lost in the fog of a cosmic storm floating on
whimsical wavelengths is the norm dancing through
the stars chasing spectrums of light Riding the
waves that are just out of sight. It's Whimsical
Wavelengths, and I'm your host, Dr. Jeffrey Zurich,
volcanologist and geophysicist. And it's also
been two weeks. That's why I'm back in your ears,
with a treat. Today, we're going to look at the
whole thing. What thing? The modern scientific
apparatus itself. The institutions, the funding,
and the historical policy shifts that built the
world we live in. On this show, I've taken some
historical romps through the planets, Nikola
Tesla, the rise and fall of leaded gasoline,
thanks to the grit of Dr. Claire Patterson. Usually,
it's just me and my deep dives into the literature
and history, but today, I have guests. People
who have spent a lot more time than I thinking
about the sociology of research. We're going
to map out how we built a golden age of science
and why I think that system is currently being
selectively demolished. To set the scene, the
year is 1941 and the U .S. enters World War II.
Almost immediately, the government realizes that
winning isn't just about manpower. It's about
a race to solve impossible problems. We're talking
code -breaking to neutralize U -boats, the birth
of rocketry, and of course, the Manhattan Project.
This was the moment science shifted from the
pursuit of the gentleman inventor to a pillar
of national security. The Manhattan Project brought
together thousands of young scientists, from
chemistry to physics and everywhere else, all
working on the same goal from different angles.
They were building coltrons for uranium enrichment
and using cyclotrons to break through the limits
of engineering. This big science model gave way
to the space race, the internet, and of course
the modern university. But before I get too ahead
of myself and attempt, it's time to bring in
the real reason you tuned in. Today I have two
guests, Dr. Ina Ganguli and Dr. Chris Fisher.
Dr. Ina Ganguli is a professor in the Department
of Economics at the University of Massachusetts
Amherst and studies labor economics and the economics
of science and innovation. Dr. Chris Fisher is
the founder and principal at Multivalent Communications.
Chris is also a chemical biologist, scientific
communicator, and science advocate operating
at the intersection of science and society. Thank
you both for coming on to the show. I have Dr.
Ina Ganguly and Dr. Chris Fisher. Yeah, thanks
for having me. Thanks, Jeff. Yeah, I'm just so
glad you guys are here. I mean, I reached out
via LinkedIn to Chris and kind of over... So
this has kind of come and become cobbled together.
But before we jump in with just two feet, I have
a question for each of you to just learn a little
bit more about you before we get to the main
background topic. Chris, you went from a PhD
to founding Multivalent Communications. What?
Was that transition? I ask because in some disciplines,
these conversations just don't happen. It's like,
we don't talk about the fact that you might not
make it as a researcher or something that there
isn't like this other world beyond the academic
tower. Yeah. So let's, what about that transition
from the lab to industry? Yeah, no, I, first
I'll just say, I appreciate you commenting on
that fact that, you know, I think. I think graduate
programs are getting better about this. But for
a long time, the focus was everyone here is trying
to become a postdoc and then become a professor.
And the reality is that less than 10 % of them
will. So we have to make sure that we're preparing
scientists to enter other roles, whether it's
industry roles, whether it's communications,
business development, governmental roles. So
anyways, it's good to make sure that we appropriately
discuss that. Yeah, so in terms of my journey,
I'd like to think that I've always been multivalent.
Really, since the beginning, I've had a strong
interest in both science and in communication.
I was that really chatty kid that always wanted
to talk about everything, whether it was bugs
in the grass or if it was a comic book. I was
really interested in trying to share my thoughts
with others. So I did years of performing arts.
I did a minor in English. And I also have a genuine
love of fiction, although you can't see it behind
me. I've got a ton of fiction in addition to
the science. I've got a bunch of comics as well.
So I see those sort of two worlds as being a
major part of who I am. But as I started my PhD,
I didn't necessarily know how I could connect
the two and make it into a career path that would
be uniquely unique to me. But during my PhD,
where I was studying how pathogens, they often
make use of multivalent, here we go, underlined,
interactions to find their hosts, I realized
that there was an aspect science and research
that I really gravitated towards, which is reading
and synthesizing scientific information, making
sense of what was being put in front of me, and
then finding new ways to communicate that with
others so that I could do maybe a new assay,
maybe a new line of research. And then I found
myself looking forward to like my weekly cafe
time. And that was really where I did a lot of
that reading, writing, and design work. And once
I made that realization that like, oh, wow, like
I'm doing the bench work so that I can go back
to reading and writing, I went out of my way
to try to find opportunities where I could really
build that muscle. And for me, it started with
science advocacy, in part because this was a
great place to make use of scientific understanding,
as well as the ability to communicate with others
and use those skills together to form persuasive
arguments that supported something that I really
care about, which is the scientific enterprise.
