not want to see the expansion of the federal government's powers, and ultimately failed.
To a certain extent, science is considered to be an elegant learning from Europe, which does not help the needs of the American people to pioneer and produce.
Finally, the Constitution assigns the federal government only in general a duty to "promote the public good," and the only reference to science is in Section VIII, which authorizes Congress to enact laws "to secure, for a limited period, to writers and inventors the exclusive rights for the advancement of science and technology".
However, due to practical needs, the federal government in the 19th century actually increased scientific research institutions related to military and civilian use, such as the Patent Office, Coast Survey Bureau, Naval Observatory, Signal Corps, Naval Hydrographic Office, Geological Survey Bureau, etc. , as well as the semi-official Smithsonian Institution and the National Academies.
In 1884, Congress felt that the federal bureaus were not only developing rapidly, but also that their responsibilities seemed to be overlapping, so a committee of three members from each of the Senate and House of Representatives was formed to investigate the matter, and then made a decision on the relationship between science and government in the United States. suggestion. This is the famous Allison Commission in the history of American science (Allison Commission, Senator W. B. Allison is its chairman). The committee's first move was to ask the National Academy of Sciences to appoint a committee of scientists to help it examine the situation in the great European powers and make recommendations on how to coordinate the various scientific agencies of the US government.
It was this committee of the Academy of Sciences, in its report, which for the first time formally proposed that the federal government establish a "Ministry of Science" to manage the scientific research bureaus and "direct and control all purely scientific work within the government."
why? Because the development of science is directly related to whether the government can realize the responsibility of "promoting public welfare" entrusted by the Constitution.
To this end, the report lists a series of high technologies of the time - photography, electricity and the resulting telegraph, telephone, electric light, electric railway - to illustrate the huge economic benefits of science and the close relationship with public welfare. It is self-evident that if, as the report hopes, the Minister of Science is appointed by someone who understands both management and science, then he will become the spokesperson of scientists in the government and improve the status and influence of the entire scientific community. However, although the committee stated in its report that its proposal represented the aspirations of the scientific community, in fact some scientists, such as Alexander Agassiz of Harvard University, publicly opposed the establishment of a federal science department, and even criticized the existing scientific research bureau. , especially the Geological Survey, are also deeply dissatisfied that they create unfair competition for private universities and research institutions. Geological Survey Director John Wesley Powell countered, arguing that government research does not threaten, but only stimulates, facilitates and guides private research. But even Powell does not support the science department, proposing that the Smithsonian Institution should coordinate government research.
The debate within the Allison Commission was more focused on how Congress would control these science bureaus than the Academy of Sciences committee report's emphasis on science departments. Of its six commissioners, two from the South sided with Agassiz in advocating significant restrictions on the Geological Survey's research work, but after a push by Powell and other scientists, the other four recommended that Congress continue Support the scientific research activities of the Bureau.
As for the Ministry of Science, the final conclusion of the Allison Committee's 1886 report was "unnecessary": its investigations showed that there was not much overlap between the work of the various bureaux, and there was no problem with communicating with each other, so Building a new science department will not improve productivity.
Overall, the Allison Commission investigation had three implications for U.S. science and technology policy: it established congressional investigation and indirect control over federal scientific institutions; it affirmed the importance of scientific institutions in the work of government; but At the same time, it rejects the idea that the importance of science or its potential can only be realized by concentrating all scientific institutions in one science department.
The Allison Commission's research shows that science works best when it is closely linked to the work of all branches of government. In other words, politicians pay more attention to the practical benefits of science than scientists do to the status and symbolism of science.
picture
Around World War II
In view of the conclusions of the Allison Committee, in the following half a century, despite the continuous expansion of government science, the famous Office of Scientific Research and Development (Office of Scientific Research and Development) was formed by Bush (Vannevar Bush) in World War II. Development or OSRD) to coordinate national defense science and technology, including the development of the atomic bomb, but few people proposed to re-establish the Ministry of Science or the Ministry of Science and Technology. As a Republican, Bush, like Agassiz, did not want to see the government control science, so his OSRD created a completely different technology management system:
It did not include the scientists working for OSRD into the federal government, but contracted various projects to several universities and companies for management. For example, the famous Los Alomos atomic bomb laboratory was contracted by the University of California. In this way, scientists can retain their status as university professors and use government money to do research for the government. Even so, Bush felt that OSRD was too powerful to be a wartime agency, and disbanded it immediately after the war.
