The classic case for why government must support science—with a new essay by physicist and former congressman Rush Holt on what democracy needs from science today Science, the Endless Frontier is recognized as the landmark argument for the essential role of science in society and government’s responsibility to support scientific endeavors. First issued when Vannevar Bush was the director of the US Office of Scientific Research and Development during the Second World War, this classic remains vital in making the case that scientific progress is necessary to a nation’s health, security, and prosperity. Bush’s vision set the course for US science policy for more than half a century, building the world’s most productive scientific enterprise. Today, amid a changing funding landscape and challenges to science’s very credibility, Science, the Endless Frontier resonates as a powerful reminder that scientific progress and public well-being alike depend on the successful symbiosis between science and government. This timely new edition presents this iconic text alongside a new companion essay from scientist and former congressman Rush Holt, who offers a brief introduction and consideration of what society needs most from science now. Reflecting on the report’s legacy and relevance along with its limitations, Holt contends that the public’s ability to cope with today’s issues—such as public health, the changing climate and environment, and challenging technologies in modern society—requires a more capacious understanding of what science can contribute. Holt considers how scientists should think of their obligation to society and what the public should demand from science, and he calls for a renewed understanding of science’s value for democracy and society at large. A touchstone for concerned citizens, scientists, and policymakers, Science, the Endless Frontier endures as a passionate articulation of the power and potential of science.

The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support â€" or distort â€" practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge. The 1992 report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process evaluated issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. It provided a valuable service in describing and analyzing a very complicated set of issues, and has served as a crucial basis for thinking about research integrity for more than two decades. However, as experience has accumulated with various forms of research misconduct, detrimental research practices, and other forms of misconduct, as subsequent empirical research has revealed more about the nature of scientific misconduct, and because technological and social changes have altered the environment in which science is conducted, it is clear that the framework established more than two decades ago needs to be updated. Responsible Science served as a valuable benchmark to set the context for this most recent analysis and to help guide the committee's thought process. Fostering Integrity in Research identifies best practices in research and recommends practical options for discouraging and addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices.

We must all hang together or surely we will all hang separately. Benjamin Franklin The significant apathy that characterized relationships between indus try and universities and the adversarial nature of relationships between industry and government have both faded rapidly in the 1980s as the realities of global competition have surfaced in the United States. Both industry and government leaders articulate a number of constructs for regaining our competitiveness in world markets. One of the more fre quent strategies prescribed in this new competitiveness era is cooperation. Different individuals or groups may espouse different definitions, inter pretations, or areas of emphasis, but the overall importance of this concept is substantial. Although examples of cooperative research have existed for several decades, the number and variety of relationships have expanded rapidly in the 1980s as corporations, universities, and governments have embraced this strategy. Joint ventures involving two or three firms increased from under 200 per year in the 1970s to over 400 per year by the mid-1980s. Multiple-firm cooperative arrangements are a more recent phenomenon, made possible by the National Cooperative Research Act of 1984. By mid- 1988,81 of these industry-level consortia had formed under the provisions of the 1984 Act. The rapid growth in cooperative research and development (R&D) is primarily a response to the pressures of international competition. As a corporate strategy, cooperative R&D meets short-term needs for assets to implement new approaches for coping with intensifying competition.

The past 50 years have witnessed a revolution in computing and related communications technologies. The contributions of industry and university researchers to this revolution are manifest; less widely recognized is the major role the federal government played in launching the computing revolution and sustaining its momentum. Funding a Revolution examines the history of computing since World War II to elucidate the federal government's role in funding computing research, supporting the education of computer scientists and engineers, and equipping university research labs. It reviews the economic rationale for government support of research, characterizes federal support for computing research, and summarizes key historical advances in which government-sponsored research played an important role. Funding a Revolution contains a series of case studies in relational databases, the Internet, theoretical computer science, artificial intelligence, and virtual reality that demonstrate the complex interactions among government, universities, and industry that have driven the field. It offers a series of lessons that identify factors contributing to the success of the nation's computing enterprise and the government's role within it.

The United States faces a new challengeâ€"maintaining the vitality of its system for supporting science and technology despite fiscal stringency during the next several years. To address this change, the Senate Appropriations Committee requested a report from the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine to address "the criteria that should be used in judging the appropriate allocation of funds to research and development activities; to examine the appropriate balance among different types of institutions that conduct such research; and to look at the means of assuring continued objectivity in the allocation process." In this eagerly-awaited book, a committee of experts selected by the National Academies and the Institute responds with 13 recommendations that propose a new budgeting process and formulates a series of questions to address during that process. The committee also makes corollary recommendations about merit review, government oversight, linking research and development to government missions, the synergy between research and education, and other topics. The recommendations are aimed at rooting out obsolete and inadequate activities to free resources from good programs for even better ones, in the belief that "science and technology will be at least as important in the future as they have been in the past in dealing with problems that confront the nation." The authoring committee of this book was chaired by Frank Press, former President of the National Academy of Sciences (1981-1993) and Presidential Science and Technology Advisor (1977-1981).

