12 



The formal limits of the scientific method are that it can describe 

 relationships and outcomes of given conditions, but cannot make value 

 judgments about these relationships and outcomes. The trained 

 scientist can collect and examine the scientific data in his field, and 

 can draw conclusions as to their vaHdity and meaning. In basic 

 research, he can conclude that further research in some particular 

 area has some degree of probabihty of disclosing information of 

 significance relative to many elements of nature — contributing new 

 knowledge to fiU many gaps or open up many new possibihties of 

 understanding. In applied research, he can identify possible scientific 

 solutions affording alternative means of achieving some social goal; he 

 can estimate what order of magnitude of effort would be required by 

 each alternative and what probability each has of succeeding. The 

 trained technologist can calculate the relative cost/effectiveness of 

 carrying out alternative engineering approaches to the achievement of 

 social goals (or of not doing so). But the scientist or technologist 

 transcends his disciphne when he advises on whether society should 

 exploit some technical opportunity, should embark upon some apphed 

 project, or should apply some particular set of performance criteria. 



Fidl compliance with this disciplinary constramt on science advice 

 is rarely observed. In the purest philosophic sense, even the invariable 

 appeal of the scientist that more money be invested in research in his 

 area of interest is a technical violation. Evidently there is a quandary, 

 here. Basic research, applied research, and technological engineering 

 are peopled by motivated specialists with personal hopes and profes- 

 sional ambitions. For them to live within the philosophic constraint of 

 nonadvocacy is to deny themselves the opportunity to mcrease the 

 probability of achieving their ambitions. For them not to practice this 

 self-denial is to contravene their own discipline. 



The opportunities in all three areas of technical endeavor are limit- 

 less, while the avaUabUity of supporting resoiuces is not. Since society 

 cannot support all worthy projects, on what basis can it choose, other 

 than by consultation with those who seek to carry out the endeavors, 

 who are the most knowledgeable about the possible rewards of doing 

 so? 



On the other hand, several pitfaUs he in the way of communication 

 from the scientist to the politician relative to pubhc issues with a 

 scientific content. Some of these have already been enumerated in 

 Chapter One, such as differences in vocabulary, rules of validation, 

 quantification, subject-matter, et cetera. However, a general charac- 

 terization of these pitfalls is illustrated by a social phenomenon 

 classically known as the "Egyptian priesthood." Under the Pharaohs, 

 the Egyptian priests had special knowledge of geometry, which 

 enabled them to control the distribution of lands. They had special 

 knowledge of the mysteries of nature, and special vocabularies in 

 which to express their findings. By this exclusive knowledge they 

 were able to control and influence the administration of the govern- 

 ment. Their judgments were unchallenged because only their asso- 

 ciates in the temples knew the language; the loyalty of the cult pre- 

 served their sohd front. In a sense, the Pharaohs had the same problem 

 as the Congress of today ; how to achieve credible communication with 

 a knowledgeable cult of specialists whose social contribution was 

 undeniable, but whose ways were obscure and whose findings were 

 not subject to proof test outside of the priestly cartel. 



