National Academies Press: OpenBook

Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development (1985)

Chapter: Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks

« Previous: Measuring Economic Effects of Federal Research and Development Expenditures: Recent History with Special Emphasis on Federal R&D Performed in Industry
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 173
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 174
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 175
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 176
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 177
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 178
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 179
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 180
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 181
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 182
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 183
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 184
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Selected Sectors, Returns on Federal Investments: The Physical Sciences Harvey Brooks." National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. 1985. Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/942.
×
Page 198

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

S E L E C T E ~ S E C T O R S .

RETURNS ON FEDERAL INnJESTMENTS: ME PHYSICAL SCIENCES Harrey Brooks Benj amin Peirce Professor of Technology and Public Policy Harvard Universi~cy This paper cons iders what can be said about federal research and development (R&D) investments in the physical sciences. It does so within certain limiters. First, the argument is qualitative and anecdotal, rather than quantita~cive, because, as other papers in this volume malce clear--and as I have found in working on the paper--few quantitative measures exist, and those that do are suspect. A second limit that follows from the first is that broader societal benefits are considered rather than the sort of returns captured typically in traditional economic measures. Third, the paper confines itself deco research rancher than to both research and development. Most federal development programs-- chiefly, national defense and space transportation--have noneconomic purposes; only research is sufficiently multipurpose in its goals to affect the maricet sector sigr~ificancly, and, eaten then, only as a byproduct of other goals. Finally, I have limited my examination to phys ics and chemistry because scheme is more information available on returns in Chose fields and because space is limi~ced. NATIONAL OBJECTIVES FOR R&D As suggested above, the notion of payoff or return on investment is difficult deco define when one is considering federal research and development. Only a relating ely small fraction of federal R&D is motivated directly by economic return, much less-~st least nominally--than in most other industrialized countries. Table 1 shows the percentage of central government R&1) devoted to various national obj ecti~res in five countries for 1981-1984. Admittedly, such a comparison suffers from grave difficulties of definition. No account, for example, is taken of the spillover of. R&D expenditures for defense, space, health, and the advancement of knowledge for the benefit of the national economy. The United States depends mainly on the mission agencies rather than on a science agency for such spillo~-ers, with ache result that much research that 171

ABLE 1 Percentage of Government R&D Devoted to Various National Obj ectives in Fire Countries (1981-1984) National Ob j ectives Count r Industrial Growth Knowledge Agriculture pefenseiSoace United States 0. 3% 4.096 2 ~ 0% 70.09' Japan 7.096 46. 09 11.096 ~ .095 Yes. Germany 12.095 44.0% 2.0% 14.~% France 12. 0% 27 ~ 09 4. 0% 38. 09 Uni ted Kingdom 7 . 0% 210 0% S . 0% S1 . 0% Source: L. L. Lederman, R. Lehming, and J. S. Bond. Research Policies and Strategies in Six Countries: A Comparative Analysis, Science and Public Policy, Sol . 13, No ~ 2 (April 1986 ), p ~ 69. (Original data from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, National Science Foundation, and country sources. ) - 172 -

serves either economic or general knowledge goals is classified under other, more specific, agency purposes. Yet, it is striking that the United Stances admits to such a small fraction of itch R&D effort as being applicable explicitly to industrial de~relopmen~c. This, of course, reflects the traditional 11. S. ideology that Rid) in support of goods and services sold for profit in the priorate market should be ache sole responsibility of the private sector. Although, in practice, this ideology has been violated often, it has generally l:ed to a ~ ow expectation of economic returns from government-sponsored R&D. Most frequently, the recurs that have been realized have been incidental byproducts of research undertaken ostensibly for other purposes. Another interesting difference between the United S tates and other countries is the smaller proportion of it&l) devoted nominally to the "ad~rancement of knowledge. n Undoubtedly, some of this is sta~cis~cical quirk, exaggerated further by the large U. S . space/ defense R&D investment. But, it reflects strongly Ache pragmatic rationale historically underlying U. S ~ science policy, that most research aimed at the advancement of knowledge is supported by mission-oriented agencies and is j ustified politically as furthering some societal purpose outside of science itself. Recognition of a federal responsibility to foster ache advancement of knowledge for nonspecific social purposes has3come much more slowly in ache United S bates "hen in other Countries . EVALUATING RESEARCH CONTRIBUTIONS In ache 1960' s, an extensive literature developed on the various rationales for government support of research and for the choice of scientific priorities, particularly in basic research. This literature has been well summarized by Smith4 and Ronayne and will not be reviewed here. However, this paper will draw on arguments developed previously by the author. '7 Most of the contributions of federal research Go ache economy, particularly those of basic and generic applied research, are indirect and mediated through many other factors, including the quality of the capi~cal stock, the quality of human resources, and the general stones of the entire culture. It is exceptional when we can trace par~cicular economic developments to specific discoveries or pieces of knowledge. Even when this can be done, as for such inventions as the transistor, the au~comobile, and the airplane, it is misleading to leave out all the ancillary discoveries and general packaged or codified technical knowledge used along the way in ache conversion of an invention into a socially viable product, process, or social policy. — 1 ~3 —

