L. C. DUNN 



standing is one of the "rights" to which all citizens should have equal 

 access. Its support, like that of education generally, is thus to be 

 shared, as most essential activities are in our society, by the State and 

 by "public spirit" as it acts through foundations, private citizens, 

 and industry. At the material level, science in the modern world 

 has become a public necessity without which technical advances and 

 social developments determined by them cannot occur in an orderly 

 way. It has become so "affected with the public interest" that its 

 support must be a matter of public concern. The scientist has thus 

 become in some sense and in spite of himself a public servant. 



The many scientists serving their country during the war as 

 scientists are less likely now than formerly to forget their public func- 

 tion; but in the past a failure to recognize this led scientists as a class 

 to have too little confidence in seeking support for scientific work. 

 They were not sure that science was worthy of public support, because 

 oftentimes science was not what the world needed, but only what they 

 enjoyed doing. They did not generally think about a public policy 

 for science because they were not clear about the public function of 

 science. Can we really expect (they would say) the public to support 

 this kind of work? Or as a small boy said to a scientist after a visit 

 to his research laboratory, "Uncle, do they really pay you for doing 

 this?" 



When questions about the organization and support of science 

 were raised, however, other reasons were generally given for either 

 opposing the formulation of policy or avoiding the question altogether. 

 These reasons took different forms, but in general had their roots in 

 our tradition of individualism. Since scientists have usually been 

 strong individualists, the traditional public objections to schemes for 

 the support and direction of science have been strengthened and ra- 

 tionalized by the scientists themselves. They said: "Organization 

 kills initiative," "Planning interferes with free enterprise," or "Con- 

 tinuously assured support removes the need for periodic justification 

 of each research on its own merits." "Support implies direction, 

 and he who pays the fiddler will call the tune; and only scientists 

 can know what tunes can or should be played." 



These are valid and weighty objections and they must be 

 squarely met by any general proposal for the maintenance or direction 

 of science. It is nevertheless true that these are not the primary or 



476 