But a problem arose at this time: the development of science has entered the era of big science. Many research projects, especially those in universities, require a lot of funds, which can only be paid by the federal government. After OSRD is disbanded, how can the federal government How about funding these out-of-government research projects while avoiding the possibility of unwarranted government control over science?
Bush's solution is to establish a National Research Foundation, funded by the government, managed by scientists, and distribute science and technology funds through peer review. At the same time, it coordinates the science and technology policies of the entire federal government from a macro perspective. In a certain sense, it is a bit like a science and technology department. the meaning of. This is the later National Science Foundation (National Science Foundation, or NSF), starting from Bush's 1945 proposal, after several twists and turns, it was finally established in 1950.
However, in the past five years, the science and technology policy of the United States has undergone tremendous changes. Under the influence of the Cold War and the Korean War, national defense scientific research has occupied the dominant position of the federal government's science and technology policy. The military has directly cooperated with universities and industries through its own institutions. world, funding their research projects and engaging their scientists as advisors. So when NSF officially began to operate in 1951, it was far from the grand scale envisaged by Bush. Even in its strong suit, basic research, its funding pales in comparison to that of the Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Commission (or AEC). As for NSF's task of coordinating the entire government's science and technology policy, its first director, Alan Waterman, found it even more difficult to take on. On the one hand, the status of NSF in the government is far less than that of a big head like the Ministry of Defense. On the other hand, Wortman believes that since NSF has its own projects and competes with other departments, it would be a conflict of interest to interfere with their operations. suspect. So despite the fact that the Bureau of Budget (Bureau of Budget), as the president's big steward, has repeatedly urged NSF to perform its duties, NSF is only content to do some statistical work on science and technology policy.
Scientists, although sometimes uncomfortable with relying on the military for money, and military funding has sometimes fluctuated, are generally satisfied with the diverse and generous postwar government funding system. The government also feels that this arrangement not only promotes the development of science and talents, but also meets the government's needs in national defense and medical research and consulting. The matter of the Ministry of Science and Technology was put on hold. Only once—Clare Luce, wife of Time magazine founder Henry Luce, then a member of Congress—reintroduced a proposal to create a science department in Congress, but because it didn’t get What support and nothing came of it.
picture
Under the shock wave of the Soviet satellite, the old saying of the Ministry of Science is repeated
In 1957, the launch of the Soviet satellite "Sputnik" greatly shocked the government and the public in the United States, and also revived the proposal of the Ministry of Science and Technology.
The military, including various services of the sea, land and air, military industrial enterprises, and members of Congress who support them all claim that the Soviet Union has surpassed the United States in missile and nuclear weapons, and strongly advocates vigorously expanding various high-tech weapons and equipment and space programs, and catching up with technology. To shorten the "missile gap" with the Soviet Union. At the same time, Congress passed the famous National Defense Education Act, which allocated funds from the federal government and set up scholarships to support excellent students to study science and foreign languages. In this way, when China launched a great leap forward under the influence of satellites, the United States also started a decade-long movement to rejuvenate the country through science and education because of the satellite storm. These developments put a lot of pressure on President Eisenhower because, as a moderate Republican, he did not want to see a dramatic expansion of the government.
At the same time, Eisenhower was clearly aware of the danger of nuclear war and felt that the continuation of the nuclear arms race would lead to the militarization of American society. Therefore, his countermeasure is not to build a new Ministry of Science and Technology, but to appoint the first official and full-time presidential science advisor in the history of the United States, which is held by MIT Dean Killian (James Killian), and at the same time appointed a The President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC), which has more than 20 well-known scientists participating part-time, is chaired by a scientific adviser to help him and other White House officials coordinate and coordinate federal science and technology policy and control the arms race.