The indirect nature of the contribution of research to most economic or social developments becomes more pronounced as one proceeds "upward" through the "hierarchy" of the disciplines from the mos t spec if ic to the most general and abs tract . Thus, the contributions of ache basic physical sciences are less directly apparent than ache contributions of the biological sciences, and the contributions o f phys ics less direct that those of, for ex~mp le. chemistry. Much of the contribution of the physical sciences to society is mediated through other disciplines; later parts of this essay will illustrate how this comes about. One of the most sys thematic efforts to evaluate the re latitude contributions Among subfields within ~ broad field of science was made in 1972 by the National Research Council (NRC) Physics Survey Committee. ~ That committee developed a set of criteria for the valuation of the different subfialds of physics by n tn~crinsic merit" and "extrinsic merit, n as well as by institutional considera~cions, and used a j ury system to rat" each subfield on each criterion. The list of criteria is shown in Table 2. The result was a bar chart, illus tsated in Figure 1. Such a chart might be thought of as represen~cing ache coordinates of a vector in a multidimensional space. However, the length of the vector has little or no significance, because different observers wit 1 assign different we fights to the coordinates . Some will ass ign greater weight to dimens ions that capture social or economic benefits; others will assign greater weight to dimensions that reflect criteria of internal logical structure or aesthetic elegance or high generality; still others may give greater weight to institutional considerations that affect the future productivity of the subdiscipline. Even if there were an agreed-upon calculus for combining the different dimensions of valuation, its policy significance would be limited by Ache comp lex interdependence among fie Ids of science . Changing the in~resment in physics, for example, will affect the rate of progress in chemistry, even if the in~rest:ment in chemistry is held constant, arid vice versa. lithe coupling gets tighter the more closely related the fields, but attenuates only gradually with intellectual d~star~ce. This Interdependence is understood qualita~ci~rely through an abundance of anecdotal evidence, but little progress has been made in quantifying i~c in a way that could help society to make investment decisions. There is even considerable doubt as deco whether such quantifica~cion is possible in principle. Interdependence occurs not only through the flow of information among fields and subfields and Between more basic and more applied activities, but also through Ache transfer of people between fields after the completion of their formal Braining or Song fields during the ir careers . To illustrate, in 1964 the National Research Council surveyed about 1, 900 doctoral scientists working in industry in solid state hys ics and electronics . By that time, most of the important dvances in solid state devices Sad already been made. It was found, owe~rer, that only 2. S percent of the doctoral scientists surveyed

TABLE 2 C. Astoria for Program Emphases in Physics Intrinsic Men t lo To what extent is the field npc for exploration? 20 To What cx~cnt toes the field address itself to tally sigruficant scientific questions that, if answered, offer substantial promise of oocn~nz up new arc es of science and nc~ scientific questions for -rid - -r ~~~ investigation? 3. (a) To Mat extent does the field have tic potential of discov- enug new fundamental Jews of nature or of major extension of the range of validity of known laws? (b) To what extent does the field have the potential of discov° cling or developing broad generalizations of a fundamental nsmre that care provide ~ solid foundation for amuck on broad areas of sconce? 4. To what extent does Tic field attract the most able members of the physics community at both professional ant student IeYcls? Extrinsic Merit 50 To what cx~cnt does the field contribute to progress us otter scientific disciplines through transfer of its concepts or mstn~menution? 6. To what cx~cnt does the field, by drying upon adjacent "cas of science for concepts, technologies, "d approaches, pride ~ cumulus for they e~chmes~t? 1. To what extent does Tic Acid contribute to the dc~clopment of technology? 8. To what extent does the field contribute to cn~ncenng, medic cinc, or applied science and to Tic trying of profes~on~s in these Acids? 9. To what extent does the Acid contribute directly to the solution of major societal problems end to the rcadization of societal goals? 10. To what ox ten t does the field have dime applications? I 1. To Brat c:c ten t does We field contabutc to options ~fen=? 12. To Mut ax ten t does sctiwty in the field contribute to optional prestige and to u~tematione1 cooperation? 13. To But extent does security un the field have ~ direct impact upon broad public education objeetfres? structure 14. (0 To But extent ~ major he—instrumentation req~d for progress ~ the field? (b) To But extent u support of Tic Pod, beyond the cur~t level, urgently ~ ire d to maintain ~rubiIi~r or to obtain ~ proper men tint return on major cyia1 imestmcats? IS. To mat extent Arc the resources in the field been utilized cf~ccti~rcly? 16. To Ant extent is the sl~lcd end dedicated manpower ncoc~suy for the proposed programs eveilablc in the Geld? I 7. To what extent is there ~ balance bc~wacn the parrot ant corm addict demand for persons Ironed In the field and Tic cumcnt rate of production of such manpower? 1 B. To what ox ten t is m~ntenancc of the field CSXQ0~ to SAC con tinued health of Tic scicntif~c discipline In which it is embedded? Source: Phys ics Survey Committee . Physics In Perspec rive : Recommendations and Program Emphases. Washington, DC National Academy of Sciences, 1972, pp . 49 - 50 . - 175 _

FIGURE 1 Histograms of ache Survey Committee Average Jury Rating of the Internal Physics Subtields in Terms of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Criteria. The s traight lines superimposed on ache histograms are drawn simply to provide a characteristic signature for each subfield. It is interesting to note that these signatures dive de naturally into three classes with emphasis shifting from intrinsic to extrins ic areas as the subfield matures, 4. o - O ~ e9 ~ o o ~ J a. ~ . COMICS I :.~.L~ 1 `~& - 0 fLulO' ~1 ~ - co~ocuscs ~r"n A=~lC,-~ ad_ ·~—~ a. . . ~ 2 I:::: .:: :; :;: r ~ O~ 1 _ I "MIMICS ~ R~LAStVI7Y 1 1 NTRti - C ~r~ Emll4SIC INTRI - C _~~ EmlaSIC CRITEFt 1A I- cod ~xno.arloa 2-ll~l,tC - Ct 0P OU£St - ~' 00 "..orear'a~ rot oircowa' or n~oautn'sL ~tt.~" ~ B - C - tan ~ stacaa~2ano" 6P - ~ "ItHYl'~C - - l"~titY _ Art.~7tvtNt'' to aOSt ICED ~=lSt' |. - to - ~ "~'tl.UtIO.8 to ~t. "educe . True suture or OT - . A sack" . ~orterlaL coare'surioa to tat. CUlCI~C. Adults Outact . ~orterla~ c~reloutio. To rtcx~oc' .~tt~ttAL ' - t lent ~"It~t. .#o78ltr~ atop—sloe To socked II_~t~l~tt" ~ "TlO~ Patti" l~Tt~T~L ~lt~t10. lo. COME—the to ~tAtlO.t&L Step 15. eearel~r~o. To ~uc parlor Source: Physics Survey Commi~ctee. Pl2ysics in Perspective: Recommendations and Program Emphases. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1972, p. 53. - 176 —

