and South Africa has tied its research resources to improving public health, education, and welfare. In the next 25 years, the IOM will have a much wider public to serve, a host of new ways to reach people electronically, and the chance to shape as well as reflect the world in which we live. The question now is not whether or not the Institute should exist, but what difference can—and will—it make?

NOTES

1. Daniel Goldin, as quoted by Andrew Lawler in “Is Science Lobbying an Oxymoron?” Science 269:20, 1995.

2. Kevles, D. J. 1995. E Pluribus Unabomber. New Yorker August 14:2–3.

3. Paul R. Gross, as quoted by Franklin Huke in “Scientists See Broad Attack Against Research and Reason.” The Scientist 9(14):1, 1995.

4. Robert Walker, as quoted by Andrew Lawler in “Robert Walker: The Speaker's Right Hand on Science.” Science 269:750, 1995

5. Altman, L. K. 1993. Bringing the News to the Public: The Role of the Media. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 703:200–9.

6. Alan Bromley, as quoted by Andrew Lawler in “Is Science Lobbying an Oxymoron,” op. cit.

7. Institute for the Future. 1995. The Future of America's Research-Intensive Industries. Menlo Park, California: Institute for the Future.

8. Balter, M. 1995. Research is Absorbed into Superministry. Science 268: 1127–8.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement