178 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1955 



of good intention and bad implementation. A desirable agency is 

 established and is then deprived of funds. Laws enunciating high- 

 sounding ideals are passed, and then the men who are appointed to 

 implement them are denied secretarial help and travel funds. Scien- 

 tists are saluted as being essential to the Nation's progress, and are 

 then drafted as privates in the army, or employed by the Govern- 

 ment under policies set up for postal clerks. 



I am told that men who have been in politics for many years do not 

 expect political institutions in a democracy to be either reasonable or 

 consistent on any policy matter. The implementation of policy, they 

 say, will always be in the hands of many people who have differing 

 views on various aspects of the policy, and these people will change 

 with time ; hence there is bound to be confusion. Those of us who are 

 less experienced, however, still think of "the Government" as an entity 

 with a mind and a purpose. And we shall never get over the shock of 

 seeing the Government do one thing with one hand and a wholly 

 contradictory thing with the other. Some people react to this paradox 

 by turning their backs on government entirely, refusing to have any- 

 thing whatsoever to do with it — except when forced to serve in the 

 army or to pay an income tax. Such people often come to despise the 

 Government to such an extent that they castigate anyone having 

 anything to do with it. 



Most reasonable people, however, though they sigh sadly at the 

 vagaries of a democratic government, still realize that it is the only 

 government we have and that we should try to put up with it, to help 

 it and to try to make it better and more consistent. In time of war we 

 all do this. In time of peace it is more difficult to do, but — on a smaller 

 scale — no less necessary. 



If this be our desire then it is certainly necessary to be very frank 

 and very objective. We must ask penetrating questions about what is 

 wrong — and what is right. We must be very free to discuss these 

 matters with others in a spirit of good will — never throwing doubt on 

 another's ideas or suggestions by questioning his patriotism or in- 

 tegrity. We must be willing to speak frankly and to listen to frank 

 talk. 



For purposes of simplicity it will be necessary for me to ignore 

 now a large portion of the areas of government where problems relat- 

 ing to science may lie. I shall not speak at all of the many civilian 

 agencies of our Government which may deal with science — the 

 Bureau of Standards, the Public Health Service, the Smithsonian 

 Institution, the Departments of Agriculture and of the Interior, and 

 all the rest. I shall confine myself to one question: Wliat are the 

 problems relating to improving the ways by which science and tech- 

 nology can contribute to making the Nation so strong that it 