So after completing my PhD, I went full bore
into that. I started doing freelance science
writing for local startups in the San Diego area
and then spun that work and my advocacy work
into a job at a life science communication and
marketing agency. And after years of both working
in agency life and in in -house roles developing
scientific strategies and content, I decided
I'm going to go out on my own. I'll start my
own scientific and medical communications agency.
And, yeah, I haven't looked back since I started
Multivalent Communications now, let's see, almost
two and a half years ago. And just as a little
bit of context, I spend my time helping companies,
organizations, teams, and individuals articulate
their science and thereby provide oxygen for
really, really important work. My focus is really
on mediating information exchange across important
boundaries at the intersection of science and
society, from diagnostic companies, devices,
pharma, to biotech, reagent instruments, and
chemicals companies. So that's me. Wow. I mean,
I guess that comes back to something that somebody
else told me. PhD is just a piece of paper. It's
like a driver's license. It's up to you what
to do with it. And so you've built a very interesting
career from something that some people might
say is like stuck in the lab, but you're kind
of broadening it out in a multivalent way to
the rest of us. Thank you. Yeah, I don't know.
I think as part of that realization, it occurred
to me that Sure, the data collection, the bench
work is the bedrock of science and how we ultimately
push new innovations forward. But it doesn't
really work on its own. Right. The classic idiom
of if a tree falls in the woods and no one's
around to hear it, does it make a sound? I think
holds true there. And I felt like this was an
opportunity for me to use my skills that I had
been developing all the while to have a little
bit more impact in science. I think I was a decent
bench scientist, but I think I'm a much better
communicator. And that's why you're here on the
podcast. I am. You know, you've spent a significant
amount of time as a Fulbright scholar. policy
specialist in places like Ukraine, Russia, Tajikistan.
Is there like any unexpected piece of evidence
or history that just completely changed the way
you view how science or labor functions compared
to the West? And then relatedly, have you ever
wanted a time machine to just go back and like
poke at it a little bit more? Yeah, this is a
great question. And I have to say, it was really
interesting to hear about Chris's journey. So
I'm a labor economist, and I actually study scientists.
And so, you know, really interested in careers
and choices that people make and how that contributes
to scientific progress. And so, yeah, as you
mentioned, Jeff, I spent time in some interesting
places. And my dissertation was actually about
science after the end of the Soviet Union. And
I use a lot of data in my work, so publication
data. And I was looking at the impact of growth.
France during this economic crisis. But one thing
that was really cool that economists usually
don't do enough of, I think, is going into the
field and interviewing scientists. And so I was
interviewing scientists in actually five different
former Soviet republics. And so it was really
interesting because I got to talk with people
who were working during the Soviet Union. And
yeah, and I, you know, I do wish, you know, I
wish I had a time machine, but actually spending
time in these countries, I actually got a sense
of how things worked. And so, you know, clearly,
you know, as you said, there are a lot of differences
in how science functioned, I think, in the Soviet
Union and then, you know, the post -Soviet countries,
post -Soviet period. But, you know, some of the
big differences, like, yeah, you know, it was
more of an institute -based research system,
less kind of, you know, scientist -oriented,
less autonomy, research was separated from teaching.
But I actually think what I learned from that
experience was how similar, actually, scientists
are in many ways, in many places. And so it,
you know, got me thinking about, you know, proper
Merton was a famous sociologist and he talked
about kind of these Mertonian norms of science.
So there are things that are kind of universal
about truth seeking and also scientific collaboration.
And so one thing that kind of sticks with me
that happened is I was in Tajikistan. And I was
in Dushanbe and had an interview with an astronomer,
kind of an older Tajik astronomer who was working
during the Soviet period. And it turns out, I
guess, Tajikistan, I'm not an astronomer, of
course, but it turns out Tajikistan has good
conditions for viewing, you know, for astronomers.
And so I think a lot of people from around the
Soviet Union used to come to Tajikistan. And
coincidentally, just prior to that, I had talked
to a Ukrainian astronomer in Kharkiv, which is
in eastern Ukraine. And somehow when I was talking
to this Tajik astronomer, it came up that I had
met with him. And he said, oh, wow, you met him?
We used to work together a lot, like such good
memories. And you just saw his like his face,
you know, like lit up. And I think this idea
that, you know, they had collaborated and this
kind of, you know, idea of doing the science
was something that, you know, you see here when
people are kind of talking about the work they
do and their collaborators. Something that I
took away from that, too, is that, you know,
we'll get into this, is that, you know, science
and scientific communities are also very fragile.
