What do you think?
Rate this book
Science the Endless Frontier
Original U.S. Government A report to the President by Vannevar Bush, the Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, in response to a request by Franklin D. Roosevelt. 184 pp.
Perfect Paperback
First published December 18, 1999
15 people are currently reading
432 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
August 5, 2017
"Science: The Endless Frontier" is a landmark in the history of American science because it launched the National Science Foundation. At FDR's request, Vannevar Bush wrote this report to lay out how science would be funded in the US after WWII. Bush's career - entrepreneur, dean of MIT, president of the Carnegie Institute, and head of the wartime Office of Science Research and Development - afforded him a rare perspective on how things get done in science. So in 1945, he assembled a group of eminent scientific researchers and administrators to lay out his vision for how to keep American science moving forward.
At the core of Bush's philosophy is the idea that basic (as opposed to applied) research is the key to scientific progress. Quotes like "applied research invariably drives out pure" are sprinkled throughout the book. He constantly emphasizes that:
> in order to be fruitful, scientific research must be free — free from the influence of pressure groups, free from the necessity of producing immediate practical results, free from dictation by any central board
There's not a lot of evidence backing up this important claim - it's just taken as a given. And yet, I am not entirely convinced. For one, this is clearly a self-serving argument. As the Committee (full of research scientists) recommends, "unrestricted grants... would be the most valuable and productive form in which Government support could be given." Yes, please! Just put the money in the bag. Thank you kindly sir, now begone! How do I get in on this deal?
Secondly, I don't understand why applied / mission-oriented science should be a less efficient engine for generating significant advances in our scientific understanding. Any big, hairy, audacious goal (like putting a man on the moon or sequencing the human genome) requires inventing solutions to lots of problems and "unknown unknowns" that aren't clear at the beginning of the project. Sarewitz's "Saving Science" influenced my thinking on this question and I have yet to come across a compelling counterargument in support of the primacy of basic research. Bush constantly states how important basic research is as an input to the science -> social utility pipeline, but this is such a complex system that I don't see how he could possibly have any way of testing this assertion.
Finally, another danger of Vannevar's focus on funding "influence-free" basic research is that it distances the scientific community from the general public. If the money is coming from the government with no strings attached, the scientific community has a significantly reduced incentive to communicate with the public - a dynamic discussed at length in Shawn Otto's "The War on Science".
But enough criticism of basic research - there are other elements of Bush's report that warrant some commentary.
The rhetorical framing of the report is notable. As Bush declaims, "scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress." The primacy of national security is an indication that this is technically a military report. The phrase "one essential key" Bush's attempt to build general non-scientist support for his plan. As he repeatedly emphasizes, "science can be effective in the national welfare only as a member of a team." He also gives the politicians some ammunition with some Frederick-Jackson-Turner-esque dreams of the frontier:
> The pioneer spirit is still vigorous within this Nation. Science offers a largely unexplored hinterland for the pioneer who has the tools for his task
The inclusion of "more jobs" is a telltale sign that this report was written in the 40's. Bush states that "clearly, more and better scientific research is one essential to the achievement of our goal of full employment." In fact, it is quite unclear to me that scientific understanding and full employment go in the same direction. In a highly automated, winner-take all digital global economy... not sure that Bush's original employment arguments hold water anymore. But the good news is that the entire section about "how do we store and organize all this data?!" is completely obviated by the Internet, so at least there's that.
Bush most captured my attention when he discussed the importance of training new scientists and nurturing the best minds. He says, "the most important single factor in scientific and technical work is the quality of personnel employed" and he devotes much thought to funding the academic talent and leadership pipeline. I was surprised to learn that National Science Foundation fellowships come along with an obligation to be "enrolled in a National Science Reserve and be liable to call into the service of the Government, in connection with scientific or technical work in time of war or other national emergency." Old Vannevar also won some points by drawing a roadmap for undergrad-driven commercialization of science (which was exactly my experience in bringing SilviaTerra out of a lab at the Yale School of Forestry):
> New types of industrial activity could be aided if students of engineering and science were strongly encouraged at the undergraduate stage to study unsolved technical problems and to invent solutions for them. On graduation those young men who wish to strike out for themselves should have the opportunity to complete their inventions, both theoretically and practically, in an actual enterprise.
Speaking of Yale, I couldn't help but notice that there wasn't a single Yalie on any of the multitude of committees that put together this report. James Conant, president of Harvard and Bush's underling at NRDC, gets plenty of airtime though. There's no denying that the Boston schools (particularly MIT) and places like CalTech got a massive amount of government funding as part of the war while schools like Yale seem to have been largely passed by. I think we're still seeing the consequences of that today. I'm still looking for a good book to read about funding battles between universities today.
