DOE’s Charles Curtis on the Responsibilities of Scientists

In a speech to the 50th Anniversary Symposium of Associated Universities, Inc., Deputy Secretary of Energy Charles B. Curtis discussed the need for greater involvement by scientists in the political process. Excerpts from his address follow:

”...if the needs and opportunities for publicly supported science and technology are so apparent, why the budget threats?

“I believe the answer has two foundations. The first is the more obvious -- as a nation, we need to reduce Federal spending and restore fiscal discipline.... The second explanation...goes to the willingness of the Nation to make this investment. And that explanation is that the public’s trust in the institution of government, its faith in science and technology, and its perception of benefit have all eroded perceptibly since the days of Vannevar Bush.”

”...we...need to make clear to the Congress that just as our duty for fiscal discipline is rooted in our obligation to future generations, so, too, do we owe a duty to future generations to assure that our Nation’s capacity to shape the future through scientific research and technological innovation is continually renewed. The Congress must be pressed to see it as its responsibility to honor both obligations: its duty for fiscal discipline, and its responsibility to sponsor and sustain our Nation’s capacity for innovation. Arriving at a proper balance of these twin obligations will test the judgment and the wisdom of our elected representatives and the effectiveness of our advocacy.”

“But for that advocacy to be truly effective, we must deal with the second root cause for the attack on R&D funding -- the attack that is based on the erosion of confidence in the institutions of government, the lessening of faith in the benign and curative powers of science and technology, and the failure to perceive a recognizable societal value arising out of the Government’s R&D expenditure.”

“To restore public confidence in the Nation’s investment in science and technology, we must build back trust in science and technology itself and in the public institutions responsible for administering that investment. The first trust building challenge for science and technology may be easier met than the challenge to restore public trust in the work of its government -- though both will be difficult.”

”...the reality of our times is that the public whose dollars we propose to use for this investment (and the public representatives for that matter) need convincing. And it is the scientific community that must make this case. Government officials cannot carry this advocacy responsibility as well or as convincingly (or some may say `at all’).”

”...for our Nation to be willing to sustain its investment in science and technology, the scientific community must be willing to define and explain its work better in terms of public benefits. Perhaps I should say that somewhat differently, so that I not be misunderstood to be urging more of a shift from fundamental to applied research. I am not. Rather, I am urging that the scientific community needs to do a better job of articulating the relevance of its work in terms that the public can understand and relate to.”

“You have the credibility to discuss science, to speak effectively about the complex relationship with technology, and to explain how advances in one field often produce unexpected insight into another.”

“We in Government cannot do it without you. To paraphrase a familiar expression: `Now is the time for all good scientists to come to the aid of their country.’”