PSAC scientists mostly come from universities and industrial laboratories outside the government. They have experienced the test of World War II and have a deep understanding of the lethality of nuclear weapons and the danger of a nuclear arms race, thus actively promoting the cooperation between the United States and the Soviet Union. nuclear arms control. These ideas coincide with Eisenhower's. Through its independent technical and policy demonstrations, PSAC has shown that many high-tech military project technologies have not yet passed the test, or are of little use at all, so blindly launching them will not be worth the candle. In this way it served Eisenhower's efforts to resist the expansion of military and space technology, and thus became his right-hand man in the formulation of public policy. This kind of flexible scientific advisory system not only allows the president to get in close contact with the scientific community directly, but also avoids the establishment of a huge bureaucratic system of science and technology, so it is deeply loved by Eisenhower.
picture
In 1957, when the Soviet satellite was put into space, the US Congress advocated the establishment of the Ministry of Science and Technology, but President Eisenhower opposed it and replaced it with the Presidential Science Advisory Committee. This is the 1960 President meeting with the committee at the White House. | Source: Eisenhower Library
Yet the Democratic-majority Congress is not entirely satisfied with the president's moves, including the appointment of science advisers.
On the one hand, these scientists are the president's advisers, and most of their reports are of a confidential nature, not only often not seen by the public, but sometimes even by members of Congress.
On the other hand, as the federal government's science and technology funding continues to grow, Congress very much hopes that there will be an official in the executive branch who is directly responsible to Congress to manage the federal science and technology program in a unified way, and explain to Congress how the money is spent every year .
Some lawmakers are also dissatisfied with the Department of Defense's massive funding of scientific research in American universities. Like Eisenhower, they believed that this would lead to the militarization of American science and society, and hoped to have a non-military Ministry of Science and Technology to replace it. In addition, some scientists working in the government also support the establishment of a science and technology department, hoping that it will improve their treatment and working conditions. These ideas existed before the satellite storm, but it brought
The sense of crisis in the future has provided an excellent opportunity for the proponents of the Ministry of Science and Technology.
In Congress, Senator Hubert Humphrey, a Democrat from Minnesota, is the tech department's most vocal advocate. In 1958 and 1959, he proposed the establishment of the Ministry of Science and Technology for two consecutive years and presided over congressional hearings. There are several other proposals, similar to Humphrey's. They all advocate that several new and old science and technology bureaus, such as NSF, the Atomic Energy Commission, the newly established National Aeronautics and Space Administration (or NASA), the National Bureau of Standards, and the Geological Survey, etc., be included in a new science and technology bureau. Ministry, the minister must be a member of the cabinet. Of course, the Ministry of Science and Technology also needs to coordinate the federal science and technology policy, especially to centralize the science and technology information of the whole country and even the whole world. Compared with the Allison Committee investigation in 1884-1886, the Ministry of Science and Technology bills in 1958-1959 are actually similar to the recommendations of the Academy of Sciences Committee in 1884, but this time the active promoters are Congress rather than scientists.
Eisenhower was skeptical about the need for a science department. Although he is not entirely opposed to government funding of scientific research in principle, he still worries about the government control of science and education that such funding may bring, and a new Ministry of Science and Technology is likely to promote this tendency. In addition, like the Allison Committee, he believes that technology has penetrated into all departments of the federal government, and it is impossible and unnecessary to set up a separate department of science and technology. But for the sake of prudence, he still asked PSAC to conduct a comprehensive investigation on the problems of the Ministry of Science and Technology and the entire science and technology policy.
PSAC scientists, mostly from universities, certainly hoped that Eisenhower and the federal government would increase funding for basic research, but they lacked enthusiasm for the Ministry of Science and Technology. This may be partly because the federal government, including the military, has dramatically increased funding for university research and basic research in the wake of the satellite scandal. But to delve deeper into the matter, Killian and PSAC appointed a task force chaired by Emanuel Piore, IBM's director of research. The group organized an internal hearing to learn about the state of research in various government departments themselves and their approach to funding research outside the government. The hearing made the Peore team more aware of the close ties that had developed between the government and universities after the war, and the enormous variety of ways in which the federal government funded science. Almost all departments are preparing to use the huge amount of science and technology funds they have increased after the satellite incident to fund scientific research projects outside the government, especially in the form of contracts with universities. From their point of view, one of the benefits of doing so is that the scientific research level obtained from universities is high, and it can also cultivate scientific and technological talents.
