Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dr. Bush Fathers a Foundation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Doomsday Lobby

  • 617 Accesses

Abstract

World War I, with its poison gases, had been the chemists’ war; World War II, with its radar and atom bombs, would become known as the physicists’ war. And as Paul Forman of the Smithsonian Institution has quoted physicist Jerrold Zacharias, “World War II was in many ways a watershed for American science and scientists. It changed the nature of what it means to do science and radically altered the relationship between science and government.”1

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Paul Forman, “Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940–1960,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, Vol. 18 (1987), p. 152.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Milton Lomask, A Minor Miracle: An Informal History of the National Science Foundation (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1975), p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford, pp. 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Simon Rottenberg, “The Economy of Science: The Proper Role of Government in the Growth of Science,” Minerva, Vol. 19, No. 1 (March 1981), p. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Merton England, A Patron for Pure Science: The National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945–1957 (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1983), p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Forman, “Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940–1960,”p. 157.

    Google Scholar 

  7. A. Hunter Dupree, “The Great Instauration of 1940: The Organization of Scientific Research for the War,” in The Twentieth-Century Sciences: Studies in the Biography of Ideas, edited by Gerald Holton (New York: W.W. Norton, 1972), p. 457.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibid., p. 462.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Daniel J. Kevles, “The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy, 1942–1945: A Political Interpretation of Science — The Endless Frontier,” Isis, Vol. 68, No. 1 (March 1977), p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Vannevar Bush, Science — The Endless Frontier (Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1960/1945), p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  11. G. Paschal Zachary, Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century (New York: Free Press, 1997), pp. 218–19.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Alan T. Waterman, “Introduction,” Science — The Endless Frontier, p. vii.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bush, Science — The Endless Frontier, pp. 3–4.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Waterman, “Introduction,” Science — The Endless Frontier, p. vii.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bush, Science — The Endless Frontier, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ibid., pp. 5, 8.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ibid., 31.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ibid., p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ibid., p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ibid., p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Waterman, “Introduction,” Science — The Endless Frontier, p. vii.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Bush, Science — The Endless Frontier, p. 32.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ibid., p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zachary, Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century, pp. 221–22, 224.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bush, Science — The Endless Frontier, p. 74.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ibid., pp. 83–84, 77–78.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Quoted in Kevles, “The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy, 1942–1945: A Political Interpretation of Science — The Endless Frontier,” p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bush, Science — The Endless Frontier, pp. 91–92.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ibid., p. 75.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ibid., pp. 96, 93–94.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Zachary, Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century, pp. 4, 295.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bush, Science — The Endless Frontier, p. 115.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ibid., p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zachary, Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century, pp. 232–33.

    Google Scholar 

  35. The Politics of American Science: 1939 to the Present, edited by James L. Penick Jr, Carroll W. Pursell Jr., Morgan B. Sherwood, and Donald C. Swain (Chicago: Rand McNally & Co., 1965), p. 35.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Quoted in Kevles, “The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy, 1942–1945: A Political Interpretation of Science — The Endless Frontier,” p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  37. The Politics of American Science: 1939 to the Present, pp. 42–44.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Waldemar Kaempffert, “Horizons of Science,” The American Mercury (October 1943), p. 441–47.

    Google Scholar 

  39. American Association of Scientific Workers collection, http://library.temple.edu/collections.

  40. L.A. Hawkins, “Regimentation of Science,” Electrical World (June 26, 1943), pp. 45–47.

    Google Scholar 

  41. “A National Science Program,” The New Republic (July 30, 1945), p. 116.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bush, Science — The Endless Frontier, pp. 85–86.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kevles, “The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy, 1942–1945: A Political Interpretation of Science — The Endless Frontier,” p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  44. The Politics of American Science: 1939 to the Present, pp. 54, 57.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Zachary, Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century, pp. 252–53.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Kevles, “The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy, 1942–1945: A Political Interpretation of Science — The Endless Frontier,” p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zachary, Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century, pp. 252, 328.

    Google Scholar 

  48. The Politics of American Science: 1939 to the Present, pp. 87–88.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Quoted in ibid., p. 82.

