Dy ia Joshua Lederberg AUG 28 1975 /

would be an even richer etymological pun).
“
This proposal is the cognate of one of prospective studies of

"
scientific activity insofar as it stresses the utility of getting

THE NODULAR PROPOSAL (Phizobin|

 

information from representative samples of scientists or of
scientific projects respectively. At the very least, a survey of such
a sample would enable us to get a more critical appreciation of the
meaning of the aggregate statistics and to verify whether there are
significant distortions in applying them as if they were known to
pertain to the particular population we have in mind. So, one part

of the projected study would be simply a means of cross-checking the
same kinds of information as are published in "Science Indicators”.
This would end up concentrating on questions like funding and manpower
throughput by field, and questions about institutional framework of
expenditure and of effort.

In my initial formulation of this proposal I really had most in
mind that scientists should be consulted about the framing of the
paramount questions. I visualized a reate.rative process whereby the
framework of inquiry would be revised and enlarged after every
interview, and this may well characterize the initial pilot stage
of any effort along these lines. The subjects would then be playing an
important part in developing the further methodology, not only for the
nodular study itself,but for other efforts in science indicators.

I can visualize several kinds of questions to pursue in the general
areas of (a) the general state and health of science, as viewed subjectively,
and for suggestions about objective indicators, (b) the adequacy of the
institutional framework and (c) difficulties and opportunities in the
cognitive framework of the subject's own specialty and of the whole

enterprise,

*e, the Populate, fo which Sctence (nlicafrs per tuna
(a) may itself be viewed as a latent indicator of the health y
science from a particular vantage point. The institutional Lasues have
been brushed upon by some other surveys (adequacy of funds for research
and for training being a perennial question) but a structured interview
might deflate some of the self-serving propaganda that may (be thought
to) dominate responses to these kinds of questions. Many techniques are
available for cross-scaling that would help in this direction. Besides
the more obvious issues of financial support there are a number of
career-structure problems that ought to be addressed and the respondent's
views on the communication system,on the disciplinary structure, on the
visible and invisible colleges would all be useful to hear about. (For
example,what fraction of a representative sample of scientists is related
to which sets(possibly overlapping of eer as nie as visible networks?)

5 Sbout the Yves ing and
Attitudes about the equity of thé reward st®ucture ,and conversely a

-
probing in depth of the trade-offs of equity and efficiency would be

worth pursuing.

@) I also had in mind a probing of the current cognitive situation in
a number of specialties, knowing that this would take a considerable degree
of skill and information on the interviewer's part. One could raise such
questions as to elicit :what are the major discoveries in your field and
in other fields; what are their relative values and to whom: to predict
their utilities in terms of economically useful application jto indicate
what part of the total value of the scientific enterprise they reflect -to
comment on the cost efficacy of social investment in these respective
fields and so on. By pursuing very concrete examples generated by the

scientists themselves, I think we could go very much further than by

asking general questions like,"can you use more money?"

“ef ORum's bert, put out : “Epoebty FE fprerener ss, fre Findeuff
It may also be opportune to probe questions like the statistics

of use or misuse of hard-won technical expertise in different fields -
(to follow through the question of how catastrophic is the diversion of

physicists to give an example),

I would also probe the scientist's views of the process of discovery;
whether they feel they are really working on the most important issues
in their own field, and if y& why not} What they have to say about
issues like missed or post-mature discoveries and other aspects of
potential sources of inefficiency in the overall enterprise. I am sure
that our respondents could greatly amplify our present insight about the
quality of science and about the nature of some specific pathologies.

Questions like the frequency of redundancy of discovery and of effort,
and of their values, and of the triviality of their and of other work
in related and unrelated fields could of course be most revealing.

It would be useful to get a bibliography of existing surveys,
a number of which have been done at least by the Carnegie Foundation.
(I recall some questionnaire - on the role of professor/ but not
excluding that of investigator (some while ago). These have already included
the attitudes of people at different levels in the career structure about
the equity of their place,

The efficient use of time is of course central to most of these
morale problems and it would be illuminating to find out whether there
are large variances in the perception and the actuality of that distribution.
The sense of mastery of time has been focussed on by others as an important
criterion of self-merit and is in itself a kind of indicator. (I have here
in mind some studies by a student of Tiedemann, Natalie Cohen).

A detailed examination of how each respondent would answer the

question "how would you be able to justify the social utility of your own
work? Can you point to its possible or probable impact both in its
ramification as science and in its technical utility?" These should
be very helpful in delineating the ways of developing further indicators.

The response of scientists to the notion of indicators (or rather
to a variety of co manifestations)would be of interest in assessing
Price's comment about resistance.

More generally, the attributes of the scientific enterprise that
have become the bedrock of sociological inquiry deserve to be examined
and criticized by such panels with the view to getting some impression
of their universality. A rather interesting touchstone would be a sampled
response of scientists to the extent to which Jim Watson's book was a
fair representation of the degree of competitiveness in his own field and
in other fields. (This has the advantage of the already widespread
notoriety of that publication).

The occasion might also be used to explore attitudes in a wide variety
of ancillary fields,( status of women to give an example) which would be
quite inexpensive free riders on such an inquiry and for which the
coreldative information would be important to have in hand for cross~
correlation,

These inquiries are, of course, overlapping with a number of issues
concerning the peer review process, and it would be important to try to
get not only the attitudes of respondents but also some statistics
concerning their experiences in dealing with grant review and other
gate keeping encounters, keeping in mind that many respondents will have
been on both sides of that gate at various times.

General questions on where science is going, whether it is better
to be a scientist today than it was 10 years ago and so on, could in

a rather obvious way furnish a range of other indicators.

‘whefad bepu S rrcowf Stprems Front,
This is by no means as yet a structured proposal but the

memo is designed to elicit some further suggestions and comments.

oe oe ‘=~