Report had been commissioned by Franklin Roosevelt and called for Government Support of science in the future. Up next, Peter Strohschneider reexamines Vannevar Bush ideas on the relationship between government and science. Of the endlessd frontier, truth and power in the age of populism, the talk is followed by a panel discussion. At university of california berkeley and the German Historical Institute cohosted this 90 minute event. Good afternoon. Report entitled science the endless frontier is probably one of the most influential science policy papers ever written, not the least so because of its metaphor of the frontier. It has a dramatic prehistory as well. Twoates back to world war and the director of the office of Scientific Research and Development Area during that time he was tasked with organizing and coordinating Scientific Research to further the u. S. War effort. It proved to be as get he skipped he proved to be a Skillful Research administrator. The Manhattan Project was overseen by his organization. However, this was only the tip of the iceberg. Bush did not content himself with engaging nuclear scientist. He went on to build up science at large for sciences wartime engagement. Among other things, he organized the development of antiaircraft rocketry, antibiotics such as penicillin which reduced the death rate among american soldiers due to diseases. This by aseness of on between the sciences and the military complex presupposed an extensive Institutional Innovation institutionalization of research therefore unseen and the u. S. History. That manheim explains before world war ii just a dozen universities in the entire United States spent more than 1 million for all oncampus research. War, 3ast, during the billion was spent on equipment and research alone. The Massachusetts Institute of Development Radar laboratory had 4000 staff, the Manhattan Project was more costly than the entire u. S. Automobile industry. At its height in employed half a million people. Period,back at that today, what most people are interested in is how science affected the war. No less interesting question is how the war affected science. In the aftermath of this lies on, and entire Industrial Complex arose that made the u. S. The leading nation of military technology. Thanks to Vannevar Bush, the idea of basic research was institutionalized. It is important to see that in this regard, a sick research at the universities is complementary to applied research in the military sector. The logic of this constellation serves as the basis for bushs report, science, the endless frontier. Before this logic was made explicit, the question was what to do with the Scientific Infrastructure else up during wartime. President roosevelt addressed this issue in a letter to bush, saying there is no reason why the lesson to be found in this experiment cannot be profitably employed in times of peace. Roosevelt continued that scientific potential should be used in the days of peace for the improvement of the national health, the creation of new enterprises bringing new jobs and the betterment of the National Standard of living. It is easy to understand why roosevelt appreciating the role of science and in particular the organization of science as he did, why roosevelt sought to further the impact of science. Continued to invest in the Research System under the assumption of worthwhile outcomes. This is where science, the endless frontier comes into play as a recommendation of how to build up the Research System that is not only funded by the government, but is also highly effective when it comes to enabling Better Living conditions. It must be said that bush was clever enough to realize what such a task demands. , being taskede with drawing up a blueprint for the funding and organization of nationwide Research System might appear appealing. The more correct word is daunting. Donald stokes explains, by the. By the period between world wars, there was active hostility on the part of the Scientific Community to the acceptance of federal support stemming from on ease about the control that such support might bring. Letter to bush toailed a two fold job design a plan that would gain the support of the Scientific Community, but one that would also be politically acceptable by promising to contribute to the nations welfare. A job not only challenging but contradictory. Thetokes points out, Scientific Community was determined that if this wartime flow of resources continued, but direct governmental control over research should be drastically cut back. At the same time, roosevelt asked for the betterment of the standard of living, and this as Vannevar Bush rightly saw, was not always the primary goal of research. Rather, they may follow their intrinsic curiosity and the outcome of such inquiry is secondary. Consequently, bush employed a logic of Research Policy that he surely did not invent, but of which he became its most popular voice. Calledition has been dated utilitarianism. This logic of postdated utility utilitarianism referring to a research who the industrial labs of General Motors from 1920 to 1957 during on being asked the difference between pure science and industrial science, he responded, the difference is 20 years. This idea is reflected in bushs report as follows basic research is performed without thought of practical benefits. It results in general knowledge and an understanding of nature and its laws. This general knowledge provides a large number of important practical problems, though it may not give a complete specific answer to anyone of them. The function of applied research is to provide such complete answers. New products and new processes do not appear full