had received their Ph. D. training in solid state physics; 19 percent were chemists, and 73 percent had received doctorates in other physics fields, with nuclear physics predominating. In face, the shift of physics graduate study into solid state physics (about 40 percent of all physics Ph.D. 's by the early 1970's) occurred after the first maj or wave of industrial advances in solid state devices, which had been carried out in large degree by scien~cists trained in nuclear arid particle physics. Similarly, the spectacular emergence of molecular biology in the 1950's and 1960's was accompanied by a large immigration of scien~cis~cs [5om other disciplines, including many prominent physical scientists . ~ Several of the Nobel Prizes for discoveries ~ n molecular biology and biochemistry have been awarded to scientists trained originally in physics. DIRECT RESULTS E ROM PHYSICS Starting in the mid-1960' s, the Committee on Science and Public Policy ~ COSPUP ~ of the National Academy of Sc fences sponsored a series of studies on the status and needs of the principal scientific disciplines . Eventually, those studies covered almost all the teas ic sciences. Each Of the publications resulting from the studies includes sections dealing with the social and economic benefi~cs resulting from research in each discipline or subdiscipline; those sections provide a maj or source of information on return on investment in ache physical sciences. However, although well documented, virtually all of the information is anecdotal, consisting of detailed illustrative case histories. There is no way of extrapolating from those examples to credible estimates of overall return on investment in a whole field or subfie Id ~ as has been done, for example, in agriculture. It is a fair inference that most of the case histories in the reports were selected because they were successes, not because they were representative or average. And, there has been litt3.e or no attempt JO relate ache social value of outputs to monetary inpu~cs quan~citatively on an overall teas is wi~chin specific disciplines. The 1972 COSPUP report on phys ics t: divides the field into seven "core subfield": elementary particle physics; nuclear physics; atomic, molecular, and electron physics; condensed utter physics; op~cics; acoustics) and plasma physics and the physics of fluids . A separate Dolce 2 deals with n ache in~cerfaces " between physics and five other disciplines - - astronomy, earth and planetary science, chemistry, biology, and instn~men~cation--exemplifying how physics pervades many other sciences as well as engineering, and is influenced rec iprocally by them as well . - A brief s'~-ary of some of ~he benefi~cs of several of the core subfields of physics follows. · 177 -

EI"EMENTARY PARTICLE PHYSICS Elementary particle physics shares with astrophysics the distinction of being the most fundamental of all the physical sciences. Together, these two disciplines deal with states of matcher in the very small (particle physics) and the very large (astrophysics), far removed from ache scale of phenomena normally encountered or utilized in engineering and techr ology or in direct applications of science to human affairs ~ such as b iology) . Partly for this reason, virtually all support far particle physics comes frogs the federal government, in con~crast with such other fief ds as condensed matter physics or atomic and molecular physics, where industry is an almost equally generous patron . Although the knowledge gained from research in particle phones ics and astrophysics is far removed from direct applications, both fields have unusually s bong interactions with engineering through the techniques and ins trends employed in research. Particle accelerators and particle detec~cors provide one of the most sophis~ctcated challenges to engineering. And, it is indeed n difficult to name a field of physics or engineering that has not made a significant contribution to the technology of particle physics. n Particle physicists, particularly the designers of accelerators and de Section and data management equipment, must constantly scan the whol e field of emerging technology to identify possibilities for extending ache capabilities of their tools. The technologies that have contra bused to ache field include massive tata processing and analysis, high-precision surveying, mechanical des ign, cryogenics, high-power electric transmission, radio - frequency engineering, electronic engineering, control systems engineering, and large-`rolume, ultsa},igh-vacuum design. Because particle physics research is constantly challenging the stance of ache art in diverse fields of engineering, it has resulted frequently in important advances useful irt other fields. Much high-,racu',~ technology Is derived from work in particle physics. The development and perfection 0 c practical superconducting magnets was the result of ache challenge of particle physics, and such magnets have, in turn, found more and more applications in irmen~men~catzon for chemistry, biology, and even ache ear ch sciences. Me de~cec~cion and sorting of extremely rare events from a mass of unwanted data has required simul~caneous massive data analysis and real- time numerical calculation that strains the capabilities of the largest computers. The earliest applications of minicomputers were to particle physics, and they helped the industry in the early phases of its "learning curve. ~ — 1/8 —

