with deep insights into living organisms including man himself; it has given him some understanding of the complex societies in which men live together; and it has provided the tools with which he can compete more effectively with nature for the means of survival. These great achievements of the human mind have been in the past a source of optimism and pride, a source of the hope that increased understanding would bring a happier life. Yet at the moment many among us have lost this hope and have become so frightened of the future prospects that they would, if they could, stop technological change and the scientific discoveries on which it is to a large degree based. To me it is evident that without the continued applications of science which enhance man's muscle and brain power we could not continue the quest of a free and decent society for everyone. Obviously such a society will not automatically arise just because technologists have provided greater and greater power to alter nature and to create artificial environments. On the contrary, this can lead to at least as many roads to disaster as to salvation. But this aspect of the problem has now become more fully recognized. Earth Day showed the degree of concern that now exists regarding the careless introduction of technology. The Daddario subcommittee of the House Committee on Science and Astronautics, and the National Academy of Engineering study on technological forecasting are two groups trying to cope with this problem. While it is generally agreed that science has provided the basis for our contemporary society, we have not been required to design a public policy for science to insure its continued development, and we don't know how to do it. Before World War II fundamental science was supported by private foundations, philanthropists, universities, and an occasional industry primarily for the sake of the knowledge produced. After World War II the high level of spending on all phases of military technology from research and development to completed equipments provided the stimulation for the economic growth of the nation, both through the direct consequences of the large-scale expenditures for military needs and as a result of the so-called spinoff effect into the civilian economy. Many new industries owe their rapid technological advance to the military spending. Obviously it would have been possible for the government to stimulate technological growth

without the military motivation but it is not at all likely that it would have done so. The coupling between fundamental research and technological innovation is hard to demonstrate. It is even harder to put a specific value on such research. How should we value the transistor, or penicillin or nuclear energy or jet transportation or satellite communications? We can of course add up the dollar sales of these things, but that would be taking a narrow view, for it would be ignoring their social value or costs. This then is a serious question for the future of science. What are the criteria that should be applied in the allocation of research funds ? There is clearly no theoretical basis for making such a decision. One finds differing views among economists even about the extent to which research and development, rather than training and education are responsible for the economic growth and the increase in productivity that we have experienced. I find it a little difficult to separate the contributions of education and technology, since technical development is possible only because of the existence of a highly educated and creative technical manpower supported by a well-trained labor force, and further, graduate education and university research go hand in hand. The question of funding for university-based science is raised because the crisis caused by the leveling off of dollar support. effecting a decrease in activities and in the number of graduate students and the amount of new equipment, and aI slonving down of new adventures, is occurring just at the time when the campus is beset with many other questions about its goals, its roles and, in some cases. even, its ability to survive. The crucial question, and the most difficult one to assess and to extrapolate into the future, relates to the intellectual climate on the campus. Will the mood on the campus be conducive to scholarly activities ? Will the protests by students and y oung faculty grow more disruptive and effectively stop creative work or will their efforts, asI at least some of them hope, force the university hlto constructive new directions in education, research and action-related programs? Can more comprehensible curricula, more student initiative, and more relevent education satisfy the student yearning for a more hopeful society ? Will the present anti-intellectual attitudes inside the university and loose in the society at large continue to grow until they generate tensions sufficient to destroy the creative spirit of the university?