Overall, this book gave me a better framework for understanding the structure and funding of modern science. We're now dealing with some of the flaws of Bush's vision - including ossification at the top, a publicly-disconnected scientific establishment, and challenges with commercialization of research. Most troubling is a problem that Bush himself foresaw:
> If the necessity were not clearly demonstrable, several considerations might argue for the undesirability of such Federal support. These center upon the fear that Federal aid might lead to centralized control. It is the firm conviction of the committee that centralized control of research by any small group of persons would be disastrous whether such persons were in government, in industry, or in the universities.
This centralized, self-justifying Government-Science complex is called "The Cathedral" by some on the alt-right (including Moldbug in his "Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations". I'm not sure that they're completely wrong here, and it's a bit unnerving to see that this was one of Bush's concerns as well.
Full review and highlights at https://books.max-nova.com/endless-frontier/
At the core of Bush's philosophy is the idea that basic (as opposed to applied) research is the key to scientific progress. Quotes like "applied research invariably drives out pure" are sprinkled throughout the book. He constantly emphasizes that:
> in order to be fruitful, scientific research must be free — free from the influence of pressure groups, free from the necessity of producing immediate practical results, free from dictation by any central board
There's not a lot of evidence backing up this important claim - it's just taken as a given. And yet, I am not entirely convinced. For one, this is clearly a self-serving argument. As the Committee (full of research scientists) recommends, "unrestricted grants... would be the most valuable and productive form in which Government support could be given." Yes, please! Just put the money in the bag. Thank you kindly sir, now begone! How do I get in on this deal?
Secondly, I don't understand why applied / mission-oriented science should be a less efficient engine for generating significant advances in our scientific understanding. Any big, hairy, audacious goal (like putting a man on the moon or sequencing the human genome) requires inventing solutions to lots of problems and "unknown unknowns" that aren't clear at the beginning of the project. Sarewitz's "Saving Science" influenced my thinking on this question and I have yet to come across a compelling counterargument in support of the primacy of basic research. Bush constantly states how important basic research is as an input to the science -> social utility pipeline, but this is such a complex system that I don't see how he could possibly have any way of testing this assertion.
Finally, another danger of Vannevar's focus on funding "influence-free" basic research is that it distances the scientific community from the general public. If the money is coming from the government with no strings attached, the scientific community has a significantly reduced incentive to communicate with the public - a dynamic discussed at length in Shawn Otto's "The War on Science".
But enough criticism of basic research - there are other elements of Bush's report that warrant some commentary.
The rhetorical framing of the report is notable. As Bush declaims, "scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress." The primacy of national security is an indication that this is technically a military report. The phrase "one essential key" Bush's attempt to build general non-scientist support for his plan. As he repeatedly emphasizes, "science can be effective in the national welfare only as a member of a team." He also gives the politicians some ammunition with some Frederick-Jackson-Turner-esque dreams of the frontier:
> The pioneer spirit is still vigorous within this Nation. Science offers a largely unexplored hinterland for the pioneer who has the tools for his task
The inclusion of "more jobs" is a telltale sign that this report was written in the 40's. Bush states that "clearly, more and better scientific research is one essential to the achievement of our goal of full employment." In fact, it is quite unclear to me that scientific understanding and full employment go in the same direction. In a highly automated, winner-take all digital global economy... not sure that Bush's original employment arguments hold water anymore. But the good news is that the entire section about "how do we store and organize all this data?!" is completely obviated by the Internet, so at least there's that.
Bush most captured my attention when he discussed the importance of training new scientists and nurturing the best minds. He says, "the most important single factor in scientific and technical work is the quality of personnel employed" and he devotes much thought to funding the academic talent and leadership pipeline. I was surprised to learn that National Science Foundation fellowships come along with an obligation to be "enrolled in a National Science Reserve and be liable to call into the service of the Government, in connection with scientific or technical work in time of war or other national emergency." Old Vannevar also won some points by drawing a roadmap for undergrad-driven commercialization of science (which was exactly my experience in bringing SilviaTerra out of a lab at the Yale School of Forestry):
> New types of industrial activity could be aided if students of engineering and science were strongly encouraged at the undergraduate stage to study unsolved technical problems and to invent solutions for them. On graduation those young men who wish to strike out for themselves should have the opportunity to complete their inventions, both theoretically and practically, in an actual enterprise.
Speaking of Yale, I couldn't help but notice that there wasn't a single Yalie on any of the multitude of committees that put together this report. James Conant, president of Harvard and Bush's underling at NRDC, gets plenty of airtime though. There's no denying that the Boston schools (particularly MIT) and places like CalTech got a massive amount of government funding as part of the war while schools like Yale seem to have been largely passed by. I think we're still seeing the consequences of that today. I'm still looking for a good book to read about funding battles between universities today.