    Google Scholar 

  50. James D. Savage, Funding Science in America: Congress, Universities, and the Politics of the Academic Pork Barrel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 36.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Oliver E. Buckley, Frank Baldwin Jewett 1879–1949 (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1952), p. 244.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Science in America: Historical Selections, edited by John C. Burnham (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971), p. 398.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Lomask, A Minor Miracle: An Informal History of the National Science Foundation, p. 46.

    Google Scholar 

  54. “Testimony of Dr. Frank B. Jewett,” Hearings on Science Legislation S. 1297 and Related Bills, U.S. Senate Committee on Military Affairs, Subcommittee on War Mobilization, Washington, DC, pp. 427–47, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Quoted in The Politics of American Science: 1939 to the Present, pp. 85–86.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Quoted in Lomask, A Minor Miracle: An Informal History of the National Science Foundation, p. 48.

    Google Scholar 

  57. England, A Patron for Pure Science: The National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945–1957, pp. 29, 25, 10.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Lomask, A Minor Miracle: An Informal History of the National Science Foundation, p. 56.

    Google Scholar 

  59. England, A Patron for Pure Science: The National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945–1957, pp. 78, 59, 48.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Quoted in ibid., p. 96.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Quoted in ibid., pp. 36, 45–46.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Quoted in ibid., p. 381.

    Google Scholar 

  63. John R. Baker, Science and the Planned State (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1945), pp. 9, 15, 48.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Quoted in ibid., pp. 11, 16.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ibid., p. 41.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Martino, Science Funding: Politics and Porkbarrel, p. 229.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Lance E. Davis and Daniel J. Kevles, “The National Research Fund: A Case Study in the Industrial Support of Academic Science,” Minerva, Vol. 12 (April 1974), p. 220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Ellis W. Hawley, “Herbert Hoover, the Commerce Secretariat, and the Vision of an ‘Associative State,’ 1921–1928,” Journal of American History, Vol. 61, No. 1 (June 1974), p. 117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Ibid., pp. 120, 119.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Herbert Hoover, “The Nation and Science,” Science, Vol. 65, No. 1672 (January 14, 1927), pp. 26–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Davis and Kevles, “The National Research Fund: A Case Study in the Industrial Support of Academic Science,” pp. 210–11.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Hoover, “The Nation and Science,” p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Davis and Kevles, “The National Research Fund: A Case Study in the Industrial Support of Academic Science,” p. 214.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Ibid., pp. 217, 219.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Lankford and Slavings, “The Industrialization of American Astronomy, 1880–1940,” p. 40.

    Google Scholar 

  76. England, A Patron for Pure Science: The National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945–1957, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Lomask, A Minor Miracle: An Informal History of the National Science Foundation, p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  78. England, A Patron for Pure Science: The National Science Foundation’s Formative Years, 1945–1957, p. 347.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Lomask, A Minor Miracle: An Informal History of the National Science Foundation, pp. 33, ix.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Zachary, Endless Frontier: Vannevar Bush, Engineer of the American Century, pp. 369–70.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Forman, “Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940–1960,” p. 157.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Quoted in ibid., p. 149.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Quoted in ibid., p. 181.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Ibid., pp. 8, 14.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Chandra Mukerji, A Fragile Power: Scientists and the State (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), p. x.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ibid., pp. 4, 6, 104.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Roger L. Geiger, Knowledge & Money: Research Universities and the Paradox of the Marketplace (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004), p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Ibid., p. 136.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Mukerji, A Fragile Power: Scientists and the State, pp. 7–8.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Dan Kevles, “Cold War and Hot Physics: Science, Security, and the American State, 1945–56,” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, Vol. 20, No. 2 (1990), pp. 250, 263.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Frank B. Jewett, “The Future of Scientific Research in the Postwar World,” in Science in America: Historical Selections, pp. 399–413, passim.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Quoted in Forman, “Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940–1960,” p. 186. Eventually, some scholars dared to peer into the science pork barrel. James D. Savage, who had studied academic earmarking for the Congressional Research Service in the early 1990s, wrote in 1999, “Sixty percent of academic research is funded by the federal government,” and while peer or merit review, the preferred methods for allocating such dollars, have their own problems — namely, favoritism and a tendency to support those with conventional views over scientific rebels — academic earmarking by members of Congress brings to science all the elegance and subtlety of the political pork barrel. Yet peer review does indeed favor elite institutions and can be just as ridden with good old boy networks as a Chicago road-building appropriation. As Savage explains the critique, “Peer review, it is claimed, is an old boys’ network that helps the rich get richer. It rewards the same old schools, the same old scientists, and the same old science, and thereby denies funding for new and innovative research efforts for scientists other than the privileged few.” Savage, Funding Science in America: Congress, Universities, and the Politics of the Academic Pork Barrel, pp. 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Farewell Radio and Television Address to the American People,” January 17, 1961, The American Presidency Project, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws.

