In support of the campaign, when he was 

 Secretary of Commerce, Mr. Hoover had warn- 

 ed that over the years, "for all the support of 

 pure-science research we have depended upon 

 three sources — that the rest of the world would 

 bear this burden of fundamental discovery for 

 us, that universities would carry it as a by- 

 product of education, and that our men of great 

 benevolence would occasionally endow a 

 Smithsonian or a Carnegie Institution or a 

 Rockefeller Institute. Yet," he continued, "the 

 whole sum which we have available to support 

 pure-science research is less than $10 million a 

 year, with probably less than 4,000 men 

 engaged in it, most of them dividing their time 

 between it and teaching." 



To augment this support, which he claimed 

 was actually diminishing, Mr. Hoover called for 

 increased aid from government, from industry, 

 and from private philanthropy. Warning that 

 the Nation must have more basic research if it 

 "would march forward," he called for "more 

 liberal appropriations to our national bureaus 

 for pure-science research instead of the confine- 

 ment as today of these undertakings to applied- 

 science work." He welcomed "the opportunity to 

 again demonstrate in our Government, our 

 business, and our private citizens the recogni- 

 tion of a responsibility to our people and the 

 Nation greater than that involved in the 

 production of goods or in trading in the 

 market." 12 



THE GREAT DEPRESSION: 

 SEARCH FOR A NEW SYSTEM 



The campaign for a National Research En- 

 dowment, including appeals to the Nation's 

 large corporations, fell far short of what was 

 hoped for, and early in the Depression the fund- 

 raising effort was dropped. 



The Great Depression, with its disastrous 

 deflation and unemployment, put even more 



financial constraint upon pure science as 

 research budgets in all sectors were reduced. 

 There persisted among many leaders of the 

 Nation's science a fear that Federal subsidy of 

 basic research would subject researchers to 

 political restraints in the form of both dictated 

 goals and uncertain budgets. Now, with other 

 sources so badly pinched by hard times, Mr. 

 Hoover's suggestion that Federal support 

 should be enlarged was taken up once again. 



In 1933 and again in 1934 the Science 

 Advisory Board, which had been established by 

 executive order from the White House in a new 

 administration, submitted for the Nation's 

 consideration what it called its Recovery 

 Program of Science Progress. While aiming for 

 the most part at the twin ills of unemployed 

 scientists and unmet social problems, the 

 Board, headed by Karl T. Compton, president of 

 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

 called also for grants in aid of research in basic 

 sciences. "It should not be forgotten," warned 

 the Board, "that back of applied sciencemust be 

 continual progress in pure science. Consequent- 

 ly any well balanced program of research 

 should provide for continued productive activi- 

 ty in the fundamental sciences. It is suggested 

 therefore," the Board concluded, "that some 

 portion of the funds here discussed be made 

 available for such research, with particular 

 consideration of important programs already in 

 progress in institutions, which have had to be 

 dropped or curtailed in the present financial 

 emergency." 13 



At the same time, but in a separate context, 

 Compton echoed the misgivings of many 

 scientists: "I confess," he wrote, "to con- 

 siderable doubt as to the wisdom of advocating 

 federal support of scientific research ... If 

 government financial support should carry 

 with it government control of research 

 programs or research workers, or if it should 



'- Herbert Hoover, "The Nation and Science," Mechanical 

 Engineering, 49, No. 2 (1927), 137-138. 



" See Carroll W. Pursell. Jr., "The Anatomy of a Failure: The 

 Science Advisory Board, 1933-1935." Proceedings of the 

 American Philosophical Society. 109 (December, 1965). 342- 

 351. 



RESEARCH IN THE UNITED STATES 