grown, they are founded on new principles and new conceptions which in turn are painstakingly developed by research in science. Today, it is truer than ever that basic research is the pacemaker of technological process. This is the narrative of Research Universities like that we are hosted at this afternoon. Of thetill at the core narrative of these institutions. It is clear that bush employs the logic of post dated utilitarianism or what is tantamount, the linear concept, the assumption that this that the discoveries made by research will automatically turn into technologically, medical, or social progress. , the bushassumption report can be see as an ,ndorsement of basic research as a defense of the freedom of researchers to choose their Research Topics independently. As he said himself, quote, we must remove the rigid controls which we have to impose and recover freedom of inquiry and that healthy competitive spirit so necessary for expansion of the frontiers of scientific knowledge. That aupposing difference between basic research and its application is not ultimate, but merely temporal, bush seems to be able to satisfy both the scientific cause for freedom of inquiry, and the social political need for accountability and public spending. Skepticism,axpayers bush was quick to point out the fruits of such spending, saying, quote, the pioneer spirit is still vigorous within this nation. Science offers a large on them a large, unexplored hinterland for the pioneer. The rewards of such exploration, both for the nation and the individual are great scientific is one essential key to our security as a nation, to better health, two more jobs, to a higher standard of living. The cultural progress is the only notion bush added to the president s letter. Tools that bush uses for this task . Are they truly beneficial to the Science Community and to society as large as he claimed . Public balance between interest and the economist logic of research go hand in hand over the long term the way bush or are there inconsistencies hidden beneath the surface of such claims that bush does not address when confronting straightforwardly what wouldve been a better strategy . We have to ask ourselves if the concept of postdated utilitarianism touches on concerns that have lain dormant for decades but which are now resurfacing due to the recent upsurge of antiintellectualism. It amounts to the question of whether research and Research Managers following the bush narrative have contributed to and nourished antiscientific skepticism long before political movements discovered that topic for themselves. If so, what can we do better . If the freedom of research is of value in itself that cannot be measured, at least not in any linear sense, then defending it means involve strategy. A realistic strategy for both society and researchers that fosters an open exchange of arguments instead of concealing them by a powerful but insensitive narrative and metaphor. We can discern at least two when reflecting on the feasibility of the bush report in regard to a relationship between the Scientific Community and society as a large. Thee issues are threatening unwritten contract between science and society, and they are taking on increasing actuality with the potential to destroy the very preconditions of research themselves. Those are your responsibility and exaggerated promises those are your responsibility esponsibility and exaggerated promises. The argumentation bush employs provided a brilliant rationale for public spending with little public accountability. Politicians delivered taxpayer scientists, but only scientists could evaluate the research they were doing. This refersmatters to is the idea that the freedom of inquiry is only justified if researchers and those peers who review the researchers work are responsible, visavis the rest scientific the Scientific Community at large. Follow theld not modest proposal to further this responsibility and to save thence by newly aligning entire Research System to the military complex, i agree with him that is that it is important that researchers take the responsibility seriously with regard to scientific approaches to generating new knowledge. It alternately means practicing good science and safeguarding good scientific practice. This includes taking a stand against issues of fraud that plague modern science, such as the fabrication of results, false claims of hasty ways of conducting research, and the replication crisis. Thes not surprising that author draws attention to a survey of researchers from a nature journal in 2016 which shows that 80 or more believe that scientific practice is being undermined by such factors as selective reporting of data, publication, poor statistical analysis, insufficient attention to replication, and inadequate peerreviewed. In theour colleagues sciences have these assumptions. The Research Community has established standards for itself regarding how research should be conducted. The standards must not only be reviewed on a continued basis, they must also be safeguarded. Formertails establishing guidelines and procedures for handling allegations of fraud at the same time, these efforts to protect Research Centers are being set into place. Are individual black sheep who abuse these efforts by engaging in dubious practices, whistleblowing serves as a means of reporting scientific fraud. Limiting a whistleblowers this anonymity can be misused for personal motives leading to andnuating insinuations denunciations, hence it may constitute a form of scientific misconduct. I could elaborate on some drastic examples of this in the discussion. There are numerous examples and symptoms of dysfunctionalitys with in the Research System. To some degrees they may be systemic, but at the same time personal ethics, into play. Losing the trustworthiness of researchers threatens Public Acceptance of the freedom of inquiry, what is at stake is nothing less than the credibility of the Research System as a whole. A trust crisis. This is one of the aspects i would allude to. The other is exaggerated promises. In understanding the role of trust and research and the fact that trustworthiness of those involved plays an integral art in the relation between science and society, another aspect becomes equally important. In the researchers moral code of conduct, researchers are called upon to be honest in expressing the extent to which science can help find truth. It is not helpful to exaggerate or raise expectations that cannot be met. The desire to do so is all too understandable. Societies expectations of society of science and research are expanding rapidly, the trust put in them are not. The pressure grows to prove the direct impact of scientific invested funds. Science response to this with promises of immediate practical benefits, from the creation of jobs to the defeat of diseases. Vannevar bush sends his regards. Spiral of into a impactmanship between requirements and impact does not this spiral strengthen societies trust in research as it threatens to ruin it. Surprisingfore not understandingnear of the relation between research and its application has been contradicted several times, perhaps most forcefully and a 1967 department of defense study entitled project inside, which concluded that military improvements are largely unconnected to insights from basic research. To put it bluntly, making promises that cannot be kept , trusts credibility gaps credibility and eventually faith in knowledge can only be gained if we also talk about the limit of knowledge claims and the uncertainties of knowledge claims. This is something that the author of science, the endless frontier, something the author Vannevar Bush neglected to address at the expense of the system that he wanted to build up. Irresponsible research, and exaggerated promises, and unrealistic expectations, these examples are symptoms of dysfunctionalitys with in the Research System and they threaten a healthy relationship between science and society. This becomes all the more dramatic today as we recognize an increasing tendency of politicians to provide easy answers to difficult questions in order to win the popular vote. This also threatens a healthy relationship from the outside of the Research System. These politicians take science and research as an object of insinuation. They spread this trust toward the experts while deliberately hindering an open exchange of arguments, which has been the standard in liberal societies. It is the inversion of what the Frankfurt School called the dialectics of enlightenment, namely that sound arguments of educated people lead to resentments against argumentation and against a decent quality of reasoning. For the sake of the argument, lets refer to people who invert this dialectic as populists. Their simplifications promised to get rid of the complex cities of modern life. They try to incriminate any kind or theve discourse need of feeding their claims with reason. What they leave behind is the. Rder of alternative facts ofsuch an order, validity utterances does not derive from truth claims, but from power. The problem with alternative facts is not that others interpret information differently than i do. This is the truism of modern society. Nor is a problem that politicians war against the media would have secured the distinction between truth and lies. To the contrary. This distinction of truth and lies is always presupposed. Otherwise, the talk of fake news would be impossible. The idea of a posttruth era is therefore misleading. It is dangerous, it makes something delivered of look natural, more so, it does not disclose the fact that terms like fake news and alternative facts are causing a substantial political shift instead of referring to an objective world as a legitimate source of definesnding, populism the reference to power as the only legitimate source of understanding. That those who follow their claim of power are truth teller, those who will not are liars. Truth becomes a function of power. What oneto this, cannot simply inverse this logic. Power must not become a function of truth. Crackould be the sign to the sciencetocratic fallacy. Extensively in books like the 2016 volume, the war on science. This approach is not the right answer to the shift in the relation of truth and power. Pluralisticces are in themselves, they do not generateertainty, but methodologically reliably knowledge. The science academies tell us what the case is and what that means, they cannot tell us what the case should be. , there of this distinction confusescraitic unambiguous facts with ambivalent political consequences. It forgets that what is evident for me is by no means evident for everybody. Most importantly, it does not see the sign the sciencetocratcic response to the pluralism and does not see that political power is legitimated not through truth but through majorities and the constitution. These tendencies are mirroring the antiplurality of populists. Ofinst the populist menace the conditions of truth ratictation, the scienceoc position provides no remedy. For if andight only if they do not miss apprehend themselves to hold the truth exclusively in their hands. Only as explorers of rational, methodologically crafted truth can they encounter pluralities. Knowledge is open to revision. How should we otherwise think of intellectual and scientific progress . Research