But the Piore team also found that there is indeed a lack of uniformity in the federal government's technology policy: Departments negotiate contracts directly with universities, and the terms of the contracts, including the general and administrative fees that universities can charge, can vary from university to university and from department to department. Several departments will be interested in one area at the same time, such as meteorology, high-temperature materials, particle accelerators, but others, such as oceanography, are not given enough attention. As far as federal science and technology policy in general is concerned, the panel believes that the most important thing is that the government should ensure the stability of funding and reduce sudden changes or repetitions. Government-university contracts should generally be extended for three years. The federal government, through the President and Congress, should clearly establish support for research as a national policy.
Wouldn't a new Ministry of Science and Technology be the best way to implement these proposals? The Piore team doesn't think so. Like Eisenhower and the Allison Commission, the group believes that technology has penetrated into various government ministries such as national defense, interior affairs, agriculture, health, education and welfare, directly affecting the functional responsibilities of these ministries, and it is not appropriate to separate them from these ministries. And the independent federal science and technology agencies, such as AEC, NASA, and NSF, each have their own missions and structures, and it is not easy to group them into one department for management. Perhaps more importantly, the scientific community as a whole does not seem to be supportive of MOST either. After the satellite turmoil, scientists entered the White House as scientific advisors, the Ministry of Defense was reorganized, the decision-making status of scientists was strengthened, and the funding for science and technology increased significantly. All these made scientists not feel that the Ministry of Science and Technology was necessary.
In March 1958, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (or AAAS) hosted a meeting called the "Parliament of Science" (Parliament of Science), attended by more than 100 representatives of scientists from various disciplines. Science and society, including the establishment of the Ministry of Science and Technology. In addition to the aforementioned proposal for a large science and technology ministry, they also discussed a proposal for a small science and technology ministry, one that would focus primarily on basic research. The result of the discussion was opposition to both large and small science and technology departments. Their arguments against the Big Tech Ministry are basically the same as those above. Regarding the small Ministry of Science and Technology, they think that would put a political person (minister) in charge of basic research that has little to do with politics. In the final analysis, the attitude of scientists on the issue of the Ministry of Science and Technology reflects the special situation of modern science: big science needs government funding, but scientists want to maintain their traditional autonomy and do not want politics and the government to interfere in the operation of science.
However, the federal science and technology policy still needs to be strengthened. What should be done? The Piore group of PSAC proposed a compromise plan: the establishment of a Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST), with the president's science adviser as the director, Each department will send a senior official who understands science and technology (such as the deputy minister) to participate, and use the investigation report of the President's Science Advisory Committee as a reference to coordinate the science and technology plans and policies of the entire federal government. As a "small science cabinet", it is directly responsible to the president through the president's science adviser, and issues an annual report on the federal government's scientific and technological needs for three years. This plan was approved by most PSAC members, so when PSAC met with Eisenhower on June 18, 1958, it formally submitted a report on this issue to the President.
Just before the meeting, the President had a press conference. At the meeting, a reporter asked him if he was considering setting up a science and technology department. Eisenhower replied humorously:
Well, science is a bit like the air you breathe, it is everywhere; should we have a separate air department? I'd better give a negative answer to this question for the time being. To have a Ministry of Science, I cannot conclude that it would be particularly useful; but this is what I can say: every branch of the government, especially the Defense Department, the State Department, and myself, have done our best, in all possible ways Come and get the best opinions and ideas from these people [scientists] that you can get. In fact, one of my appointments today is to meet with the advisory committee led by Dr. Killian. If I feel that there is still a need for some formal organization on this matter and this topic, I will immediately ask him to do a study. [ That is] to have his committee do a thorough study.
Hours later, when the president asked PSAC for its opinion on creating the Ministry of Science and Technology, PSAC members responded that they agreed with his answer at the press conference.
Contrary to PSAC's expectations, Eisenhower also had reservations about PSAC's proposal for a small science cabinet. He said the Federal Science and Technology Council "could be a forum for communication to define omissions and duplications [among the agencies], but it would be impossible to exercise power." His concern was that separate centers of power would distract the president from policymaking and implement. Piore quickly went on to say that in PSAC's conception, FCST does not have independent executive power, and is headed by the president's scientific adviser. On this basis, Eisenhower expressed his approval of FCST. After discussion by the cabinet, FCST was formally approved and established in March 1959. At the same time, the White House released PSAC's report on "Strengthening American Science" based on the Peori Panel investigation.
So how does the FCST work in practice? Does it meet PSAC's expectations for coordinating federal science and technology policy?
The answer can only be said to be mixed. On the one hand, because of the limitation of its authority by the president and the considerable autonomy given to each department by the American system, the FCST actually does not have much influence on the science and technology policies of several powerful departments. In addition, representatives of various departments have equal status and potential conflicts of interest in FCST, so they are less likely to actively interfere with projects of other departments. Coordination is often a thankless task, but it is even more difficult for FCST. But on the other hand, despite all these limitations, the FCST, under the leadership of its scientific advisors and prodded by the PSAC, has served its purpose. It has indeed become a center for exchanging science and technology policies, opinions and information within the government, and has also contributed to several interdepartmental science and technology projects, such as the National Materials Research Program, which laid the foundation for the development of this emerging interdisciplinary discipline in American universities. It later also coordinated the development of interdepartmental and interdisciplinary funding in oceanography, atmospheric science, high-energy physics, and seismic research.
In general, Eisenhower's limited but flexible PSAC-FCST science and technology system basically adapted to the needs after the satellite storm, thus making Congress' bill on creating the Ministry of Science and Technology a draw from the bottom. In addition, those committees in Congress that are in charge of the budgets of various federal departments are not willing to see their power and influence weakened by the establishment of the Ministry of Science and Technology, so they are not very enthusiastic about the establishment of the Ministry of Science and Technology. But in the early 1960s, during President Kennedy’s tenure, the continuous growth of federal science and technology funding led Congress to reopen the review of the science and technology policy system, requiring the government’s decision-making process to be more transparent. At the same time, the scale of the Office of Science Advisory has also gradually expanded, making it unsuitable to remain in the White House's lean establishment.
In this case, the federal science and technology policy system has made another adjustment: from 1962, through an institutional reorganization plan that only needs to be filed in Congress, the Office of the President's Science Advisory was changed to the Office of Science and Technology (Office of Science and Technology, or OST), moved from the White House Office of the President to the Executive Office of the President (Executive Office of the President), and was formally established by the Congress, separately prepared, and directly allocated by Congress, so that the director of the office can go to Congress to attend hearings and accept the approval of members of Congress Inquiry, thereby providing Congress and the public with an avenue for understanding government technology policy.
In this way, the US President's science and technology policy system has four components: the President's Science Advisor, the President's Science Advisory Council, the Federal Science and Technology Council, and the Office of Science and Technology.
In actual operation, the coordination of these four parts is accomplished by having the President's science adviser hold four positions. One of the advantages of this system is that decision makers at the presidential level generally do not need to be involved in the allocation of specific science and technology funds except for large scientific projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but instead focus on the formulation and implementation of major policies. The allocation of specific scientific and technological funds is made by each department according to its own needs, either to allocate funds to its own research units, or to use contracts or grants to universities or enterprises to fund research. Practical research generally adopts the contract system, while basic research generally adopts the grant system, especially through NSF and the National Institutes of Health (National Institutes of Health, or NIH) under the Ministry of Health Education and Welfare, both of which have developed a good peer review system .
picture
The Evolution of the U.S. Tech System
This four-horse system of presidential science and technology policy was severely tested in the late 1960s and early 1970s, mainly because university faculty and students, including most scientists at PSAC, opposed the Vietnam War and defense policies of Presidents Johnson and Nixon, which led to the administration The rift with the scientific and intellectual circles is getting deeper and deeper. In addition, during this period, federal science and technology funding also began to decline, which further exacerbated the conflict between the two parties.
In 1972-1973, when Nixon successfully ran for re-election, he and his staff decided to stop the position of scientific advisors in the name of reducing the agency, disband PSAC, revoke OST, and put the scientific advisory system carefully established by Eisenhower and Kennedy in one fell swoop. Almost completely destroyed, driving dissident scientists out of the White House. Only FCST barely survived. After the plan was basically finalized, it was realized that a White House official was still needed to meet the needs of international scientific and technological exchanges, so the director of NSF was invited to serve as the president's scientific advisor. But that position no longer exists in name only—the science adviser no longer reports to the president, but to the president's assistant for the interior.
It was at this time that some scientists began to feel a little regretful. If they had taken advantage of the satellite storm to promote the establishment of the Ministry of Science and Technology, it would not have been so easy for Nixon to disband it. But most scientists still don't see the Science Department as the answer, instead working to rebuild the White House's tech advisory and policy system. The National Academy of Sciences set up a special committee headed by Killian to investigate the matter. The committee concluded that in this age of technology, the nation cannot do without a strong system of science and technology advisors and policy. In view of the politicization of PSAC in the later period, the Killian Committee did not propose to restructure PSAC, but suggested the establishment of a scientific advisory committee like the Council of Economic Advisors (Council of Economic Advisors, or CEA), with several scientists serving full-time on the committee Commissioner to coordinate federal science and technology policy.
After Nixon stepped down in 1974 due to the Watergate incident, the proposal to restore the science and technology advisory system received the attention of President Ford. However, Ford was not willing to set up a scientific advisory committee like the CEA, nor did he want to completely rebuild the PSAC system. A committee of independent scientists is not easy to control. He would like to restore the OST and the president's scientific adviser, but in view of the lessons learned from Nixon's dissolution of OST-PSAC, he advocated that Congress pass a bill to establish a new OST, so that its status will be more stable. During this period, some people brought up the Ministry of Science and Technology again, but there were not many supporters. Finally, in 1976, Congress passed the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization and Focus Act, rebuilt OST in the Executive Office of the President, but changed its name to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and FCST to Federal Science , Engineering and Technology Coordination Committee (Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, or FCCSET). In this way, three of the four carriages have basically been resurrected, only PSAC has not been rebuilt.
By the 1980s, calls to rebuild the PSAC
Voices are running high among university scientists hoping it will curb a new arms race like Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program, but industry scientists are more inclined to create a science and technology department to boost America's international technological competition ability. Neither was successful. During the Reagan administration, a White House Science Council was indeed established, but its level was lower than that of the original PSAC. It was not responsible to the president, but reported to the scientific advisor. It was only during Bush Sr.’s tenure that a President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (or PCAST) was established, at least in form, returning to the original quartet format. In the 1990s, during the Clinton years, the system was tweaked a bit more:
FCCSET was upgraded to the National Science and Technology Council (National Science and Technology Council), with ministers as members and the president himself as the director, to show the government's emphasis on science and technology. Although there were conflicts between scientists and the government during the Bush and Clinton years, the relationship between scientists and the government was generally good.
But in the 2000s, during the Bush administration, the relationship between scientists and the government fell to the lowest point since Nixon and Reagan. For example, liberal scientists led by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) criticized the Bush administration for implementing conservative social policies internally, pursuing unilateralism externally, refusing to take measures to curb global warming, and withdrawing Kyoto Treaty, suppressing dissenting opinions of environmental scientists in the government: Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001, relying on insufficient evidence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction to launch the Iraq War; in appointing other members of the Federal Science and Technology Advisory Committee At that time, it was required to guarantee political support for Bush in order to pass the test. He did not appoint his own scientific adviser until after 9/11, and downgraded his position. He was not directly responsible to the president, but reported to the White House chief of staff; Bush Jr. I claim that American schools should teach both evolution and "intelligent design," which is essentially creationism under the guise of science. No wonder that in the 2004 presidential election, 48 Nobel Prize winners and several surviving former PSAC members signed against Bush Jr. for re-election. It is worth noting that in all these debates about government science and technology advisers and policy, almost no one has proposed the creation of science and technology ministries as a solution to various problems.
