180 AISTNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1955 



2. Most American industries have increased their research expendi- 

 tures by an amount which, for the country as a whole, adds up to a very 

 large factor. Industries have increased the amount of basic research 

 in their own laboratories, and they have made substantial grants to 

 support basic research in universities. This is excellent and I hope 

 the latter practice especially will greatly increase. 



3. The Government itself, especially the military agencies and the 

 AEC, have put their own applied research programs on a long-term 

 stable basis and have made provision within the Government labora- 

 tories for such basic research as is appropriate and relevant in each 

 case. (I am not saying there is agreement on how much and what kind 

 of basic research is proper or relevant in each laboratory, but I do say 

 that the principle has been recognized.) 



4. The Congress finally passed the National Science Foundation Act 

 and gave the Foundation modest funds to get its program started. 

 The Foundation Fellowship program has been an outstanding con- 

 tribution. 



All these steps have helped to strengthen basic research, have helped 

 in the education of students, have helped to attract young men into 

 science, and have also brought about a degree of contact, of friendship, 

 of understanding between the scientists and the military which was 

 unheard of before 1941, and which will be a mighty element of strength 

 in future (and current) conflicts. But there is much that has been left 

 undone, much that has been done inadequately or unwisely. 



Someone, for example, started the idea that the purpose of the 

 National Science Foundation was to "eliminate the tremendous dupli- 

 cation in basic research." This is one of the most tragically mistaken 

 delusions of recent years, and I must take a moment to deal with it. 



Duplication in basic research is, in the first place, a contradiction 

 of terms. Research is the seeking for new knowledge. If the knowl- 

 edge has already been found no one else will seek for it — so duplica- 

 tion is impossible. If someone wished to check up on a discovery 

 and repeat an experiment, this is certainly not duplication because 

 science, by definition, deals with those phenomena which anyone can 

 duplicate at will. 



Should one say then that it is duplication for two people to be 

 searching for the same knowledge? This is like saying that it is 

 duplication for more than one person to search for a child that is 

 lost in the woods. We all know that when many people participate 

 in the search it is greatly accelerated, and if two searchers should 

 come upon the child at the same time do we complain of duplication ? 

 Even more, when one is searching the infinite wilderness of the un- 

 known for an uncountable number of undiscovered pieces of knowl- 

 edge, it is clearly evident that the more people engaged in the hunt 