  95. McDougall, “Technocracy and Statecraft in the Space Age — Toward the History of a Saltation,” p. 1032.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Quoted in Forman, “Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940–1960,” p. 226.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Jerome B. Wiesner, Where Science and Politics Meet (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965), pp. 13, 17.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Quoted in Forman, “Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940–1960,” p. 166.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Wiesner, Where Science and Politics Meet, p. 43.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Quoted in Martino, Science Funding: Politics and Porkbarrel, p. 85.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Ibid., p. 88. In the early 1980s, a lawsuit by California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) shed an interesting light on the question of how government-subsidized research advantages some and disadvantages others. The CRLA, acting on behalf of nineteen farm workers, filed suit against the University of California, charging that the UC had subsidized agricultural research with a “basic policy goal” of developing “machines and other related technology in order to reduce to the greatest extent possible, the use of labor as a means of agricultural production.” In other words, the activists alleged that the state was subsidizing mechanization and the consequent elimination of manual labor farm jobs, especially for those who aided in the planting and harvesting of tomatoes, grapes, oranges, peaches, and lettuce. Not being of a particularly libertarian bent, the CRLA did not merely demand that the state refrain from subsidizing mechanized agriculture; instead, it requested that the University of California set up a retraining fund for such workers, to be paid out of a fund which would be capitalized by licensing and royalty payments from the inventions of its researchers. Whether or not this mechanization was a good or bad thing is not the point here. Philip L. Martin and Alan L. Olmstead, professors of agriculture at the University of California-Davis, argued in Science that “Mechanization reduces the arduous nature of harvest work and permits remaining farm workers to operate equipment and sort commodities for longer periods,” while critics claim that it pushes farm workers out of productive outdoor employment and onto the unemployment or welfare rolls. Wherever the truth lies, it is unarguable that publicly funded — as distinguished, crucially, from privately funded — mechanization research is a putatively “neutral” state intervention in applied science whose consequences are anything but neutral. In fact, these interventions privilege certain actors and harm others. Even in a relatively uncontroversial field such as agricultural research, state-subsidized science has broad ramifications. Whether or not one thinks that the applied research is a boon to the agricultural economy, it is anything but “neutral.” See Philip L. Martin and Alan L. Olmstead, ‘The Agricultural Mechanization Controversy,” Science, Vol. 227, No. 1687 (February 8, 1985), pp. 601–606.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Quoted in Martino, Science Funding: Politics and Porkbarrel, p. 372.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Quoted in Rottenberg, “The Economy of Science: The Proper Role of Government in the Growth of Science,”p. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Randolph E. Schmid, “Obama Promises Major Investment in Science,” Associated Press, April 27, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Jeffrey Mervis, “A $3 Billion Bonanza for NSF?” Science Insider, January 16, 2009, http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider.

  106. Martino, Science Funding: Politics and Porkbarrel, p. 301.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    James T. Bennett

Authors
  1. James T. Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James T. Bennett .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Bennett, J.T. (2010). Dr. Bush Fathers a Foundation. In: The Doomsday Lobby. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6685-8_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6685-8_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-6684-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-6685-8

  • eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation