May 2020, ScientificAmerican.com 71Naomi Oreskes is a professor of the history of science
at Harvard University. She is author of Why Trust Science?
(Princeton University Press, 2019) and co-author
of Discerning Experts (University of Chicago, 2019).OBSERVATORY
KEEPING AN EYE ON SCIENCEOne of the benefits of modern technology is the ability it gives us
to catch up on films and television that we missed the first time
around. Recently I watched the Up series, a remarkable documen-
tary project by filmmaker Michael Apted that has tracked the lives
of 14 British people since 1964, when they were children, revisit-
ing them every seven years as their lives have unfolded. (The “chil-
dren” turned 63 last year.)
The original premise was that the British class system would
largely determine the course of these kids’ lives, irrespective of how
bright or charming or kind they were to begin with. Thus, the ath-
letic and irrepressible Tony, from London’s East End, seems des-
tined for a working-class life, whereas the posh prep-school boys
John, Andrew and Charles will presumably continue to enjoy lives
of privilege. And in fact, Tony drives a London cab as an adult, and
John, Andrew and Charles become a barrister, a solicitor and a
television producer, respectively.
But Nick (William Nicholas Hitchon) defies those expectations.
At age seven he was living on a family farm, walking four miles to
a one-room schoolhouse where he wanted to learn about “the
moon and all that.” By his late 20s he had earned a Ph.D. in phys-
ics and a faculty position at the University of Wisconsin–Madison,
where he has since published more than 100 journal articles and
three books, including a highly cited guide to plasma theory. All
the participants express satisfaction with their lives as they reach
middle age. But to me, the star of the show is Nick—the only one
whose life refutes the class-deterministic hypothesis of the series.
Nick grew up in modest circumstances, but his aptitude was
recognized and rewarded with a university scholarship. When he
graduated from the University of Oxford, however, the only job he
could find in the U.K. was “in a lab that seemed to be in the pro-
cess of shutting down.” Class prejudice may have played a role, but
the bigger problem was more likely the fact that at the time basic
research was not as well supported in the U.K. as it was in the U.S.
The scientific enterprise that Nick joined in the 1980s rested
on the premise that America needed science. This was the vision
of Vannevar Bush, dean of engineering at the Massachusetts Insti-
tute of Technology from 1932 to 1938 and head of the World War II
Office of Scientific Research and Development, who stressed the
importance of choosing future scientists on the basis of talent, not
social class or family background.
But all is not well in American science today. Compared with
that of many other countries, our research funding is still robust,
but it is not what it was when Nick came over. According to the
Brookings Institution, federal monies for scientific research and
development peaked in 1987, and by 2001 they had fallen from that
high by 18 percent. (The Brookings folks argue that increases in
private R&D largely made up for the decline in federal support, but
such subsidies rarely support basic research.) Since the early 2000s
there has been robust funding of health-related research, but bud-
gets for nearly everything else have remained pretty much flat.
We can’t expect anything to grow infinitely, but this weakened
support for basic science has been matched or exceeded by cuts to
science in federal agencies. President Donald Trump’s proposed
catastrophic cuts to the U.S. Geological Survey and other science
agencies were rejected by Congress, but many agencies have seen
significant budget cuts and attrition of scientists over the past
decade. State research support has de clined even more: at many
state universities, public monies now account for less than 30 per-
cent of operating budgets, with the shortfall compensated for by
tuition increases and private donations. The decrease in public
support for research universities is particularly troubling in terms
of scientific talent because when the going gets tough, people often
close ranks and are less open to newcomers who might not “fit in.”
In the 20th century America outcompeted Europe in science
largely because many of the world’s best scientists came to us. To
keep American science great, we need to keep it open to talented
people, wherever they come from and with whatever accent they
speak, so that future Nick Hitchons can pursue their dreams—and
make all of us better for it.Keep American
Science Great
Funding cuts haven’t crippled research
yet, but things are heading that way
By Naomi Oreskes
Illustration by Shaw Nielsen
JOIN THE CONVERSATION ONLINE
Visit Scientific American on Facebook and Twitter
or send a letter to the editor: [email protected]