0.6 The science-government compact: 1945-1950  (Page 12/16)

The Bush report had recommended strengthening federal non-defense applied research programs, but paid little attention to theentire government system. In contrast, the Steelman report recognized the growing complexity and influence of the federal scientific enterprise on theentire national effort: “The Federal program for scientific research and development exerts its influence in many major areas, and it is a directinfluence not only upon the scientific activities of the country as a whole, but upon the national economy. Its very scope makes the formulation of policy andadministration difficult, and its operation within the structure of the Federal Government raises questions of balance in its programs.” Steelman, op. cit. , 45.

In order to increase the effectiveness of the federal effort, the report recommended that: “A central point of liaison amongthe major research agencies to assure the maximum interchange of information...must be provided…. There must be a single point close to thePresident at which the most significant problems created in the research and development program of the Nation as a whole can be brought into policydiscussions.” Ibid., 61.

Science—the Endless Frontier and A Program for the Nation were in accord in singling out basic research as the principal area for concerted federal action. Indeed, the latter report recommended thatthe largest percentage increases in federal expenditures during the next decade should be in that area. (In contrast, it recommended that expenditures formilitary development ought to increase more slowly than for other sectors.) Much of its rhetorical justification for government research support was reminiscentof Science—the Endless Frontier , and no doubt drew upon it for inspiration. More concretely, A Program for the Nation proposed creation of a National Science Foundation that would have been more munificently endowed thanBush proposed. Bush, op. cit. , 40 It was also considerably bolder in recommending “a program of Federal assistance to universities andcolleges...in the matters of laboratory facilities and scientific equipment," Ibid., 31. and by asserting the need “to assist in the reconstruction of European laboratories “asa part of our program of aid to peace-loving countries.” Ibid. The Steelman report was released during the months that Congress was debating the proposed Marshall Plan for economic recoveryassistance to Europe.

Despite its unequivocal endorsement of government support for basic research and its broader concept of the scope andauthority of a National Science Foundation, the report drew the ire of the scientific establishment by recommending that the foundation be headed by apresidentially appointed director “assisted by a part-time advisory board of distinguished scientists and educators similarly appointed.” Ibid., 34 Half the members of the advisory board would have been drawn from within government and half from outside.Moreover, it recommended that the foundation be established within the Executive Office of the President (EoP) rather than as an independent agency. Indeed,there was some sentiment on the Steelman board that the president should simply establish a National Science Foundation within the executive office by means ofan executive order rather than having to rely on the congress to create the organization. England, op. cit. , 80 Since the report’s recommendations were also opposed by the military and by conservativecongressmen opposed to central planning, it went nowhere. (It is interesting to note, however, that actual R&D expenditures through the 1950s far exceeded the report’s targets.)