groups. The first of these he characterizes as the muckracl;ers, mostly, he says, journalists who picture the scientific enterprise as corrupted by political maneuvering among competing claimants for the scientific dollar. The second group contains many thoughtful legislators and administrators who see a lesser relevance of science to the public interest as we address ourselves to grave social questions not well illuminated by science. The third group consists of the critics of technology who believe that we must slow down science to avoid the bad side effects of technology. The fourth group comprises the abolitionists Who regard the technologically-based society as a catastrophe and would return the world to a simpler form. In the latter group are found a surprising ntltuber of students and young faculty members. The present dilemma stems from the simultaneous attack of these several groups each with its own objections to science, who at the same time vastly underestimate the immense cultural, social and economic importance of maintaining an effective scientific enterprise and therefore fail to appreciate the need to guide it and to restructure some parts of it rather than tear it down or just let it deteriorate. The cumulative effect of these disgruntled groups has been to dampen the enthusiasm of the traditional supporters of the scientific effort. Many friends of science, particularly in the Congress, though not necessarily accepting the accusations directed against the scientific establishment, have become much more cautious in their support and consequently less willing to make the effort necessary to obtain the funds needed to insure its continued vitality. To a large extent Weinberg is pointing to symptoms rather than causes. In particular there has been a failure on the part of scientists and engineers to face some of the basic issues worrying the rest of the nation regarding the value of science to society and the processes by which decisions regarding specific programs are made. Quite simply, an adequate case has not been made to justify the ever-increasing expenditure of money on basic research. We have not convinced the country that pure science is a useful and worth-while activitv that deserves support at the present levels. In all honesty, we probably cannot demonstrate an absolute need for any given level of support. What we must do, if we believe it is right and I do is to establish a conviction that a high and growing level of research activity is vital to the continued well-being of the nation and of civilization generally. Furthermore, scientists and engineers must themselves become more sensitive to the impact of technology on society. For too long most scientists and engineers sidestepped these issues,

many of them behaving like hired technicians, even to the extent of excluding discussions about these questions from the agendas of their professional societies. Fortunately, this too is now changing and many scientists are devoting a substantial portion of their time and energy on these questions, as is our National Academy of Sciences. Unfortunately at least for the short-run problems, some of the scientists who have finally awakened to the need to be concerned with the social consequences of science and technology have attempted to compensate for their tardiness by the use of too forceful measures, instigating confrontations and strikes, and in the present climate, these efforts have been regarded by mtlch of the non-scientific citizenry as just another campus aberation and, so, at least temporarily, have helped create an anti-science mood. Only a few years ago we didn't have to think about seeking public support for research activities because the case was made for us by many other groups including persons in the Defense Department, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, by a majority of the members of Congress and by a large segment of the press. But here too, the supporters undermined the long-range well-being of research because only a small part of the case was made the easiest part to understand and sell, and possibly even oversell stressing that military securitv of the United States depended upon a strong basic research effort. If challenged, we would not be able to justify the present level of research by a promise of specific new results and we will never be able to. In the final analysis we must ask society to judge the past record and have confidence that the future will be similarly productive. One thing we know well: there are still many more questions than answers. There are etxremely good arguments from the past for continuing and even enhancing the support of science at this time. Science, interpreted broadly, has provided mankind with four priceless gifts which have allowed him to move far from the frightened, superstitious, hungry man of just a few centuries ago. Man has been given an understanding of the physical world in which he lives and of the forces of nature which he must contend to survive. It has provied him