-----------------------------------------------
"Bohr, Pasteur, and Edison: Models for Science"
-----------------------------------------------
    Donald Stokes (Woodrow Wilson School for Politics & Public
    Affairs, Princeton)

The German "University" provided the model for the research
university in the 20th century.

Prior to World War II, funding for research at universities was
provided primarily by private funds, student tuition, etc., but not
from federal sources.  Government research was done by government
labs such as the Smithsonian, the Geological Survey, etc.  (The one
difference was the establishment of the Agricultural Experiment
Stations by the Hatch Act in 1887.)

Vannevar Bush changed this (through the implementation by Franklin
D. Roosevelt).  Bush also proposed a "National Research Foundation."

There are two major aphorisms from Bush's report:

"Basic research is performed without thought of practical ends."
"Basic research is the pacemaker of technological innovation."

The "National Research Foundation" concept failed, but Bush's
ideology triumphed.  (NRF failed in that it fragmented in the first
five years into the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of
Defense, and the National Institutes of Health.)  The creation of
the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1950 represented a "gutted-
out" version of the NRF.

Another major event in the development of federal funding for
research was the launching of Sputnik, which ushered in the "golden
age" for American science.  Virtually every field of science
benefited.

Basic vs. applied research -- can the concept be defined in terms of
quadrants?  e.g.:

                Are there considerations of use of the research?

                              NO            YES
                      +---------------+----------------+
                      |              |                |
                      |  Pure, Basic  | Use-inspired  |
                  YES |  Research    | Basic Research |
  Is there            |  (e.g. Bohr)  | (e.g. Edison)  |
  a quest for          |              |                |
  fundamental          +---------------+----------------+
  understanding?      |              |                |
                      |  (Hopefully  | Purely Applied |
                    NO |    empty)    | Research      |
                      |              | (e.g. Pasteur) |
                      |              |                |
                      +---------------+----------------+

          [However, even though Pasteur was interested purely in the
          applied aspects of his research, he ended up founding an
          entire field of science (microbiology) from his applied
          interests.]

A truism - technology is very much driven by scientific discoveries.
(However, increasingly, science is becoming driven by technological
innovation.)

--------------------------------------------------
"Answering The Questions That Have Not Been Asked"
--------------------------------------------------
    Neal Lane (Director, NSF.  Note: Lane's original talk was
    "Federal Support of Science."  However, probably due to the
    uncertainly of federal scientific funding in the new Republican
    Congress at the time of the Forum, Lane gave this alternate
    talk.)

In the last five years, there have been major changes & adjustments
due to the world political situation.  What does this mean for the
future of universities?  Times are changing... (Collision forces,
the tension between research and teaching, the crumbling research
infrastructure.)

Basic research - the concept of "unasked questions."  What is the
role of NSF in this pursuit?

    Eugene Ionesco - "It is not the answer, but the question which
    enlightens."

"Strategic research" should really be called "research in strategic
areas."

Today - all major players in scientific research are re-examining
their roles:

    1) National labs - their role w/respect to industry
    2) Universities - what should they be in the 21st century?

NSF will continue to support basic research, but the emphases will
change.  There is a need to facilitate change and new ideas at
universities and colleges.

Teaching and research should not be separated universities.  This is
becoming a more and more contentious political issue.

A recent series of three articles in the Washington Post addressed
the future of scientists and universities.  It mentioned that 65% of
faculty time is spent writing proposals for funding, and that most
of the research is done by graduate students, technicians and post-
docs.  The implication is that most of the best researchers are not
only not teaching, but also not doing research (which is being
delegated).