And so, you know, it took decades, right, for
the Soviet Union to build the institutions around
science, create those collaborations, you know,
the science they were doing. But then, you know,
relatively quickly, it was all destroyed. And
so those two hadn't seen each other in something
like 30 years, they said at the time. And so,
you know, I think this idea that you know, there
is this fragility. So, yeah, I think, you know,
if I had a time machine, I would love to go even
further back. But yeah, unfortunately, so far,
we don't have one. Yeah, I think it's always
important to have people that can turn the lens
back on us as scientists, because, I mean, I
think it's obvious. I tried to do that a little
bit with the podcast. But do you ever find any
pushback from the scientific community as part
of this, just out of curiosity? Pushback? I mean,
I think the thing is, you know, people, also
like to be studied, right? And so, and I think,
you know, it's fascinating, you know, we learn
so much, you know, again, most of the work that
economists who work in this area of economics
and science innovation, we work a lot with data,
but really kind of talking to people and understanding
what are, you know, what are you experiencing?
That's what really drives, you know, our hypotheses
and, you know, kind of how we can understand
the data. But I think, you know, the methods
that we use are different. And, you know, each
field has its own methods, right, and approaches.
And so I'd say the pushback sometimes is, When
we go to data, we might try to say something
general or patterns that we observe in the data.
But a lot of times people get pulled back to
their own experience and they'll say, oh, but
no, but for me, it wasn't like that, right? Like
I, you know, I didn't find that I wanted to stay
in the lab and do, you know, work. I, you know,
and so my experience is really what you should
be finding. But, you know, we try to kind of
use our methods and data to try to make more
general statements. So I think that's a bit of
the pushback. But I think, yeah, I've been. And
I think it's been really great that I've had
so many scientists who've been willing to talk
and, you know. help us understand these issues.
I think part of what you said reminded me of
the fact that there's a tendency to think about
science and scientists as like purely the output,
like the papers, the data, maybe the products,
but there are people here, right? And as you
said, like that's part of what makes the community
fragile is it depends on these people being present
all the time. It's not just when they publish
something. And those relationships are important.
It's also really important as well, I'm sure
we'll talk about later, how interactions with
the public should manifest or could maybe support
a better future for science. Okay, time to turn
the lens on the actual topic we're here to discuss,
which is the whole... that we have today. But
we need to start somewhere. Some other of my
episodes have started with something like the
Black Death or the Roman Empire when I'm going
into the whole historical side of things. But
I think today we're going to start somewhere
around World War II. You guys get to take it
wherever you want because you guys are the experts.
It's not me. So let's set the stage. What was
the overall state of science and how was it conducted
before World War II? Was it philanthropy like
Titro Bray with a pet elk in a quadrant or was
it state? Controlled and self -funded. Yeah.
I mean, just to start here, it really changed
through time. So originally, and as you look
at the scientific revolution and beforehand,
a lot of it was patron -based. Maybe that was
folks in court. Maybe that was wealthy individuals,
as well as what is often referred to as sort
of gentleman science, which means an individually
wealthy person is interested in scientific pursuits.
They do their own research. They self -fund.
They publish. As we progress through time, we
see the foundation of the first scientific societies.
We see the university kind of come into picture
as another place to do this work. And as we get
closer to the 19th and 20th century. the universities
as well as religious institutions are funding
more and more work. So there are like limited
positions. There are endowments now that can
fund some of the work. So really, it's not until
we see the German state in the 19th century that
we get more governmental interaction and more
governmental funding of work. There is some throughout
time, but it didn't really become a more primary
operational tool until we get closer to modern
history. And certainly, as we'll talk about,
that really changed drastically. in the 20th
century, certainly in and around World War II,
but beforehand as well. Well, was there anything
different from across the world? Were there different
individual systems set up or were they all kind
of the same? Because, I mean, some of what you
said was more about European -centric with the
church representing the kind of the scientific
establishment, but was that the same in, say,
the budding Soviet empire or I guess that would
have been the czars back then? It's a fair question.
I would say, at least from my experience and
talking about this time period, much of the academic
and research activity is coming out of Great
Britain and it's coming out of Germany as well.
So certainly there are other places where this
work is being done. I mean, there are already
Nobel laureates in the 19th century that are
coming from Spain and other places in Europe.