Some of the techniques used in beam control at accelerators have found applications in new electron microscope designs. The use of smaller accelerators as ~ inj echoers " for large machines has led deco continual improvements in low~energy accelerators, which have found growing number of applications in industry and medicine. And, much of the ins .r~men~cation and knowledge for radiation safety that is now applied in nuclear power and reprocessing operations and in modern medical radiology or "nuclear medicine" was developed originally for the protection of researchers working with accelerators. An impc~r~cant recent byproduct of particle physics has been ache development of high- intensity sources for synchrotron radiation. These radiation sources have become important new tools for research in condensed matter physics and even in biology.l4 Thus, there has existed a symbiosis between particle physics and sophisticated engineering that has benefited both fields. Without a strong engineering base in the electrical and instrumentation industries, particle physics could not have advanced as fast as it has, nor could research facilities have been as access Able to as wide a group of scientists. Without the challenge presented by particle physics, many new technologies could not have navigated the early phases of the learning curve necessary to bring them deco ache degree of reliability and cost-effectiveness to make them triable in a wider market . Interest In quantifying the economic benefits of particle physics as a field of scholarly research has appeared only recently. One study a~ctemp~ced to estimate the economic benefi~cs to the manufacturing industries involved in supplying equipment sad services to CERN, The European consortium for research in high-energy particle physics. ~ For some 877 million Swiss francs (MSF) spent by CENT between 19~5 and 1973, ~ total "utility" of 5, 000 MSE is estimated; o f this, more than 80 percent comes from sales to markets unrelated to high- energy or nuclear physics research . In this study, "util~i~y" is defined as the sum of increased sales and sacred costs enjoyed by ache fiats as a result of CERN contracts, as estimated by the firms ~chemselves based on in~cerviews with managers. Although interviewees may exaggerate the direct benefits of contracts, ache methodology omits other, more Subtle, indirect benefits, as pointed out by Mowery and S teinmueller . 1 NUCLEAR PHYSICS Nuclear structure physics (or low-energy nuclear physics) shares many of ache characteristics of particle physics, especially its symbiosis with sophisticated engineering. But, because nuclear structure physics is concerned with lower energies, it has more direct applications to technology. For example, nuclear physics has provided many of the techniques and some of the underlying science · i /9 -

necessary for a safe and reliable nuclear power industry. Without the data base of nuclear cross sections provided by nuclear structure physics, Ache design of shielding would be a risky art rancher than a reliable science, and the industry would have had to rely on prohib i dive ly expens ire ~ and pass fib ly dangerous ~ trial and error in many aspects of reactor des ign and engineering. A whole set of new technologies has grown up involving the use of radioisotopes, associated radiation detection equipment, and, in some cases, tow-energy accelerators in medicine, agriculture, and industry. 17 More than 100 firms are engaged in the production processing, and distribution of radioisotopes and in the sale of equipment required for the use of radioisotopes in industry and medicine. The marketing of radioisotopes alone had grown to ~ 330 million-a-year business by 1970, while related equipment and instn~ment9sales had become a several hundred million dollars - a-year bus ines s . While nuclear physics is, of course, at the heart of nuclear weapons design and she understanding of nuclear weapons effects, the focus of frontier research in nuclear structure physics has diverged more and more from such applications in recent years . Hi th ~cin~e, the interaction of nuclear phys ics with industrial technology will be increasingly via instrumentation and techniques rather than through direct transfer of fundamental concepts. lathe most important direct conceptual application of nuclear physics to other fields has been in astronomy and astrophysics, where it has been fundamental to theories of the evolution of stars, t7: origin of chemical elements, and the source of the sun' s energy. In summary, nuclear physics has fathered a considerable industry and has become ~ pervasive tool for both research and rou~cine measurement and process control in a wide ~rarie~cy of fields. ATOMIC, MOLECUIAR, AND ELECTRON PHYSICS Atomic, molecular, and electron physics (AME) form ache subfield of physics that has the most intimate connections with ache communications and electronics industries, although, to an increas ing extent, i~c has been sharing this role with condensed mulcted physics. In addition, the field interacts with technology indirec~cly through its increasing applicability to virtually all fields of chemistry, providing both basic concepts and the basis of chemical instrumentation ant techniques. Much research that would have taken place in physics departments 20 to 30 years ago now has become the province of chemistry, as the ideas and techniques applied originally to simple atoms and molecules are ex~cended to ever more complex sys t ems . Today "most of the teas ic theoretical framework for chemistry and most of the chemist's physical methods for experimental

research trace their origins to physics. "22 However, chemists, in collaboration with an entrepreneurial industry, frequently have carried these methods to a higher degree of sophistication and refinement than was dreamed of in their original use in physics. Later, biologists entered ache field where ache chemists Left off and, either directly in their laboratories or through their demands upon industry, refined the techniques and instruments even further, exemplifying ache essential role of users in the development of any widely applicable technology. The process by which phys teal techniques become incorporated into chemistry research has been described in the following terms: A characteristic patter is associated with the assimilation of any physical methods into chemistry. When the method is first discovered, a few chemists, usually physical chemists, become aware of chemical applications of the method, construct their own homemade devices, and demonstrate the utility of the new tool. At some point, commercial models of the device are put on the market. These are sometimes superior, sometimes inferior, deco the homemade machines in terms of their ultimate capabilities to provide information. However, the commercial ins torments generally are easier to use and far more reliable than Ache homemade devices. The impact of the commercial instruments is rapidly felt, is often very far-reaching, and sometimes virtually revolutionizes the field. Chemists with ache new ins~crumen~cs need not be concerned witch developing the principle of the device; they are free to devote their efforts to extracting the useful chemical information that application of the device affords This pattern characterizes ache development of optical, infrared, and radiofrequen,~ spectroscopy, mass spectrometry, and X-ray crys tallography . Somewhat the she pattern applies to such other sciences as medicine or biology An the far end of ache process, commercial instruments that find their initial market among researchers in a particular field eventually find a wider market in more routine applications for controlling or monitoring industrial processes, for monitoring patients in clinical settings, or for other operational applications outside of research, such as environmen~cal monitoring. A similar pattern can be discerned in the transfer of theoretical concepts between physics and chemistry and between the physical sciences and other fields. It is primarily the applications of quantum mechanical theory, scented and honed originally in the simpler systems that are the sub; ect matter of AME ~ that first revoluefonized chemistry, then biology and biochemistry. At the same time, AME and condensed matter physics are connected so intimately with each other that it is difficult to talk about the return on federal investments in one without mentioning the other. — 181 -