Scores of talented and dedicated people serve the forensic science community, performing vitally important work. However, they are often constrained by lack of adequate resources, sound policies, and national support. It is clear that change and advancements, both systematic and scientific, are needed in a number of forensic science disciplines to ensure the reliability of work, establish enforceable standards, and promote best practices with consistent application. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward provides a detailed plan for addressing these needs and suggests the creation of a new government entity, the National Institute of Forensic Science, to establish and enforce standards within the forensic science community. The benefits of improving and regulating the forensic science disciplines are clear: assisting law enforcement officials, enhancing homeland security, and reducing the risk of wrongful conviction and exoneration. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States gives a full account of what is needed to advance the forensic science disciplines, including upgrading of systems and organizational structures, better training, widespread adoption of uniform and enforceable best practices, and mandatory certification and accreditation programs. While this book provides an essential call-to-action for congress and policy makers, it also serves as a vital tool for law enforcement agencies, criminal prosecutors and attorneys, and forensic science educators.

The United States and other countries around the world face problems of an increasingly global nature that often require major contributions from science and engineering that one nation alone cannot provide. The advance of science and engineering is an increasingly global enterprise, and in many areas there is a natural commonality of interest among practitioners from diverse cultures. In response to challenges, the National Academies held a workshop in Washington, DC, in February 2011, to assess effective ways to meet international challenges through sound science policy and science diplomacy. U.S. and International Perspectives on Global Science Policy and Science Diplomacy summarizes issues addressed during this workshop. Participants discussed many of the characteristics of science, such as its common language and methods; the open, self-correcting nature of research; the universality of the most important questions; and its respect for evidence. These common aspects not only make science inherently international but also give science special capacities in advancing communication and cooperation. Many workshop participants pointed out that, while advancing global science and science diplomacy are distinct, they are complementary, and making them each more effective often involves similar measures. Some participants suggested it may sometimes be more accurate to use the term global science cooperation rather than science diplomacy. Other participants indicated that science diplomacy is, in many situations, a clear and useful concept, recounting remarkable historical cases of the effective use of international scientific cooperation in building positive governmental relationships and dealing with sensitive and urgent problems. To gain U.S. and international perspectives on these issues, representatives from Brazil, Bangladesh, Egypt, Germany, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Morocco, Rwanda, South Africa, and Syria attended the workshop, as well as two of the most recently named U.S. science envoys, Rita Colwell and Gebisa Ejeta.

The United States government spent, on average, $350 million a year in the 1990s to support science and technology (S & T) cooperation with Russia. The amount rose in the early 1990s, peaked in 1996, and then began dropping in the late 1990s. When aggregated by dollars spent, the areas most likely to be the subject of cooperation are aerospace and aeronautical projects, engineering research, energy, and earth sciences. When counted by the number of projects (rather than funds committed), earth sciences-including geology, ocean studies, and atmospheric sciences-account for the largest number. Earlier RAND studies suggested that, during the mid-1990s, cooperation with Russia claimed more government research and development (R & D) dollars than any other country. In order to examine the relationship in more detail, RAND collected and analyzed data at the project level and surveyed agency officials about specific projects and programs. These data were aggregated into categories created by RAND. This report provides an analytic, cross-agency overview, presenting a broad picture of the U.S.-Russia S & T relationship between 1994 and 1999.

Researchers, historians, and philosophers of science have debated the nature of scientific research in education for more than 100 years. Recent enthusiasm for "evidence-based" policy and practice in educationâ€"now codified in the federal law that authorizes the bulk of elementary and secondary education programsâ€"have brought a new sense of urgency to understanding the ways in which the basic tenets of science manifest in the study of teaching, learning, and schooling. Scientific Research in Education describes the similarities and differences between scientific inquiry in education and scientific inquiry in other fields and disciplines and provides a number of examples to illustrate these ideas. Its main argument is that all scientific endeavors share a common set of principles, and that each fieldâ€"including education researchâ€"develops a specialization that accounts for the particulars of what is being studied. The book also provides suggestions for how the federal government can best support high-quality scientific research in education.