34 Research and National Purpose 



handedly responsible for the health and strength of U. S. 

 basic science. It could defend its research investments in terms 

 of the broad Navy dependence on all aspects of modern science 

 with the full knowledge that if it failed to act, the total U. S. 

 scientific strength on which its military strength depended 

 would languish and falter. Today, while many of the same 

 arguments apply, they no longer apply so uniquely, and hence 

 with so much force. It is harder to defend oneself against those 

 who argue "let NSF do it" or "let ARPA do it". The penalty 

 for failing to support basic science no longer seems so apparent 

 or pressing as it did to the early missionaries, or — what is more 

 important — to their budgetary masters. Perhaps the time has 

 arrived for a reassertion of the role of mission-oriented agen- 

 cies in the support of basic research, and for a more sophisti- 

 cated statement of this role in a political environment which 

 is far more sophisticated about science and technology than 

 was the world of the late 1940's. 



It is, of course, easy to say that the mission-oriented agencies 

 should support the basic research that is relevant to their mis- 

 sions, even the training of skilled people who might later 

 serve their mission. This is a statement with which few would 

 now disagree, but it really begs the question. The whole 

 argument is about what basic research really is relevant to a 

 mission, and what time horizon one should be talking about. 

 To some extent we seem to be coming into an era where basic 

 research is everybody's business, and therefore nobody's busi- 

 ness, except possibly NSF's. Where does the line between 

 "pure" basic research and mission-oriented basic research really 

 lie? Does the proliferation of other research supporting agen- 

 cies, and especially the growth of an agency with an explicit 

 mission to support science in terms of its own internal system 

 of values (namely NSF), imply that mission relevance should 

 be interpreted in ever more narrow and specific terms? I do 

 not believe so, whether the matter be judged from the stand- 

 point of the health of science itself, or from the standpoint 

 of the vitality and success of agency missions which depend 

 upon science. I do not believe that science can be divided up 