There are, however, several areas of AME that can be related .distinctly to emerging technologies or whole industries. One of the mos ~ dramatic is optical communications, dependent in the firs ~ instance on ehe laster and the emergence of quan~c~ optics. The success of this technology is, of course, dependent equally on developments in condensed matter physics and strong contributions from the chemistry of materials. Other technologies that desire fairly directly from AME include high~precision surveying using laser technology, including geophysical strain gauges that use laser interferomeery and other techniques to detect small differential earth movements in seismic areas. -Although actual earthquake prediction is still elusive, these precision measurements offer the most promising route to solution of the prob lem . Further, AME is at the basis of high-precision time and length standards, where, again, the availability of coherent radiation from lasers is key. The use of lasers for remote monitoring ,` atmospheric impurities is also an important application. Laser techniques are especially useful for detecting highly reactive species in ache atmosphere this cannot be sampled and brought back to ache laboratory for analys is . Laser spectroscopy of the atmospheres in combination with other remote sensing techniques, is still in its i nfancy, but it is growing in importance rapidly. Remote pollution mani~cor ng tr~st~entation, based largely on AME techniques, is an emerging industry. Concert. over the depletion of stratospheric ozone arising from trace constituents ire the atmosphere generated by various human activities also has protruded opportunities for the application of ANTE techniques to understanding the complex reactions that con~crot tise ozone layer. Interest in the effect of halocarbons on the stratosphere required the measurement of many new chemical reactions and atomic - co llis ion cross sections in the I.aboratory O And, monitoring of reactive species in situ in the s~cratosphere required ulerasensitive detection methods for concentration, of certain molecular species at the parsecs -per- trillion leered . 8 The study of stra~cospheric chemistry is a good example of how a fundamental capabili~cy involved originally in basic science could be mobilized rapidly deco solve ~ suddenly recognized practical problem. Without ache basic knowledge of atomic and molecular physics that had enrolled gradually over the preceding 20 deco 30 years, it would have been impossible to conduct an intelligent and cost-effecti~re evaluation of the stra~cospheric ozone depletion problem so soon after its importance was recognized. In evaluating the economic s ignificance of AME research over the years, however, it is important to consider the long lead- times involved. While laboratory discoveries sometimes find immediate application, this is the exception rather than the rule, and the - 182 -

interval be cween initial discovery and large - scale application seems to have remained surprisingly constant, near an average of 20 to 25 years. For example, the idea of ache laser was proposed in 1957$ yet the emergence of a maj or industry of optical communications based in part on laser technology is only beginning Icy occur today, although many smaller scale applications have been proliferating gradually. This is little different from the time interval between the invention of the transistor in 1947 and she emergence of a mature incus try based on integrated circuit technology ire ache mid 1970' s . The reason is, of course, the large quantity of knowledge in related areas that usually has to be accumulated before all ache pieces of a revolutionary industrials technology can be put in place. Experience suggests strongly that often this buildup of background knowledge is achieved most efficiently by scientists concerned with extending knowledge in broadly relevant areas rather than by those searching spec if ically for the needed anc illary tenknolo gies . The economy and efficiency of the development process are strongly dependent on the state of science, even when science does ~8t appear directly as an input to ache technology being developed. CONI)ENSED HATTER PHYSICS Condensed matter physics is dacha name preferred currently for a subj eat that developed under ache name of solid state physics ~ The name was changed because the field come to embrace many forums of matter other than crystals and simple solids; now it includes liquids and amorphous materials, such as glasses, for which scheme is no sharp transition from the solid Deco ache liquid state. Condensed matter physics, married in part Deco ideas and techniques from AME, has been the ultimate driving force for vir Dually all modern industrial developments in electronics and systems derived therefrom, such as computers, robots, teleco=sications equipment, and remote sensing instrumentation- - in short, for the information revolution. Table 3 illustrates the close synergy between fundamental advances in condensed matter physics and advances in technology. The table lists 16 significant advances between 1947 and 1973 and their subsequent technological applications. The Panel on Condensed Matter Physics of Ache 1972 NRC Physics Surrey Committee a~ctributed U.S. industrial success in solid stance electronics to four factors: (1) strong research programs and research competence distributed widely Among universities, industries, and government agencies, usually forming a unified "invisible college" with active in~cerchange of both people and information; (2) equally strong engineering programs, similarly distributed widely, providing a competence to adapt, modify, improve, and extend scientific results for a wide range of uses; (3) a widely diffused entrepreneurial spiri~c pervading the whole solid state electronics communi By, which made it pass ible and appropriate for — 183 —

TABLE 3 Fundamental Topics in ~ e Physics of Condensed Hatter That Have I^d to Technological Advances My Ducov~ lo Transistor effect (Schockicy, Barmen, and Brattain, 19471; diffusions cpi sexy, physics of planar configurations 2. Junction cie~:roluminescencc; physics of III-V and II-VI compounds (Hop. Held and Thomas, 1 962-1968) 3. Impuntv aspirated photoluminescencc and cathodolumincscence: infrared phosphors; control ot~matcriais achieved during World Mar lI and Tic following years 4.17,c 1escr (Towncs. Basov. and Pro- khorov. l958);Q-sw;tching~mode locking. the organic dye-tunable laser. the junction laser (Hal1 and Nathan, 1 96~) 5. Secondary emission multiplier (Zwory. kin..Morton and Halter, 1936); new high~fficicnc~ photoactcetors involving the group 111-V semiconductor surfaces 6. Superconductivity at higher transition temperatures (2ieg!er, Hulm. and Mat- thms, 1947- l 950~; high field super- conductors (Autler and Kunzler, 1960~; Josephson effect 7. Ferrorna~netic insulators (Snoelc, 1946~; development of various magnetic insula tors and semiconductors; cylindrical bub- blc domains in uniaxial single crystals 8. Physics of ternary compounds such as as mercury-cadmium telluride; man- madc adiusraoic b~n~ao semiconduc- ~ . tors (1968) - 184 Ptesen' Technological Innovations Si}icvn planar technology and largc- scale integrated circuitry ( LS I ); rela- tion of LS! to semiconductor trans- pos~ diffusion masking, niQn-f~cid transport. Computer scie~tion and control in manufacture of LSI CaA~ indicator lamps, other junction luminescent devices, panel dispi~ys, and numeric indicators Improved phosphorlu~escence and cathodoluminescence materials. Rare~srth phosphors for color tcie~tsion. Pl~ospl~ors Cleat convert in. frared to visible I~scrs and application of non}incar opt tics. Raman spent rosco py sources; tunable sources for optical insiru n~entation; new ranging and signai- ing devices; commercial as well as military a pplications; optical corn puter memories; application In A~S1;~- terials processing; metrology A ~raricty Of new quantum detectors for astrophysics and particle physics; ChanncAtron desec20rs and arrays: the x-ray intensifier for medical and other applications; other new image intensifier devices Useful superconductors: sources of high magnetic fields; ma~nctometcrs and sensing devices; eventually power distribut ion. SWit. CAT icier' and sum— conducting motors; Clarlcc galvanom. cter; logic and memory using 30seph- son jur~ctions ant superconduting tunneling; ultrasensitive cieesnAc and magnetic measuring devices Bubble memories; other new nuAgncsic core devices; magneloopti=.I dc- vices; modulation and beam switch- ing devices Variable~ap infrared sources (lasers) and detectors; ultrasensitive far inA. frared devices that bracket the spec- trum from the visible to microwa.ves ~ continued) A

