Ill 



The suciologictil discipline was rei)resented by Dr. William F. 

 Ogburn of the University of Chicago. In his prepared statement he 

 identified tliree ways in \\hich the social sciences made significant 

 public contributions. The first, and most generally recognized, was in 

 discovering "reliable and trustworthy knowledge" about such phe- 

 nomena as "social, economic, and political organizations of all kinds 

 such as government, industry, transportation, agriculture, the press, 

 church, famil}^, rural communities, cities, nations, and international 

 bodies." Secondly, "for every important mechanical invention that 

 physical scientists make there is created a new social problem on \\'hich 

 social scientists should work." Thirdly was the fact that social sciences 

 were of increasing importance to national defense because "every war 

 now is a total war and must be fought not only with munitions but 

 also with institutions." 



For examples of the social impact of inventions, he noted that the 

 steam engine had resulted in an increase in divorce, the automobile 

 an increase in crime, and the atomic b(uiib a threat to cities. "Hence, 

 social scientists (as a consequence of these inventions) must do 

 research on divorce, on crime, and on the protection of our cities." 



The "industrial revolution," caused by steam, creat(>d cities, changed agri- 

 culture from subsistence to commercial farming, built a new economic system 

 with many new economic organizations, destroyed social classes and created new 

 ones, redistributed wealth, revolutionized warfare, realigned the great powers, 

 abolished the household economy, and reduced greatly the social functions of the 

 family. The "scientific revolution" following nuclear fission of the atom may 

 change our society and its institutions even more. 



It would be as foolish, he said, to ask the physicist to forecast the 

 social consequences of invention as for the social scientist to outline 

 the next procedure in nuclear fission. It would be foolish, also, to 

 expect "off the cuff" answers from the social scientists to ciuestions 

 warranting extensive study and research. "If Government sponsors 

 research in natural science, it ought also to support the study of the 

 social changes and social problems which the natural science researches 

 create." 



He admitted that research in the social sciences was "a more 

 recent development than research in the natural sciences" and that 

 it was more difficult "because of the larger number of variables than 

 are found in problems of the physical sciences." 



The field of anthropology was represented by Msgr. John AI. Cooper, 

 professor of anthropology, Catholic Uni^'ersity. His subject dealt with 

 comparative human cultures, and could contribute to the purposes 

 of the proposed legislation by helping to "bridge the gap between the 

 findings of the natural sciences and our living habits," and by "helping 

 to bring about and to maintain harmonious relationships between 

 larger national, ethnic, and other groups of human beings." As 

 examples of the first, he cited analysis of the factors in U.S. culture 

 that led to acceptance or rejection of sound dietary practices, hj'giene, 

 and medicine. As an example of the second, he suggested that mis- 

 understandings and conflicts grew out of the ignorance of the "subtle 

 but powerful forces that underlie the working of other social systems 

 than our own, of basic philosophies, attitudes, incentives, motives, 

 loyalties, prejudices, and dislikes." ^^ 



»« Ibid., p. 778. 



