Читать книгу Culture Clash - Steven Goldberg H. - Страница 16

Obviously this approach requires that I explain how I am using terms such as basic and applied research. It is notoriously difficult to draw sharp distinctions in this field because there are no bright lines on the continuum that stretches from pure science through applied technology.⁴⁷ Let me begin by discussing the pure science end of the continuum.

The values of the scientists discussed previously are based on the institution of pure science. Pure scientists pursue knowledge wherever it leads and for its own sake. Their work may, as we have seen, lead to practical applications, but those applications are often years away and come in areas the scientists themselves never would have predicted. Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that relatively few American scientists actually do absolutely pure science. Most of what is usually called scientific research, including most of the research funded by the government, is a step or two over on the continuum from pure science. Although it might be called basic research, it is part of a program designed to accomplish a particular mission. Unlike pure scientists, the government and others funding research are primarily interested in utility, that is, in practical results. Thus, a university scientist receives a grant to do cancer research. This scientist’s work may involve gaining a fundamental understanding of cellular processes and it may lead to surprising findings with unexpected implications. But the work is being funded because it may lead to a cure for cancer. Or, consider a scientist in a national laboratory doing research on materials for solar collectors. This persons’s work may involve learning basic facts about the properties of certain elements, but it is mission-oriented work, aimed toward the ultimate development of a solar energy device.

When I discuss legal attitudes toward basic research, I will typically be referring to mission-oriented research, not absolutely pure research. But it is important to realize that scientists doing mission-oriented research draw their value system largely from pure science. As Victor Weisskopf wrote, “The style, the scale, and the level of scientific and technical work are determined in pure research; that is what attracts productive people and what brings productive scientists to those countries where science is at its highest level.”⁴⁸ Most of our examples of basic research will concern university scientists working under research grants from federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation. Although they are working as part of an overall mission, these scientists want to make scientific progress, add to the cumulative store of scientific knowledge, and publish in reputable scientific journals. Thus, in achieving the government’s goals, they look, to the extent possible, for the most scientifically attractive solution, which means the one that establishes progress and priority in scientific terms.

When I discuss legal attitudes toward applications of science, I will be moving away from pure science and mission-oriented research and toward the production of new products for the marketplace. Here the emphasis will be on such developments as energy systems that are ready to be tested, drugs that are ready to be marketed, and computer systems that are starting to go on-line.

Let us begin then with legal attitudes toward basic research. As with much of American law the starting place is our fundamental charter—the U.S. Constitution.