120 



light on so intricate and professional a problem.* * * I suggest that 

 a better way * * * is through reports." However, he found it "almost 

 shocking" that the social sciences were not to be admitted to full 

 partnership in the institution of which he disapproved).^^ 



Probably the most comprehensive and systematic analysis of the 

 issue of social science and the NSF was that of George A. Lundberg, 

 of the department of sociology of the University of Washington. 

 From an analysis of the testimony in the 1945 KUgore subcommittee 

 hearings and the 1946 debate on the floor of the Senate, he concluded 

 that the decision to exclude the social sciences from the NSF was not 

 based on "considered hostility or opposition;" it was, he said: 



* * * Simply as a reflection of the common feeling that the social and the 

 physical sciences have nothing in common and that at best the social sciences 

 are a propagandist, reformist, evangelical sort of cult.*^ 



Lundberg identified as the "principal misapprehensions regarding 

 the nature of social science, as revealed in the Senate hearings," the 

 following: (1) Social science cannot be unbiased; (2) the social sciences 

 are "applied," not "pure" or "basic"; (3) social science research should 

 be controlled by a separate foundation; (4) education rather than 

 research is needed in the social sciences; (5) the atomic bomb should 

 frighten people into effective social organization.^^ He concluded that 

 the hearings actually provided a useful rough measure of the present 

 status of the social sciences as seen by the witnesses. These views 

 were significant because "they are sincerely held by people of promi- 

 nence and influence in science, education, and public affairs." He 

 summarized them as follows: 



1. Man and his behavior are not a part of nature that can be studied as basic, 

 "pure," natural science; the social sciences are inherently "applied" and concerned 

 with ameMorative and exploitive techniques in the service of whatever tribal lore 

 happens to be current. Social science, therefore, is a nondescript category consisting 

 mainly of reformist and propagandist ideologies and isms. 



2. The methods of tlie social sciences are so widely at variance with those of 

 other sciences as to make it inadvisable to attempt to administer research in the 

 social sciences under the same organization — 



(a) For fear of discrediting the other sciences ; and 



(b) Because people qualified to direct research in the other sciences would 

 not be able to judge what constitutes vahd or desirable social research. 



(3) Social research is especially in danger of falling a victim to pressure groups 

 or of being corrupted by the Government itself. And finally: 



(4) There is always in the background of the testimony reviewed, the tradi- 

 tional view that, after all, we know the solution of social problems through the 

 historic pronouncements of seers and sages, past and contemporary, and all that is 

 needed is more education to diffuse this lore and arouse moral fervor in its behalf. i* 



Lundberg strongly intimated that the social scientists themselves 

 bore a share of the responsibility for the disadvantaged status of 

 their disciplines. To secure equality (and to justify equaUty) with the 

 physical sciences they should "subject themselves to standards of the 

 kind recognized by other scientists and by the public." They should 

 distinguish between the true social scientist and "that vast array of 

 camp foHowers, reformers, propagandists, and social workers, which 

 today dominate even most of the professional organizations of social 

 scientists." The social scientists (and indeed scientists generally) 



w Alfred E. Cohn. "Federal Legislation in Support of Sciences." Speech before American Association 

 for tlie Advancement of Science and Pi Gamma 5lu. Symposium on science legislation and problems ot 

 Federal aid. Dec. 28, 1946. (Reproduced in Political Science Quarterly. (Vol. 62, June 1947), pp. 235, 239). 



95 George A. Lundberg. "The Senate Ponders Social Science." The Scientific Monthly (May 1947), p. 399. 



«9 Ibid., pp. 40(M07. 



'0 Ibid., p. 409. 



