Читать книгу Culture Clash - Steven Goldberg H. - Страница 21

If government spending for science had been limited to direct furtherance of the constitutional provisions just discussed, that spending would not have risen to its current heights. But from the time President Washington told the first Congress that “there is nothing which can better deserve your patronage than the promotion of science,”⁸⁷ American leaders have favored spending for science in areas quite remote from Congress’ enumerated powers.

It was Alexander Hamilton who provided the constitutional theory. In his Report on the Subject of Manufacturers, Hamilton supported monetary rewards to spur “new inventions and discoveries … particularly those which relate to machinery.”⁸⁸ In the midst of discussing this proposal, Hamilton states that “[a] question has been made concerning the constitutional right of the government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement,” but he argues that the constitutional basis is found in Congress’ power to “lay and collect taxes … to provide for the … general welfare …,” that is, in what we now term the spending power.⁸⁹

Hamilton was advancing what we now think of as the broad view of the spending power: the constitutional power to spend “for the general welfare” extends beyond the ability to spend for Congress’ enumerated powers. The narrow view, that spending for the general welfare must be linked to a specific power (such as support for the military), is in the early years of the Republic identified with Madison.⁹⁰ But spending for science has been seductive throughout American history: there is evidence that even Madison took a broad view of congressional power when science was involved.

When John Churchman of Maryland came to Congress in 1789 seeking funds for an expedition to Baffin Bay to test his ideas on determining longitude by the magnetic variation of the compass, Madison, a member of Congress at the time, supported the request.⁹¹ In an argument that foreshadows modern political support for science, Madison maintained that “[i]f there is any considerable probability that the projected voyage would be successful, or throw any valuable light on the discovery of longitude, it certainly comports with the honor and dignity of Government to give it their countenance and support. Gentlemen will recollect, that some of the most important discoveries, both in arts and sciences, have come forward under very unpromising and suspicious appearances.”⁹²

Brant, Madison’s biographer, argues persuasively that support of Churchman “could be justified only under Hamilton’s interpretation of the Constitution … [that is] only by a sweeping interpretation of the power to spend for the general welfare.”⁹³ In any event, Congress rejected Churchman’s petition because of the young nation’s troubled financial state.⁹⁴

In general, such proposals had difficulty securing congressional support in the first half of the nineteenth century because of constitutional objections, limited money, the fear of centralized federal power, and attacks on the “speculative” of “visionary” nature of the scientific endeavor.⁹⁵ Thus, federal spending for science before the Civil War, although varied, was almost always tied to specific congressional powers.⁹⁶ The constitutional question of whether Congress could fund science as part of its power to spend “for the general welfare” remained unresolved.

The major breakthrough came in 1862 when Congress created the Department of Agriculture pursuant to the power to spend for the general welfare, and directed the department to employ “chemists, botanists, entomologists, and other persons skilled in the natural sciences pertaining to agriculture.”⁹⁷ The same year marked establishment of the land grant colleges, which became centers of scientific agricultural research.⁹⁸ As a result of these and related developments, federal scientific research in agriculture increased throughout the nineteenth century.⁹⁹

When the Supreme Court, in 1936, first delineated the scope of the federal spending power, it confirmed federal power to spend for science. In United States v. Butler,¹⁰⁰ the Court adopted the Hamiltonian view that federal spending need not be limited to the enumerated powers, but could be for the general welfare.¹⁰¹ The Court relied on the very passage in the Report on the Subject of Manufacturers in which Hamilton supported premiums for scientific advances.¹⁰² The brief for the federal government had urged the Court to take this course in part so that federal science spending programs would not be endangered.¹⁰³ The Court cited Madison as supporting the opposing view that spending must be limited to the enumerated powers.¹⁰⁴ With respect to spending for science, however, Madison was no Madisonian; as noted earlier, he favored federal financing of a scientific expedition that could not be justified under any enumerated power.¹⁰⁵

Butler and later decisions established beyond a doubt that science spending for the general welfare is constitutional. Because scientific advances can provide various benefits for society at large, the general welfare test is met easily.¹⁰⁶ Whereas states also are free to fund scientific research, they traditionally have not been the dominant actors in this area. The federal government’s pervasive power over defense, standards, and patents limits the states’ role, and federal science spending in those fields as well as for the general welfare has existed for over 100 years. Although state science programs have existed for some time, these typically have been either in partnership with the federal government or minor in scope compared to federal activities.¹⁰⁷ As early as 1846, for example, the federal government provided more than twice as much support to leading scientists than did all state governments combined.¹⁰⁸ In recent years, the ratio has shifted even more in the direction of federal involvement.¹⁰⁹

Thus federal spending for science is not simply a matter of political preference that shifts dramatically with changing political tides. It is rooted firmly in both Hamiltonian and Madisonian views of the Constitution, and it is tied clearly to historical and institutional realities that stretch back more than a century.

The post-World War II growth of government support for science, spurred by the development of nuclear weapons and the space program, has at times obscured this reality. Yet reference to federal spending levels since the Civil War demonstrates that the federal commitment to science did not begin with the Manhattan Project. In 1884, when laissez-faire and states’ right philosophies prevailed¹¹⁰ and total federal expenditures were only about $240 million,¹¹¹ intramural bickering among federal science programs led to congressional inquiry into the need for reorganization.¹¹² Federal spending for science totalled several million dollars at the time,¹¹³ and various programs had overlapping jurisdiction.¹¹⁴ For purposes of comparison with the level of federal activity in other areas, it should be noted that this bickering among several science agencies took place three years before creation of the first modern regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission.¹¹⁵ By 1904, federal spending for science was approximately $10 million,¹¹⁶ a figure that grew to about $85 million by 1940.¹¹⁷

Today, government science spending has grown enormously to over $75 billion, about $14 billion of which is for basic research.¹¹⁸ The basic research figure constitutes over 60 percent of all American spending in that field.¹¹⁹

Liberals and conservatives alike support government science spending, demonstrating once again the central role of the scientific ideal in the American tradition.¹²⁰ The usual American preference for private market forces does not apply when a product produces a large “public good”—that is, a benefit, like national defense, that all share whether or not they pay for it. In such cases, public support for the product is necessary to ensure that those who benefit pay and to avoid the result that too little of the product will be produced because the producers cannot capture all the gains. Most economists agree that science is a classic “public good.”¹²¹ An advance can benefit millions in ways that the private sector can capitalize on only with difficulty. Moreover, advances are uncertain and benefits distant, further supporting public involvement.

Distributional concerns are similarly absent from most public debate over science spending. A federal program to subsidize home buyers is debated in terms of which sectors of the society benefit at the expense of others. Science, however, is generally believed to benefit virtually everyone, at least potentially. Science is viewed primarily as a great equalizer, making better health care, energy, and the like more available to all. There are, of course, dissenters from this view. A few view science as reinforcing existing disparities in American society.¹²² But the mainstream view throughout American politics is very much to the contrary.

Thus the overall constitutional status of science is favorable indeed. On the one hand, scientists are able to pursue their profession free of government censorship. On the other hand, scientists receive generous government support.