But I do think that there is a pretty strong
Eurocentric perspective at this point. Not to
say that there wasn't research being done elsewhere
as well. Anything to add? We'll get into it,
but Germany, as Chris said, was really kind of
a height of where science was happening. then
we'll see how that changed. I mean, we can, we
can talk about maybe, but, you know, then things
changed with after World War II, obviously. But,
but yeah, you know, Great Britain and yeah, and
Russia, you know, Russian Empire also. But yeah,
I think there was also a lot of exchange and,
you know, it's interesting that going back to
like some things were similar that like, you
know, scientists would write each other letters
and there was a lot of, you know, kind of communication.
Obviously it looks different now, but, but yeah,
I think that was. You know, I think the idea
that like across countries there were differences,
but then there were still a lot of these kind
of commonalities that happened. And I do think
that the Royal Society and other academic societies
that were really important for distributing the
information. They had positions called intelligence
years, which were basically people that their
whole job was making sure that information moved
between these scientists. Right. It wasn't so
instantaneous as we have now. So getting something
written doesn't mean anyone's going to read it
until you put it in front of them. I mentioned
there was, and we bring in a little bit of some
economics research on this period, that there
is some really interesting research showing that
like after World War I, so a little earlier,
kind of showing how that war impacted diffusion
of knowledge. Because you had these kind of more
open connections before. And then there's some
authors who kind of showed that. Basically, when
you had the World War I happen, the scientists
kind of relied on knowledge from kind of the
other side. They really suffered in terms of
like their science because they couldn't, you
know, access. And there was a boycotting, right,
of like the allied versus the central countries.
And so, yeah, I think this theme also of like
how you can have kind of these institutions and
science happening. And then if you have like
a global geopolitical shock, it can actually
really change what kind of science is done. Yeah,
and then we get to World War II, and even I recognize
so much changed, and I'm just going to drop in
a tie -in. It actually introduces a future character
that you guys brought up in kind of the notes
that I had to go dig into, because there's a
tie -in with Nikola Tesla that comes to my mind
instantaneously. I mean, yes, in his later years,
he was a bit of a crank. He had, like, the death
ray and all kinds of weird stuff, a practitioner
of pseudoscience. Where I'm actually going is
that when he died, the U .S. government confiscated
his notes. for national security purposes, just
in case there was something that could fall into
the Germans' hands. And actually, it was a Bush
that actually got the hold of those notes and
was the one that went through that. It's almost
like that was a flag or a tell where things were
actually going. Is that fair to say? Yeah. I
mean, I certainly don't know as much about the
Tesla case that you mentioned, but one of the
aspects that Vannevar Bush, who you're referring
to, spoke a lot about, and ultimately was really
important in these discussions as we're talking
about active conflict, was that the science was
being done to protect a nation or to gain an
advantage in war, which meant that... The exchange
of information was not really existent or it
was existent only within the boundaries of select
individuals in these governments. So afterwards,
as we get out of World War II, a major aspect
of where the focus is, is, OK, well, we've done
all this work. When are we going to start sharing
it externally? When are we going to make it more
publicly accessible to those in our country?
We know that international exchange is really
important. Even though we've had to play it close
to chess now, we ultimately have to move away
from that if we want to be leaders in science.
So that's part of the transition is ultimately
this decision to go from sort of state secrets
and closely guarded scientific information, which
was make or break in World War II, to, yeah,
maybe a more collaborative, productive, society
-facing research enterprise. Yeah, and I'll just
add, yeah, I think that's right on. And I think,
you know, we'll get into this more, but I think
with World War II, you had this, you know, real
change in kind of how governments thought about
science, because before, you know, governments
did fund some scientific work, but it wasn't
really like a part of national security, right?
And then obviously, that changed a lot during
the war. And so, you know, Manhattan Project,
obviously, but you know, you have all these other
examples, you know, radar, code breaking, all
these things where it could really affect military
outcomes. And so, you know, I think this idea
that governments became interested in whether,
you know, these scientific ideas can actually
have impact on security and strategy. And so
I think that was like a change in the mindset.
And so then I think the big question becomes,
and we've brought up Bush already a few times,
but what happens after the war? And so do you
actually dismantle this big scientific enterprise?
How does it look? What are the institutions that
need to be created? And so I think there was
also this point of saying you can't just create
these institutions overnight. You have these
top scientists and talent that's... contributing
to these efforts and you can't really do this
right away. And so, you know, if we want to.
get into it now. But, you know, I think Bush,
you know, so Vannevar Bush was asked by President
Roosevelt to think about this problem. And, you
know, Bush had the answer in, you know, wrote
about this in The Endless Frontier in 1945. And,
you know, I think it's interesting because like
that really became the kind of blueprint, the
way forward for what science looked like in the
U .S. And, you know, at the same time, though,
there was actually a debate. And so there was
Harvey Kilgore, who That was a senator from West
Virginia who chaired the subcommittee on war
mobilization, but known as the Kilgore Committee.
