We Need Science for Our Future Well-Being

by Kyu C. Kim, Chief Scientist for NMT

"The subjects of investigation are not restricted, but can be selected by individuals according to the internal demands of their own scientific interests," stated Professor Hideo Akamatu, the director of Japan's Institute of Molecular Science (IMS) in the 1979 Annual Review of IMS. Two years later his successor, Professor Saburo Nakakura, states in his 1981 annual review, "The researchers in the Institute should be allowed to demonstrate their abilities and be encouraged to develop original areas of study."

Initially, these statements may sound like a recipe for the work of "sandbox scientists," as expressed by fellow scientists. It is remarkable that in a country renowned for its technological innovations rather than its scientific discoveries, the importance of basic science is emphasized in this simple and straightforward way in one of its premier research institutes. Science knows no national or geographical boundary, so we can be envious of the scientific atmosphere that the scientists of IMS have created for themselves with their government sponsorship.

From the beginning Los Alamos National Laboratory also has cultivated a certain sense of intellectual and academic freedom to pursue the frontiers of science and technology within a well-defined mission. In this climate, one's own imagination and creativity have been the main limiting factors toward scientific progress. Sponsors of large Laboratory programs have understood the importance of basic as well as applied research and have supported it as an important element of their overall program goals. It is this culture, with national support, that has made Los Alamos one of the nation's premier scientific institutions.

Today, however, a new trend has emerged that evaluates most scientific endeavors according to their short-term benefits rather than their long-term contributions to the goals and accumulated knowledge of society. This new trend encourages productivity over creativity. As a consequence less money is allocated to scientific projects, and the scientific community finds it more and more difficult to justify the need for adequate funding for the work performed by scientists. Innovative technologists, on the other hand, are having a heyday bringing ever new technologies and innovations to the marketplace. This trend is a quite natural phenomenon because scientific progress is typically measured on the time scale of years while technological development strives to meet the present needs. On a more fundamental basis the fruit of scientific progress does not perish with time, but technology development matures within a finite time period. It is worth noting, however, that science is a resource tree from which many new technological innovations grow.

The present wave of technological advances will soon have to be followed by new sciences, however. For example, the advanced computer era has followed immediately after the invention of semiconductors, which in turn depended upon the discovery and refinement of quantum mechanics, and the computer- related technologies are still advancing at a breathtaking pace. Biological sciences are making great strides these days in unlocking the mysteries of all life forms and their evolution. New technologies based on these scientific discoveries will undoubtedly contribute enormously to the benefit of mankind. But without advancements in science, a deficit in the scientific knowledge base, much like a bank account, represents a scientific bankruptcy. When today's needs are met, this does not guarantee that tomorrow's needs will be met, that human intellectual curiosity will be fulfilled, or that all scientific discoveries will be exhausted. Science, by its very nature, rejuvenates itself constantly. However, it flourishes best when there is well-intended and farsighted support.

The practitioners of science also need to be replenished. Therefore, a part of this support requires continual sustained emphasis, effort, and resources expended on educating and training the next-generation scientists in all fields of science. National laboratories in concert with universities, as well as the universities themselves, have a responsibility and are positioned to advance this goal to meet our future need for scientists. The present tendency of our national laboratories to focus on near-term programs and tasks is very short-sighted. If this trend continues, the nation will face a state of "science bankruptcy," a state in which the future growth of our technological society is stunted as a result of general science illiteracy and/or indifference. One, therefore, has to ask "can there be any progress through ignorance and indifference?"

Science is not for scientists only; science education in general prepares us for the well-being of successive generations. The very fabric of our modern society is woven in science-so much so that we rarely stop to think of all the benefits we derive from the reservoir of human scientific discoveries. Informed and well educated, the next generation will be the beneficiaries of today's science, and the next-generation science sows the seeds of prosperity for the following generation, and so on. In this tradition, therefore, each generation has the supreme responsibility of educating the following generation.

The Laboratory-Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program, for example, is an important element of the Laboratory's science programs, and it has supported many creative research areas "where no man has gone before." Because the Laboratory's programs are mainly national-security-mission-oriented, there is a growing tendency to believe that only LDRD funds are for novel research in new directions. This way of thinking misses the point that the LDRD funds are limited to only a small fraction of the annual budget, and therefore are grossly inadequate for all the basic research activities in a scientific institution like Los Alamos. The 6% maximum investment alone in the basic and underlying science would not sustain a world-class scientific institution in this fast-changing technological world. In planning for science funding, we also need to distinguish research from development just as we distinguish science from technology development.

Another shortcoming of the present-day investment strategy in the basic science is its decidedly short-term nature. It is rare to see any sponsors including government entities spending funds on basic studies lasting more than a few years. The trend has been to fund small and short-term projects. In this climate researchers are not allowed enough resources and time to concentrate on long-term and large scientific problems, although all the faculty at the nation's major research universities have become very adept at breaking up a career-long major research problem into tasks that can be accomplished by small teams in shorter time periods and funded piecemeal. Following the survival-of-the-fittest trend, then, today's scientists behave more like technologists in the society's eye. They make devices, bring new technologies to the newest applications, and try to solve many of our present day problems.

In this technologically driven society, we should not lose sight of the underlying science in everything we do. Science is the foundation on which all technologies rest. Science is about discovering the as-is state of all things; technologies are merely human applications of tiny pieces of that underlying science. Science is not about providing answers to many of our national problems. Science is all about discovering what we-and the universe-are, and the pursuit of knowledge into the unknown. Therefore, we, individually and institutionally, might even begin to say that we do science; therefore we exist.

NMT | LANL | DOE
Phone Book | Search | Help/Info

L O S  A L A M O S  N A T I O N A L   L A B O R A T O R Y
Operated by the University of California for the US Department of Energy