TABLE 3 ~ continued) Ash D~owcries 9. Transport properties and negative dif fcrcntial conductivity in GaAs (Gunn 1 963 ); impact ionization and Si auras lanchc device ( 1 965 y . 1 O. Funclamental discoveries in polymers, crystallization, morphology. and the lice ( 1 9S7~; ideas relatinglo dc'^ccts such as dislocations 17. Fundamcntai studies of radiation dam- age beaconing with the Manhattan Project and continuing at the AEC Na tiona1 Laboratories and cisewherc over the last US years 12. Fundamental studies on strength of materials under both normal and ex tremc conditions (temperature and pressure) and on alloy phase transi- t~ons 13. ln~cstigations of structure of mem. brands: means of making various new mcmorancs 14. Fundamcnm1 studies of diffusion and ionic conductivity in new matcriais 15. Fundamental studies on dislocations. pout defects, diffusions and annealing 16. Funtamenul studies in silver halide photography, dye sensitization, and the like. GurocyMott theory of Latent image ( 1 938~; electrophotography with sulfur (CO Carison. 1937), studies of amorphous selenium Present Tech,'n~gical I,IJ'D wrens Gunr1 effect and avalanche-transit time devices as solid~state microwave sources' end higher-speed semicon° ductor devices, miniature radars, col- lision avoidance systems, and come munlcanon systems host of new materials hiring a Yari- ety of properties, new rubbers and s]~ock~rcsistant materials. low- and high-temDcraturc rubbers, high- st~cogth -composites New reactor materials. corrosion- and radiation~rcsistant cladding for Duct elements' radution-rcsistant ma- tcr:ais for space and military pun poses' improved solar cells Vanadium, zirconium, and niobium metal technology, witI, applications to reactors. to superconductors, and to high-temperature and l~igI~- strcngth materials: titanium~nct; technology for airframe construc- tion; single crystalline turbine blades Matenals for medical and b iological purposes; man-made semipermeable membranes for artificial organs and chemical separation Solid-state electroly test calcium stabi- lized zirconia, sodium~oped alumina rubidium silver iodide, and the lil;c, which provide new means for com- pact clectricai energy storage New steels and alloys. and achievement of a measure of control over defects and dislocations in metals and caroms iCSo Dislo~tion-free semiconductors Modern photographic emulsions. both blaclc lint white and color; the diffu- sion transfer process; xerography and the office copier Source: National Research Council. Physics in Perspect~,re. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1972, Volume IT, Part A, pp . 555 - 557 . - 185

technical personnel to exploit their ideas commercially; and (4) strong government support for research (particularly in its early stages ~ across a wide range of institution types, including support for the more sophis~cica5,d and challenging technological developments ~cha~c occur in incus t~ . Probab ly, all four conditions were essential deco ache U. S . success in solid state electronics. As Japan's technological strength has drawn closer to that of ache United Seates in many fields, but especially and most dramatically in the applications derived from advances in condensed matter physics, questions are being raised on the extent Icy which ache fa~rarable conditions listed above still exist in this country . Al though the United S~cates probably still leads the world in the breadth and depth of its capabilities in condensed matter physics, ache margin of advantage seems to be narrowing, and more rapid commerce al exploitation of innovations by Japan is enabling Chat country to accumulate the resources for the Next generation of innovations faster than ache United S tates is . Of course, it would be misleading to attribute the industrial leadership of the United States to condensed matter physics solely. It was ache synergism between that field and many other areas, especially engineering, chemistry, and applied mathematics, that produced much of ache Locality of the fields of application. In marry ways, Europe was on a par wi Ah the United S tares when one looks solely at tics progress in the component disciplines, yet Europe failed to achieve the some synergy among institutions, people, and disciplines that appears necessary for competitive commercial success. Frequently, the United States and, more recently, Japan have been able to build more rapidly and effectively on discoveries made in Europe than the Europeans themselves hare The teas ic knowledge underlying industrial development derived from condensed matter physics is much more fully in the public domain than is the case in such areas as chemistry or pharmaceuticals. Therefore, the country in the best position to draw on ache world pool of knowledge, in addition to its own research, often comes out ahead. For a variety of reasons, nor agreed upon widely among experts, U. S O capabilities in this respect have eroded seriously in the past decade; but, probably, Ache decline is due more to factors outside than inside science itself. Undoubtedly, American complacency about its own technological competence has led it to be less aggressive and skillful than Japan in scanning the world pool of knowledge for its own economic benefit, relying too much on its own R&D for relevant information. RETURNS FROM CHEMISTRY Chemistry is the most pervas~re of all the physical sciences in the miss ions of federal agencies and the activities of industry. Even in - 186 -

the federal agencies ~cha~c the public identifies with phys ics or engineering- - such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, ache Department of Defense, or the lDepar~cmen~c of Energy--or in industries hat are identified with physics or electrical engineering- - such as the electron) cs industry, ache electric power industry, or the computer industry--chemistry is an important part of the research activi~cy, and chemists are an important segment of Ache technical personnel. Further, chemistry is a Belittle science" par excellence. It has been characterized as an "activity of crea~ci~re individualists, ~ a "cottage industry" characterized by a "highly indi~ridualist~: and personally creative activity rather than a consensual one. n Chemistry research involves few maj or capital investments or large teem proj ects requiring collaboration among scientists of different disciplines. Because of ache small-scale, pervasive, and diffuse nature of federally sponsored chemistry research, it has been especial' y difficult to locate responsibility for the health of chemistry as a discipline in any one or small group of federal agencies. While these characteristics give chemistry a desirable flexibility in adapting quickly to new technical opportunities and in responding to emerging social problems (such as environmental pollution), they also lead Deco lack of coherent planning and stability and predictability of support. Chemistry shares this characteristic somewhat with ARE, to which much of chemistry is allied closely, as described above. One consequence of the dispersed character of chemistry support in the federal government is that it is rather small re Native to other physical sciences, especially when one considers the importance of chemistry to industry and the numbers of industrial research chemists in the prince sector. This is fllustra~ced in Table 4, which shows that federal sponsorship of chemistry research per Ph. O. scientist in industry is only 1/15 of that for physics or astronomy. Thus, unlike many of the industries identified closely witch physics research, such as the electric, electronics, semiconductor, and computer industries, the chemical industry has depended much less for its science base on government.-sponsored research. This may be somewhat less true of the pharmaceutical incus try, which has beneficed, at least indirectly, from the large- scale support of biomedical research (including biochemistry and molecular biology) by the National Institutes of Hesith. S Similarly, the agricultural chemicals industry has benefited from government-sponsored research in the agricultural. sciences, although ache actual chemicals. developed and sold are not derived from government - sponsored research ~ n the same way that. some electronic produces are derived from federal research in AME and condensed matteer physics. On the other hand, ~ higher percentage of chemists witch advanced graduate and posedoc~coral training is employed by the chemical industry than is the case for industrial employment. in any other of the physical sciences. Me sales of the U. S e chemical industry amount to $175 to $180 billion annually, with a favorable balance of 187 -

TAB! F 4 Federa1 Obligations for Basic Research tn the Physical Sciences, 1973 and 1983 Chemlstry Current S ~FY 1973 s)a Physics Current S FY 1973 l;)a Astronomy Cu~ent S FY 19?3 s)a (13 FY 1973 (2) EY t983 S146M (l.6M, 33495f (162.51) S351.~ (351. S90 5 `51 ( 4 ~ L . 5122.U (122.st S3~9M ~1.6M) f3) Scientist~ employed by industry 86.600 22.400 ~ 1980} 4, Number Ph.Ds (19B3) 1700 830 100 3iIndustry scient~" `2)~3' 34.0K So' 3K SJPh.D. t2)~4) S205K SlO9OK 5380K ~ 8ased on G.~SP teflator. s" Science Indicato". 1980. Source. Committee ~co Survey Opportunities in the Chemical Sciences opDortuni ~ies in Chemisery. Washington, ])C: National Academy Press, 1985, p. 2gl. 0 l: 88 -

trade of $10 to $12 billion. 3S By and large, the competitive position of the chemical industry has suffered less erosion than any other U. S . high- technology industry, although this performance has come at the price of cons iderable restructuring and shedding of unprofitable commodity chemical businesses. Unlike many ocher industries, the U.S. chemical industry has been more successful in restruc~curing i~cself in response to changing world Markets than the corresponding industries of either Europe or Japan. The close symbios is between chemical innova~cion in incus cry and fundamental research. in ~Iqemis~cry is illustrated by an NRC study conducted in the 1960' s ~ The Committee for the Survey of Chemistry examined all the footnotes in publications announcing some 40 " inventions or practical discoveries in chemistry" since 1946, totaling some 7SO footnotes. For industrial inventions, 67 percent of the citations were to fundamental j ournals; for pharmaceutical inventions, 87 percent of the citations were also to fundamental j ournals. Moreover, for the citations related to industrial inventions, 65 percent originated in university laboratories, while for pharmaceutical inventions, 5 6 percent originated in univers ivies . In each case, most of the remaining citations were from industrial laboratories . S ince more than 75 percent of academic chemistry research was supported by the federal government during much of this period, the figures can be taken as representative of the industrial benefits of goverr~ent-s?onsored chemical research in universities. Perhaps one reason that the chemical industry has benefited so greatly from university research is that the industry itself has maintained a large internal commi dens to teas ic research- -nearly one third of all the basic research expenditures of U; S. industry. Its large commitment to basic research has facilitated ache easy movement of results and people between industry and academia. Moreover, the total commitment of the industry to R&D accounts for 91 percent of all the funds spent for chemical RITE in industry, with only 9 percent coming from the federal go~rers~ment. 8 Lois is in sharp contrast with other areas of the physical sciences. Indeed, it seems true that chemistry has provided one of the principal routes by which ache results of all the physical sciences have found their way into industrial application. lye debt of industry to the chemical sciences is matched by the debt of ache chemical sciences Deco the other physical sciences, particularly through the vehicle of physical instrumentation, but also through the elaboration and refinement of concepts devised originally in physics for simpler and more idealized phys ical sys tems . CONCLUSION The symbiosis between chemistry and physics could be matched by similar examples of symbiosis in the earth sciences, the biomedical sciences, and, to an increasing degree, the agricultural sciences. - 189 -