Just as the US science and technology policy during the Cold War centered on the arms race, after 9/11 it has gradually shifted to focus on anti-terrorism. Under such circumstances, many scientists criticized the Bush administration for only emphasizing applied technology and ignoring basic research. In addition, after the South Coast of the United States was hit by Hurricane Catalina in the summer of 2005 and suffered heavy losses, the federal disaster relief work was slow, which attracted a lot of condemnation. Preliminary investigations show that one of the main reasons for the slow disaster relief is that after 9/11, the federal disaster relief work and funds were mainly used on counter-terrorism, while the prevention and treatment of natural disasters were ignored. Another reason is that the formerly independent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which was in charge of disaster relief, was merged into the new Department of Homeland Security after 9/11. Its status, Funding and management systems have been changed to the extent that it affects its ability to respond to disasters. This incident may also serve as a warning to any new ministries, including science and technology ministries, to be established in the future.
picture
epilogue
The history of the controversy over the Ministry of Science and Technology in the United States can also be said to be the history of the development of American science and technology, the history of the evolution of the American government system, and the history of the gradual close relationship between modern American science and technology and social politics. In the 100 years from the constitutional convention's rejection of the National University in 1787 to the Allison Committee's rejection of the Ministry of Science and Technology in 1886, not only did the practical technology and industry in the United States develop tremendously, but the scientific research capabilities of the federal government were also greatly strengthened. This shows that the absence of the Ministry of Science and Technology does not mean that the US government at that time did not pay attention to science, but more reflects the restrictions on the central government in the historical and political traditions of the United States, and the fact that government science should closely serve the various practical functions of the government. Require.
In the more than 200 years of American history, most of the major government reforms in the United States were the result of crises, such as the Department of Energy established in 1977 in response to the energy crisis and the Department of Homeland Security established in 2002 because of 9/11.
From this point of view, the best opportunity for the establishment of the Ministry of Science and Technology can be said to be when the Soviet satellite launched into the sky in 1957, which shocked the whole country.
It failed again for reasons other than the Ellison Commission's point that science best serves the government and the public when it permeates all federal departments: Republican President Eisenhower was reluctant to expand the federal government; Thinks he can build a smaller but more flexible and independent science and technology policy and technology evaluation system through his science advisors and science advisory board; scientists still have lingering fears after McCarthyism, thinking that the Ministry of science and technology will bring unnecessary unnecessary burden to science Politicization and centralization, but more inclined to a pluralistic federal science and technology funding system and the way of communication with the government represented by PSAC. In addition to the traditional multi-government structure in the United States, the reason why the pluralistic funding system can be realized is the huge federal investment in science and technology brought about by the Cold War, especially the large amount of science and technology funding used by the military in universities. The success of PSAC is inseparable from President Eisenhower's need to work hard to contain the nuclear arms race. So throughout the Cold War, the interdependent and distanced relationship between scientists and the federal government was also reflected in their negative attitude toward the Ministry of Science and Technology, which in turn influenced the debate about the Ministry of Science and Technology, becoming several A major factor that has hindered its establishment for a decade.
So, the fact that the United States has never established a Ministry of Science and Technology has more advantages than disadvantages for its technological development, or does the disadvantages outweigh the advantages?
It is difficult to give a clear answer to this question, because history cannot repeat itself like a scientific experiment. But what is certain is that many American scientists believe that its diversified scientific and technological funding system is an important reason why American science has risen in the past century, especially leading the world after World War II. Although there were various contradictions between science and the government during this period, and even the fierce conflicts during the Vietnam War and Bush Jr., the diversified market economy and political system of the United States alleviated these contradictions to a certain extent. In the case of the Ministry of Science and Technology, the continuity of science and technology policy and the stable development of science and technology are guaranteed. If there is no new crisis like the Soviet satellite, it is estimated that the possibility of the United States setting up a science and technology department in the foreseeable future is not very high.
