population at large, in many of their elected 

 representatives, in many federal and state 

 bureaucrats (even in the National Science 

 Foundation), and, alas, in many university 

 administrators and students. What I call the 

 traditional view is as follows. A university is a 

 place where scholars congregate to pursue freely 

 the intellectual problems which interest them. In 

 return for this freedom the scholars pass on their 

 knowledge to, and stimulate the intellects of their 

 students. 



This view does not imply that professors will pay 

 no attention to the problems of the real world. 

 Some will not, but others will, because many of 

 the problems of the real world are great 

 challenges to the mind. History is replete with 

 examples, from Archimedes on, of people who 

 have made contributions to both the problems of 

 the real world and "ivory tower" problems. 

 History is also replete with examples of an "ivory 

 tower" idea becoming, for better or for worse (and 

 usually it is some of both) of immense concern to 

 mankind at some later time. 



Nor does this view imply that teaching will be 

 either highly specialized or sloppy or both. 

 Professors should pay for the freedom to think by 

 teaching well for both the specialist or the 

 generalist. 



Many of my colleagues and I feel that the people 

 named in my [first] paragraph have, each in their 

 own way, demanded that we explicitly 

 demonstrate in our work innovations, relevance, 

 concern for interdisciplinary matters and soon to 

 an extent that we have lost much of what is most 

 valuable in solving any problem — time to think. 



CAUSES OF 



DIMINISHED CONFIDENCE 



One of the broadest statements of the whole 

 subject of diminished confidence in science and 

 technology came from a social psychologist, 

 Joseph E. McGrath, who is Head of the Depart- 

 ment of Psychology at theUniversity of Illinois- 

 Urbana. His letter will be quoted at length. In it, 

 he emphasizes the ways in which he believes the 

 problem arose: 



It seems to me incontestable that, during the last 5 



to 10 years, there has been a marked erosion in 

 the attitudinal support of basic research- 

 especially research in social science— 

 throughout the nation. This erosion has been 

 reflected in congressional inquiry and comment; 

 in federal executive department modifications of 

 support for research activities; and in comment 

 and critique in the media and in various public 

 forums. Thus the problem has had political, 

 administrative and, above all, attitudinal impact. 



To illustrate this, he offers some instances in 

 which he believes members of Congress have 

 attacked specific research programs funded by 

 NSF, or have tried to hamper the peer review 

 process. Other examples he gives are the heavy 

 emphasis in recent years on "immediate" 

 solutions to "relevant" problems, the trend 

 toward massive efforts on single-focus 

 programs, and the increasingly complex and 

 bureaucratized procedures required in the 

 conduct of research with human subjects. He 

 goes on to say: 



At a somewhat broader level, I see all of these, and 

 other specific examples, as being manifestations 

 of a strong and growing anti-intellectualism, a 

 major component of which is an anti-science 

 attitude, with an especially strong anti-social- 

 sciences aspect. I see this as a broad public 

 reaction to a great many events of the past 10 

 years: 



a. reactions to the campus unrest in the late 

 60's and 70's; 



b. reactions by people both for and against 

 "affirmative action" efforts of universities on 

 behalf of women and minority group 

 members; 



c. reaction to the declining (if not collapsing) 

 job market for persons with college degrees 

 and post-graduate degrees; 



d. reactions to the really spectacular gains in 

 prestige (and somewhat in wealth) by the 

 academic community in general during the 

 1960's. It is also a part of a broader reaction 

 against "establishment" institutions— an 

 anti-elitist and anti-establishment force — in 

 which scientists share with politicians, 

 physicians, attorneys, corporation ex- 

 ecutives, labor leaders, bureaucrats, and 



CONFIDENCE IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 



77 