Overall, this book gave me a better framework for understanding the structure and funding of modern science. We're now dealing with some of the flaws of Bush's vision - including ossification at the top, a publicly-disconnected scientific establishment, and challenges with commercialization of research. Most troubling is a problem that Bush himself foresaw:
> If the necessity were not clearly demonstrable, several considerations might argue for the undesirability of such Federal support. These center upon the fear that Federal aid might lead to centralized control. It is the firm conviction of the committee that centralized control of research by any small group of persons would be disastrous whether such persons were in government, in industry, or in the universities.
This centralized, self-justifying Government-Science complex is called "The Cathedral" by some on the alt-right (including Moldbug in his "Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations". I'm not sure that they're completely wrong here, and it's a bit unnerving to see that this was one of Bush's concerns as well.
Full review and highlights at https://books.max-nova.com/endless-frontier/
July 19, 2020
It is in keeping with the American tradition - one which has made the United States great - that new frontiers shall be made accessible for development by all American citizens. p8
First, this is not a book, but a government memo bound together in a book format. However, it does contain some of the foundational arguments for two of the greatest scientific research institutions in the world today: the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which collectively funded 47 Billion dollars in research in 2019. These documents make clear the very direct connection between science, defense, and war, as Bush assembled these committees and made these arguments during the eve of the Second World War. Conspicuously, all mention of nuclear research were still omitted, as it would not be until a month after the original publication of this pamphlet that the Manhattan Project (which Bush served as part of the Top Policy Group, reporting to President Roosevelt) would be revealed to the public.
I think many scientists would prefer to think of their work as in a vacuum, but ultimately, the difference between basic science and applied science is more of a matter of time horizons rather than true applicability. Given enough time, engineering catches up to even the most esoteric of subjects, and the funding of such basic research is to plant those seeds to be reaped in future centuries. That is, at least, the argument that Bush makes in part here, persuading Truman to establish these institutions and fund them generously, so that the United States would not be placed in the disadvantageous position of being behind in technology during the next great war.
But despite, or perhaps because, of this position, Bush (and the Moe Committee which studied the development of scientific talent in the United States), emphasizes that the funding of science ought not be made by removing funding from the arts. He summarizes:
We could not suggest to you a program which would syphon into science and technology a disproportionately large share of the nation's highest abilities, without doing harm to the nation, nor, indeed, without crippling science. ... Science cannot live by and unto itself alone. p23
And furthermore, Bush's report goes into detail about the harms of class divides on producing college graduates. While it is of no surprise, it is still useful to see the data in , showing the marked difference of smart (>110 IQ) students between those who came from above-average socioeconomic backgrounds (57% attended college) vs those who came from below-average socioeconomic backgrounds (13% attended college). While this report does not analyze on the basis of race, it seems very clear from current events that scientists with intersectional backgrounds face even more of an uphill struggle in scientific fields. Part of the argument presented in this report is that this future national research organization ought to help close that gap through necessary scholarships, funding, and research opportunities, allowing all American citizens to realize their potential in doing science.
Overall, this is a fascinating primary source, and I would highly recommend anyone else who is a graduate student, or a scientific researcher, to take a look. The executive memo is particularly readable, and the entire document dives deeper and deeper into the collected data.
November 30, 2010
Hugely important. This report laid the foundations for the next 50 years of US science.
June 14, 2020
Presentato ottimamente daPietro Greco che fa un ottimo lavoro d'inquadramento del momento storico e politico in cui F.D.Roosvelt praticamente istituisce la figura del consulente scientifico del Presidente, finalmente possiamo leggere anche in italiano la proposta che Vannevar Bush fece e che, con un paio di profonde modifiche, Truman mise in atto.
Bush è chiaro nel descrivere l'importanza che la scienza e la ricerca di base hanno nello sviluppo e nel predominio sul lungo periodo di un paese nel mondo, ma anche e soprattutto nel benessere dei suoi cittadini. Per benessere intende sia nel campo della salute, sia in quello del lavoro, inteso come creazione di nuovi posti di lavoro e a maggior ragione di posti di lavoro ad alta qualifica e reddito.
Per far questo un enorme cambiamento culturale era necessario: accettare fondi pubblici dal Governo da parte delle Università, e rinunciare al controllo della ricerca da parte del Governo. La ricerca deve essere libera, i fondi non sprecati, ma il criterio deve essere la buona ricerca scientifica, che si basa sulla peer review e non sulla finalità e sull'uso immediato delle scoperte.
Essendo stato scritto nel 1945, questo manifesto della cultura, risente molto e insiste molto anche sul campo della Difesa e della guerra, aspetti che oggi non dovrebbero essere esclusi ma tutto sommato considerati un poco meno, diciamo a secondo livello.
