24 



concerns interlock with the economic interests of the business com- 

 munity generally. The increasing use of technology to support Govern- 

 ment programs has brought many agencies into direct working con- 

 tact with the complex private networks of technologists. 



Since military programs absorb the bulk of governmental invest- 

 ment in technology, the organizational consequences are profound; 

 they include: 

 — The evolution of a "military-industrial complex*' with specialized 



capabilities and needs ; 

 — The development of "systems techniques'' to make possible the 

 design and construction of advanced military weaponry of great 

 cost, complexity, and sophistication ; 

 — The evolution of numerous "think tanks'' using mathematical and 

 other analytical techniques to forecast requirements, develop 

 weapons concepts, examine alternative solutions to problems, and 

 evaluate progress. 

 The technologists also have their more formal point of contact with 

 the Government through the offices of the National Academy of En- 

 gineering, which shares with the Academy of Sciences the facilities 

 and resources of the National Research Council. 



4,. Policy Formulation in Science and Technology 



A study of "American science policy" by Wallace S. Say re, some 



years ago, concluded that it was fragmented and unsystematic and 



perhaps necessarily so. He wrote : 



Unity and comprehensiveness are * * * not likely to be the hallmarks of 

 American science policy. Talk of a single, comprehensive "American science 

 policy" has an essentially fictitious quality. There will be many science policies, 

 rather than a master science policy. Diversity, inconsistency, compromise, experi- 

 mentation, pulling and hauling, competition, and continuous revision in science 

 policies are more predictable continuing characteristics than their antonyms. 

 This has been the history of American science policies and this describes their 

 present state of affairs as deplorable. But to live with diversity and accommoda- 

 tions of policy, and yet to be impatient of them, may be the process by which a 

 democratic society achieves progress in science as well as in other fields. In any 

 event, the future seems to offer American scientists more dilemmas than un- 

 equivocal answers in science policy. 31 



More recently, a study by the Organisation for Economic Co- 

 operation and Development, in its "Reviews of National Science 

 Policy" series, concluded similarly, although its view of science in- 

 corporated both research and development. Said the OECD report: 



The vast research and development enterprise, as it exists today [in the United 

 States], does not, therefore spring from a deliberate, coordinated endeavor to 

 make the most of the country's potential resources, but rather from scattered 

 initiatives, taken in haste to meet an emergency and prolonged by limited pro- 

 grammes. In many instances, the mobilisation of men and institutions and the 

 establishment of the necessary framework of political structures, have been 

 improvised ad hoc, as and when the needs dictated by the international situation 

 have been recognised. The goal of the United States, asserted since the Second 

 World War, has now become the maintenance and strengthening of its political, 

 economic, scientific and technical leadership. * * * 



n Wallace 8. Bayre. "Scientists and American Science Policy." ( Reprinted from Science. 

 Vol. 133, Nil 3456, March 24, 1961, pp. 859 864.) /" Bernard Barber and Walter Hlrscb; 

 eds. The Sociology of Science. (New York. The Free Press of Qlencoe, 1002), p. 602. How- 

 ever, by Title I, "National Science. Engineering, and Technological Policy and Priorities", 

 of P.L. 94 2S2. approved May 11. 1!>7»>. the Congress undertook to reverse the position 

 taken by Sayre toward a "master" science policy. 



