!! spellx done
  Backsliding in Science
    The Washington Post, Sunday, October 9, 1966

     The United States professes to absolute world leadership in
science and technology and in standards of living.  It is no self-
criticism to note how urgently we react to challenges to that
leadership.

     In 1957, Sputnik triggered a major response, not only in the
inauguration of our space program, but also in a critical self-
examination of our position in science and education.  The results
have been mainly to the good.  If we now seem to be backsliding
in public support for science, it may be partly attributable to
the very success of the catch-up effort in space.

     There are many other aspects of the human use of science in
which we are demonstrably backward.  Perhaps none is more vexing
than our relative position in infant health and survival.

     In 1960, Sweden reported an infant mortality of only 1.66 per
cent.  We showed 2.57.  The nine-tenths of a percentage point
difference amounted to 35,000 infants.

     President Johnson has demanded greater attention to practical
benefits from our health research programs.  The more power to him
for hammering home such discrepancies as challenges to our human
security at least as important as Sputnik was!

     The President's admonitions were sternly delivered to heads
of health and research agencies at a meeting June 27 and have been
re-echoed in many editorials in newspapers and science journals and
by congressional comments.

     Sen. Frank Harris (D-OK.) and his Subcommittee on Government
Research have held a series of hearings and seminars in which I have
been gratified to join.  The positive benefit of urgent attention to
health applications is undeniable.  There are, however, grave dangers
that hasty actions may be undertaken at any cost, without collecting
the knowledge needed for sound policy.

     Some of my colleagues fear that hard-won advances in support
of basic research and higher education are in jeopardy.  Stringent
cutbacks that I, like others, have already experienced in grant
support from the National Institutes of Health reinforce that fear.

     Even more threatening is the danger that our reaction will be
misinterpreted as indifference to the social aims expressed by the
President.  Basic research has, however, a rather complex set of
social justifications and tends to be the first target of budget
retrenchments, whether for Vietnam or for the Great Society.

     Any redirection of research goals may also be confused with a
political drive for wider geographic participation by underdeveloped
states in a new pork-barrel approach to the allocation of health
research and development funds.

     The fundamental danger is a confused opposition of basic research
versus social benefit, which is preposterous.  New mechanisms must
surely also be developed for the building of health technology on
the foundation of this basic research.  The competition of priorities
should then be among investments in different fields -- health as
against military defense and foreign aid, urban development, the
supersonic transport, environmental pollution, manned space flight
after Apollo and so on.

     These categories are not completely insulated from one another.
The SST may be a source of new health problems (sonic pollution and
time-shift) demanding deeper biological studies.  Programs for
purer air and water can have great benefits for public health.  Even
the least scientifically oriented parts of the space programs are
bound to have useful technological spillovers for health.  Foreign
aid without intense support of world health would be inane.

     Indeed, most of our excess infant deaths per annum reflect
social pathology as much as medical deficiencies.  The poor states
like Mississippi, and our urban slums, have the most disgraceful
records.  Can we believe that the Job Corps and basic medical research
should be competing with one another, without reference to the
priority they should both have in comparison with other commitments
of Federal action?

     Infant mortality has long been a barometer of social progress.
The wisest action on a broad front will require careful investigation
of many issues besides research and education.  It should be obvious,
however, that the availability of medical progress can be no better
than the size and quality of the professional manpower to develop
and disseminate it.

     Congress has had many proposals for support of medical education,
and particularly for fellowships for medical students.  Our acute
needs for more and better doctors demand more rigorous attention
than Congress has so far been willing to give.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------