Gerard • The Role of Pure Science 



293 



applied technology, which most as- 

 suredly does us knowledge for weal or 

 woe? Let me answer in reverse se- 

 quence. 



Pure science is not distinguished 

 from applied by method, which is iden- 

 tical for both; often not by content, 

 which may overlap in each; but by in- 

 tent alone. The technologist endeavors 

 to sohe a problem with a view to im- 

 mediate utilization — whether for indi- 

 vidual or general ends; the scientist, 

 only to know the solution. His imme- 

 diate gain is the selfish satisfaction of 

 the climber struggling to the summit, 

 of the poet rounding his rhyme or, if 

 you will, of the successful cross-word 

 puzzler. 



Or, again, there is the story of the 

 three hod carriers. On being asked, 

 "What are you doing?" the first re- 

 plied, "carr^ang bricks"; the second, 

 "earning a dollar an hour"; the third, 

 "building a cathedral." The last repre- 

 sents pure science. 



True, few scientists would justify 

 their labors on such a basis, even to 

 themselves, let alone to society. That 

 may be the reason they wish to do re- 

 search, not the one that makes them 

 think they should do it, and be aided 

 in the doing. There is, besides, the 

 conviction that the fruits of discovery 

 will benefit all mankind— not at once 

 but soon or late, and riper and more 

 luscious for the waiting. They point 

 out to themselves and the world, cor- 

 rectly, case upon case of the "purest" 

 scientific advances that have risen 

 rocket-like into the intellectual sky 

 only to burst and scatter mankind with 

 riches; induced electricity and the mo- 

 tor, electrons and radio or what you 

 will, hormones and the relief of dis- 

 ease, structural formulae and modern 

 creative chemistr\'. But, then, pure 

 science is simply long range applica- 

 tion; and motors and radios do make 

 noise, and chemistr}' creates explosives 

 and tough steel from which to shoot 



them, and science is daubed with the 

 same paint as technology. 



From my viewpoint, science has 

 another far more valuable contribution 

 to make to mankind than that of up- 

 holstering his physical comfort; a vital 

 contribution to his mental climate. 

 And this is at least tacitly recognized 

 by modern educators who include ever 

 more scientific subjects in the cur- 

 ricula. Surelv none is so fatuous as to 

 believe that a few semesters of dab- 

 bling in physics, chemistry and biology 

 at the high school or college level will 

 prepare the students to build or even 

 repair their autos and radios, let alone 

 to improve upon them. It takes no 

 great erudition to be a handy man 

 about the house, and radio repair men 

 do quite well without having heard of 

 the Schott effect or the uncertainty 

 principle. In biology, where the gulf 

 between common experience and the 

 more esoteric expert knowledge has 

 not yet opened so widely, some prac- 

 tical returns may result from even a 

 casual acquaintance with the latter. 

 It may be useful to know, for example, 

 that spinach is not especiallv rich in 

 iron, that cathartics do more harm than 

 good, that yeast has no magic dietary 

 virtues, and that patent medicines are, 

 almost without exception, expensive 

 packages of common chemicals and 

 more often harmful than efficacious. 



Education has two major aspects: 

 utilitarian, vocational training to en- 

 able one to live effectively in society, 

 to do; and aesthetic, avocational train- 

 ing to enable one to live with himself, 

 to be. The former includes the pre- 

 school shaping into the major molds 

 of civilized behavior, with the aid of 

 the few "do's" and the many "don'ts"; 

 the use of language and number taught 

 in elementarv school; and such techni- 

 cal information and skill as are acquired 

 in appropriate trade or professional 

 schools. It is reasonably tangible and 

 on the whole this education achieves 



