211 



Question 7 . Has there been an overinvestment or underinvestment in "big 

 science" such as high energy physics or magnetic fusion energy relative to 

 other subfields of physics or other disciplines? How can the appropriate 

 levels of investment in different subfields or disciplines best be determined? 



The question of overinvestment or underinvestment in "big science" should 

 be broadened to all disciplines and all "sizes of science". Science 

 disciplines, and their subfields differ greatly in nature. Each should be 

 permitted within its own expertise to determine what mix of "big vs. little", 

 ■national vs. international", "academic vs. governmental vs. industrial 

 setting", "etc. vs. etcetera* is the optimum mix at any time in making that 

 field of science progress best. Then the complex advocacy process of a given 

 science versus all the others should take over. The advocacy process makes it 

 tough on leaders of the ultimate sources of funds, which fortunately are 

 several relatively independent sources, including federal and state 

 government, industries, foundations and universities, as well as private 

 philanthropy. Certainly the Committee on Science and Technology is playing a 

 powerful role in conducting the advocacy process. 



Perhaps national government leaders are overly influenced by the special 

 scientific demands of the mission agencies. Certainly the sciences close to 

 the missions of the Departments of Defense, Energy and Health, and the 

 National Air and Space Agency have flourished. On the other hand, the 

 National Science Foundation was created just for the purpose of insuring 

 balanced support for all the sciences. It should be held responsible for 

 conducting that balancing act and funded well to accomplish it. 



Question 8 . Are the experiences of international cooperation in one field 

 of science directly applicable to other fields of science? What lessons may 

 be learned? 



Yes. The different fields of science face many common or similar problems 

 in their varied international collaborative ventures, over and above those 

 particular to each field. However, I do not believe that there are serious 

 common matters which cannot be handled by existing scientific research 

 institutions in academe, industry, and government, either within their own 

 academic and professional associations, societies and academies or working 

 with the agencies of government assigned responsibility for solving such 

 problems, provided those agencies do their jobs properly. 



At present, the State Department does not appear as a strong leader in 

 solving some of these problems, and the Office of Science and Technology has 

 other higher priorities, though it can do a good job if its priorities 

 coincide with an international issue. The National Science Foundation could 

 and should be asked to take a stronger hand, and it already has the required 

 statutory authority. 