The benefits of chemistry flow both ways--into derivative sciences and engineering closer to societal applications and back into more fundamental sciences, such as physics. In turn, physicists often could not obtain reproducible and reliable results without the well-controlled materials provided by the chemist. But, by the same token, the indirectness of the route from science to ultimate application makes it hard to trace, and even harder to quantify the benefits in economic teems. Where are dangers in basing policy on simplistic notions of direct economic payoff from specific areas of research because the origins of applications are buried so deeply within the whole context of science. Often, rediscovering them would require almost as much research as was involved in the original science. - 190 -

REFERENCES 1. L. L. Lede~man, R. Lehming, and J. S. Bond. "Research Policies and Strategies in Six Countries: A Comparative Analysis, n Science and Public Policy, ~lo! . 13 9 No . 2 (April 1986 ), pp . 67 - 76 . See, especially, Table 1, p . 69 . Harvey Brooks. "Science Policy and Commercial Innova~cion, ~ The Bridge, ~ Seer 19 85 ), pp . 7 - 13 . Harvey Brooks. "National Science Policy and Technological Innovation. ~ In The Posicive-Su~ Scraregy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. Edited by Ralph Landau and Sa than Rosenberg . Washington, DC: Nations 1 Academy Press, 19 8 6, pp . 119 - 168 . 4. Bruce L. R. Smith. "The Concept of Scientific Choice: A Brief Review of the L~cerature," American Behavioral Sciencise, (May 1966 ), pp . 27 - 35 . 3. Ronayne. Science in Government: A Retried of Eke Principles and Practice of Science Policy. London and Baltimore: Edward Age-old (Publishers ~ Led., 1984 . See, especially, Chapter 3, "me Uneasy Alliance, ~ UP. 70-101. Harvey Brooks O ~ Can Science be Planned? " Prepared for the Organize on for Economic Cooperation and Development Conference on Science Policy, Jouy-en-Josas, France, February 21- 25, 1966 . Republished in Harvey Brooks. The Government of Science. Cambridge, MA: HIT Press, 1968, pp. 54-80. 7. Harvey Brooks. "Hodels for Science Planning, ~ Public Administration Review, (Hay/June 1971), pp . 364- 374. 8 O Phys ics Survey Commi thee . Physics in Perspec five: Recommendations and Program Emphases. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1972. See Chapter 2, "Priorities and Program Emphases, ~ especially pp. 49-SO and Figure 1, p. 53. 9. Harvey Brooks . clue Dynamics of Fading, Enrollments, Curriculum, and Employment." In Phyrsics Careers, Employment and Education. Edited by Mar~cin L. PerI. AlP Conference Proceedings N,~mber 39. New York: American Institute of Physics, 1978, p. 97. 10. Committee on Research in the Life Sciences. The Life Sciences. Washington, DC: Na~cional Academy of Sciences, 1970, p. 230. - L91

il . Phys ics hey Commit bee . Physics in Perspec rive ~ . Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1972, Volume II, Pare A. 12. Ibid., Dolce IT, Part B. 13. Ibid., Volume II, Part A, p. 730 14. Ibid., p. 88. 15 . Hetwig Schmied. "A S Judy of Economic Utility Resulting from CENT Contracts, ~ IE£:E Transaccions on Engineering Management, VoL. Elf- 24, No . 4 (November 1977 ~ . 16. David C. Mowery and W. Edward S~cein~ueller. "Economic Payoffs from Basic Research: An Examination of High Energy Physics." Research proposal, Department of Social Sciences, Carnegie-Mellon University, and Center for Economic Policy Research, Stanford University, February 5, 1986. .. Physics in Perspective, op. cit., Volume IT, Part A, p. 234. 18. Ibid., pp. 231-246. 19 . Ib id., p . 946 . 20 . Ib id ., pp . 248 - 25 2 . 21. Ibido' ppe 2S3-258. 22. Ibid., Volume IT, Part B. p. 1014. 23. Ibid., p. 1015. 24 . Ib id ~ , Vo fume II, Part A, pp . 443 - 444 . 25. Ibid., p. 439. 26. Ibid., p. 418. 27. Committee deco Survey Opportunities in the Chemical Sciences. Opportunities in Themes try. Washington, OC: National Academy Press, 1985, p. 197. 28. Ibid., p. 201. 29. Physics in Perspective, op. civic., Volume II, Part A, p. 462. 30. Ibid., p. 463. 31. Ibid., pp . 5S5 - SS7 . — 192

Ibid., p. 526. 33. Harvey Brooks. "Technology as a Factor in U. S. Competitiveness . '' In U. S . Comperi Naiveness in the ford d Economy. Edited by Bruce R. Scotch and George C. Lodge. : Harvard Business School Press, 1985' Bos ton, MA pp. 328~356. See also K. I:nai and Ao Sak~a. "An Analysis of Japan-U. S O Semiconducto-r Friction, n Economic Eye, a Quarterly Digest of Views from Japan, Vol. 4(June 1983), pp. 13-18. 34. Opporrunic~es in Chemistry, op. cite., 3S. Ibid., p. 209. pp. 291-293. 36. Joseph L. Bower. "Restructuring Petrochemicals: A Comparative Study of Business arid Goverr~ent Strategy to Deal Witch a Declining Sector of ache Economy. n In U.S. Competitiveness in the fort d Economy. Edited by Bruce R. Scott and George C . Lodge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 198S, pp. 263 ~ 300. 37. Committee for the Survey of Chemistry. Chemistry: Opportuni ti es and Needs . Washington , DC: National Research Council, 1965, p. 3, p. 41, and Appendix B. 38. Opportunities in Chemistry, op. cit., pp. 327-328. - 193

Next: Biomedical Research and Development: Measuring the Returns on Investment »
Papers Commissioned for a Workshop on the Federal Role in Research and Development Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $95.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!