C'è poi un capitoletto di Greco sul rapporto Vannevar Bush applicato all'Italia, ed è desolante vedere le conclusioni che ne trae. Conclusioni su cui sono d'accordo. Il problema dell'Italia, dice, è che sono mancati sia pari di Vannevar Bush che pari di Roosvelt e Truman. Ma, aggiungo io, se dei quasi pari di Vannevar Bush li avevamo e se ne sono andati all'estero, è perché la parte politica è sempre stata a livello molto ma molto inferiore come caratura rispetto a un Franklin D. Roosvelt.
Bush è chiaro nel descrivere l'importanza che la scienza e la ricerca di base hanno nello sviluppo e nel predominio sul lungo periodo di un paese nel mondo, ma anche e soprattutto nel benessere dei suoi cittadini. Per benessere intende sia nel campo della salute, sia in quello del lavoro, inteso come creazione di nuovi posti di lavoro e a maggior ragione di posti di lavoro ad alta qualifica e reddito.
Per far questo un enorme cambiamento culturale era necessario: accettare fondi pubblici dal Governo da parte delle Università, e rinunciare al controllo della ricerca da parte del Governo. La ricerca deve essere libera, i fondi non sprecati, ma il criterio deve essere la buona ricerca scientifica, che si basa sulla peer review e non sulla finalità e sull'uso immediato delle scoperte.
Essendo stato scritto nel 1945, questo manifesto della cultura, risente molto e insiste molto anche sul campo della Difesa e della guerra, aspetti che oggi non dovrebbero essere esclusi ma tutto sommato considerati un poco meno, diciamo a secondo livello.
C'è poi un capitoletto di Greco sul rapporto Vannevar Bush applicato all'Italia, ed è desolante vedere le conclusioni che ne trae. Conclusioni su cui sono d'accordo. Il problema dell'Italia, dice, è che sono mancati sia pari di Vannevar Bush che pari di Roosvelt e Truman. Ma, aggiungo io, se dei quasi pari di Vannevar Bush li avevamo e se ne sono andati all'estero, è perché la parte politica è sempre stata a livello molto ma molto inferiore come caratura rispetto a un Franklin D. Roosvelt.
May 20, 2016
TODO:
+++ Vannevar Bush is a truly important figure in science and computer science. As science advisor to the White House, during and especially after the World War II, he had contributed immensely to the prestige (and finding) of science. He had also helped shape the research agenda of computer science, with his personal memex (a continuous and complete recording of our sensorial experience that is later searchable) still a holy grail for Computer Science.
+++ Responding to a request from the White House, Vannevar Bush formulates a broad policy for stimulating top-class science. In the process, he designs the National Science Foundation, a body that 70 years later still guides science in the US.
--- Because it was so successful, the document is severely dated: the topics are no longer truly valid, the fishing principles are well known, and the arguments pro science seem trivial.
+++ Vannevar Bush is a truly important figure in science and computer science. As science advisor to the White House, during and especially after the World War II, he had contributed immensely to the prestige (and finding) of science. He had also helped shape the research agenda of computer science, with his personal memex (a continuous and complete recording of our sensorial experience that is later searchable) still a holy grail for Computer Science.
+++ Responding to a request from the White House, Vannevar Bush formulates a broad policy for stimulating top-class science. In the process, he designs the National Science Foundation, a body that 70 years later still guides science in the US.
--- Because it was so successful, the document is severely dated: the topics are no longer truly valid, the fishing principles are well known, and the arguments pro science seem trivial.
October 8, 2013
A new symbolism, probably positional, must apparently precede the reduction of mathematical transformations to machine processes. Then, on beyond the strict logic of the mathematician, lies the application of logic in everyday affairs. We may some day click off arguments on a machine with the same assurance that we now enter sales on a cash register. But the machine of logic will not look like a cash register, even of the streamlined model.
June 22, 2023
The author is instructed to develop a national science program in the wake of WWII. It's interesting to read about a time in which science was a novel way of viewing the world rather than the default. Bush is a good thinker and tries to organize a future in which he has little control over, weighing many things in his mind to create a potentially effective organization. His "Endless Frontier" has come to pass, though perhaps not exactly as he intended. Still, his thoughts have continued to influence global science policies.
Want to read
May 17, 20235/17/23: fred terman's mentor; major guy in getting gov funding
January 29, 2009
Read this one as part of a work project. It's an official government report on the state of science and research from the 1950s, which inspired the creation of the National Science Foundation. Very good look at why the NSF is an independent federal agency today and lays the groundwork for the federal government funding science and education research.
April 30, 2013
The report and the committee reports are all very interesting!
November 30, 2010
Hugely important. This report laid the foundations for the next 50 years of US science.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews