106 



titioners might acquire jiolitical power by the manipulation and 

 control of the public? 



II. Could the same scientific leaders coordinate and manage a 

 program of social science research and physical-biological- 

 medical research? 



III. Lessons of the Senate Hearings on NSF Bills 



The decision to allow the social sciences a gradual admission to the 

 NSF appears to have been taken on tlie floor of the Senate. The 

 sustained interest of the Senate Subcommittee on War Mobilization 

 in scientific and technological matters made it the logical place for the 

 testing of NSF legislation. The hearings held in this forum, accord- 

 ingly, provided most of the evidence relevant to the Senate's decision. 

 The content, direction, and implications of this evidence seem to 

 support several conclusions: 



That the social sciences were not accepted to ecpial partnership 

 or status by scientists in the "natural science" disciplines; 



That there was general agreement that the social sciences 

 lagged, needed support, and must ultimately play a commanding 

 role in the adjustment of society to technological advances; 



That the social sciences had already made important contribu- 

 tions to military potency and peacetime development, although 

 these were neither well recognized nor commonly regarded as 

 "scientific" inventions; 



That tlie mechanisms by which new basic scientific discoveries 

 move forward to exploitation were not ^ndely understood, and 

 least of all in the social sciences; 



That the very relevance of the social sciences for major social 

 problems intensified resistance to their development. 



Testimony of the physical scientists 



For the most part, the physical scientists who provided the bulk 

 of the testimony were less hostile than skeptical. Isaiah Bowman, him- 

 self a geographer and earlier a member of the Social Science Research 

 Council, recognized the obstacles: 



It is well-known that so much of human i^rejudice and tendency and social 

 philosophy enter into the study of social phenomena, that there is the widest 

 difference of opinion as to what constitutes research in many instances in the 

 social sciences. 



His view was that the proposed NSF should at first content itself with 

 provision for the study of the social impacts of scientific discovery, and 

 for the development of social statistics. ^"^ 



Probabl}' the bulk of the scientific witnesses would have agreed with 

 Dr. Bush; although he recognized that "our strength is also dependent 

 upon the extent of our knowledge of social phenomena and our ability 

 to bring such understanding to bear wisely on the urgent problems 

 confronting us," this resource should be approached with caution: 



I am not a social scientist and cannot presume to speak for the disciplines 

 embraced by the field of the social sciences. ^len who can speak for them will 

 appear before you. The proposed foundation should allow an opportunity for 

 effective integration and partnership between the natiu-al and social sciences, and 

 I believe that this pattern should be the result of careful study by the fovmdation 

 after its establishment.-' 



2" Ilearinss on science legislation (S. 1297 and related bills), p. 23, op. cit. 

 ■•'Ibid., p. 200. 



