Basic science is insulated from personal desires, expectations, 

 or motivations as to what is discovered; applied science is con- 

 cerned with meeting a social goal, but the scientific tests of 

 effectiveness of any particular project of applied science are 

 objective rather than subjective. Conversely, the thrust of 

 politics focuses on human desires, expectations, and motivations; 

 the political test of effectiveness is mainly whether or not the 

 social response to a project is (or is likely to be) favorable. 

 Given these two differing groups, with differing habits of thought, 

 sets of values, and rules of evidence, how does communication flow 

 from the scientific world to the political world? How are "spokesmen 

 for science" selected to give evidence on scientific aspects of pending 

 legislation? Is it important that they be regarded by political leader- 

 ship as "eminent scientists" or that they are accepted by the scien- 

 tific community as its authentic spokesmen and interpreters? How 

 is scientific information converted from data into evidence useful to 

 political decisionmakers? To what extent is there a tendency for 

 scientific witnesses to volunteer information or respond to questions 

 beyond the limits of their competence? To what extent do political 

 decisionmakers accept the unquestioned eminence of chosen scien- 

 tists in particular disciplines as a general certification of their wisdom 

 respecting matters external to their discipline? Do the personal biases 

 and motivations of scientists impair the objectivity of their testi- 

 mony or render it suspect to the political decisionmaker? 



In a broader sense, how do political decisionmakers weigh the rela- 

 tive merits of scientific and social values? Do scientists have a legiti- 

 mate role in assessing the relative importance or merit that society 

 should attach to scientific truth and political value? Are normative 

 judgments outside the scope of competence of the scientist? How far 

 should a scientist go in interpreting his data in support of an issue 

 in which both scientific and political factors are involved? These 

 questions underlie the quandary of the pohtical leaders of society in 

 attempting to harness science to the achievement of social goals. 



A practical illustration of the interaction between science and 

 politics, and between the scientific goal of achieving the best combina- 

 tion of measurable quantities, and the political goal of expanding 

 human freedom, can be drawm from the system of personal transi)or- 

 tation by automobile. In this case, human freedom is defined as the 

 absence of regulation of the behavior of the individual. Extreme 

 assertion of individual freedom in the use of this means of transpor- 

 tation, experience suggests, would take such forms as competitive 

 behavior, discourtesy, flouting of commonsense precautions, the right 

 to drive unsafe vehicles, etc. Untrammeled freedom on the highway 

 would almost certainly have intolerably dangerous consequences: 

 Practically speaking, motorists would be denied freedom to drive in 

 reasonable safety. Even with present highway regulations and enforce- 

 ment levels, some 50,000 persons are killed and millions are injured 

 annually in the operation of the system. With less control, these 

 numbers could be expected to be higher. On the other hand, it would 

 be technically feasible to reduce tliis carnage virtually to zero by the 

 development of a comprehensive and disciplined system of highway 

 transportation designed to do the best possible job of moving people 

 about as they wish, but giving an absolute, overriding priority to the 

 total elimination of all causes of unsafety. It is possible to do this. 



