even clergymen, in an enormous loss of 

 public confidence. And, we must recognize, 

 it is in part a reaction to unfulfilled 

 "promises"— of all sciences, but perhaps 

 especially of the social sciences. 



McGrath further suggests that scientists 

 themselves are to blame for much of this 

 problem, in that the very operation of the 

 research-support and research-publication 

 enterprises has to some degree encouraged 

 scientists to promise benefits that they could 

 not realistically expect to deliver. A scientist is 

 almost forced to make such claims if he is to get 

 research support or even get recognition for his 

 results. But beyond this there seems to be a kind 

 of naivete among many scientists that leads 

 them to believe that their science really can 

 solve any problem, given enough time, money, 

 and effort. He then adds: 



At the same time, while there is a reaction to 

 "promises nor fulfilled," there is also a reaction to 

 the "threat" of actual accomplishment of some 

 seemingly implied aims. Most notable, in this 

 regard, is the strong negative reaction to use of 

 behavior modification and related techniques 

 ("mind control" and "brainwashing"). In my view, 

 the reactions are far in excess of legitimate 

 concerns. In any case, we are losing confidence 

 both for results we have not and cannot deliver, 

 and for results we seemingly can (and might) 

 "deliver." 



McGrath's discussion brings out the way in 

 which he felt diminished public confidence has 

 led to detrimental government actions such as 

 the pressure for applied research, and 

 overregulation. He also recommended some 

 possible solutions: For one thing, we can and 

 should train our scientists better with regard to 

 both the logical and ethical limitations of their 

 disciplines. Beyond that, he could only propose 

 "better public education about sciences" — that 

 is, better public relations. But one important 

 part of that might be the development of good 

 high school, junior college, and introductory- 

 level college courses in the sciences. 



A similar description of the social origins of 



78 CONFIDENCE IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



this problem came from Dexter P. Cooper, Jr., 

 Vice President of Bell & Howell: 



Atomic fission brought science from the obscuri- 

 ty of the university laboratory into the forefront of 

 American consciousness. With this sudden fame 

 came the feeling that given enough support, 

 technology could conquer all of mankind's 

 problems. The opinions of scientists were widely 

 sought and highly regarded. The period from 

 nineteen-fifty to the mid-sixties saw industry 

 erecting opulent research centers while govern- 

 ment funding for basic research seemed an 

 endless cornucopia. The information explosion 

 in scientific journals is dramatic evidence of the 

 impetus that science received in this period. 



During the sixties there came an increasing 

 awareness that science not only was failing to 

 solve many of our problems but that the in- 

 discriminate use of technology was contributing 

 to them. The rise of environmentalism has been 

 accompanied by doubts as to the value of science 

 in our society. More and more there was 

 expressed the desire to return to a simpler 

 unpolluted life. The recession of the seventies has 

 added economic pressures to the social malaise 

 and one nowhearsdemandsfordrastic reduction 

 of government support for research. It may not be 

 too extreme to say that in three decades the 

 scientist has gone from the role of hero to villain 

 in our society. 



Thus Cooper contrasts the present with the 

 past, and suggests that the change in public 

 attitude leads to demands for a reduction in 

 government support for research. 



Robert G. Sachs, Director of Argonne Na- 

 tional Laboratory (an FFRDC), placed dimin- 

 ished confidence in science and technology 

 within the context of a broader change in public 

 attitude: 



All of us are aware of an unfortunate erosion of 

 the intellectual climate in this country, and the 

 attitude toward basic research is just one aspect 

 of this. It seems to me that the next few years will 

 be a critical time to try to restore a climate in 

 which a rational and scientific approach to 

 problems again becomes a way of life. 



In some cases, the public's diminished con- 