And there was a debate. They had different visions
of what science would look like. And so Kilgore
actually wanted a more centralized approach than
Bush. And, you know, it's interesting. He argued
that funding should actually be distributed based
on kind of geographic equity and, you know, economic
need rather than just on kind of elitist institutional
merit. And so, again, this would be a different
path then. I mean, there's some of this that.
you can see kind of still was valued when, you
know, and the way science developed. But I think
that's, you know, kind of interesting part of
history. The other thing I just, I think, you
know, related to what I work on is there's, you
know, these lessons from the war on why talent
was important, right? And so, you know, if you
think about many of the scientists who were involved
in kind of wartime research, they're actually
immigrants or refugees from Europe, right? And
so there's an economist, Fabian Valdi, who writes
a lot about the Jewish emigres from Germany around
World War II and how they came to the U .S. and
impacted science and innovation dramatically.
And so you can really see that policymakers are
kind of seeing these things, right? You have
the power of scientific research, and you also
have the value of attracting scientific talent.
And so I think that really is something that
was important for the development of U .S. science.
And so actually going back to Tesla, your original
question, you know, not really I think where
you're going with this, but, you know, he was
also he was an immigrant. Right. He was born
in what's today Croatia, arrived in 1884. So
this is even happening prior to World War Two.
But I think this question of, you know, in how
do we how did the U .S. well, how is it able
to attract talent, which I think was really a
big part of where where we are today? Absolutely.
Sorry, if I could just chime in quickly. One
of my favorite quotes from The Endless Frontier
that ties directly to what you just said, Ina.
So Bush talks a ton about scientists, about developing
a scientific crop. Within the United States,
this is primary focus, but he does explicitly
say the most important single factor in scientific
and technical work is the quality of the personnel
employed. And attracting and retaining talent
was something that was very important to him.
He talks a lot about making sure that the positions
are well -funded enough, that folks don't go
straight to industry, they don't get opportunities
elsewhere, that they stay within the United States
to do this work. So that if and when they produce
something that's valuable or important for the
state, productive for public health, it happens
here first. I kind of want to follow that up
a little bit. I know we're already completely
off track, but that's okay. It's whimsical for
a reason. The war itself, it's almost like we,
as a Western society, ended up training up a
whole lot more scientists or was able to concentrate
the talent in such a way that there was perhaps
a critical mass. All of a sudden, you had all
of these wonderful people who had all these skills,
and now they also needed to do something with
these skills, right? So it's some of the... Was
it almost preordained that we had to change something
or build something because all of a sudden we
have this critical mass of people with all this
new talent and skills that have been trained
up throughout the war? You're talking about particularly
after World War II? Yeah, the whole process of
the whole war. It was like we need to solve all
these problems and essentially win the war. And
now we have all these people that are trained
in a very specialist way. Now you have to find
something for them to do almost, right? I mean,
that's boiling it down to something a bit more
basic than where I'm trying to go, but I think
it still illustrates the point. Yeah, I mean,
I think this is kind of this idea that, yeah,
there was there's all these people that's part
of this big scientific machine, you know, apparatus
that that was there. And so I think that was
the debate is like, what happens now? And so
I guess it's true, like, you know, where would
you do with them? But yeah, you know, there were
all these investments. And there is there's great
research by Dan Gross and Baban Sampat that looks
at this period and also kind of how all those
investments impacted innovation. And part of
this is all the people who are involved. Like,
what did they do after? And so, yeah, there was
a lot more kind of, you know, patenting and scientific
activity because of these investments. I think,
yeah, you're right. It's because of also, you
know, the people because they are needed to do
that. So, but yeah, I don't know. Maybe Chris
knows more about like whether that was part of
the dialogue that Bush, you know, had. Yeah.
So from my understanding, I think at this point,
at least, you know, at the highest levels of
government. There was a pretty strong appreciation
for the value of science, right? I mean, this
conversation between FDR or that started with
FDR and ultimately led to the Endless Frontier.
was recognizing the tremendous value provided
by the work done both before and in World War
II. So in addition to the fact that we've already
mentioned the Manhattan Project, we mentioned
radar, which, by the way, is a fascinating story
of, you almost call it like scientific warfare,
where the German U -boats were particularly problematic
in the Atlantic. It was a major problem. Radar
comes along, gives the Allied forces an advantage.
Then there is a technological development. on
the German side that makes it easy to detect
when somebody is using radar. And then ultimately,
a brand new form of radar comes in that circumvents
that as well. So in addition to that, there's
a major emphasis on infectious diseases. That's
also represented in the endless frontier. There
is a huge drop between World War I and World
War II in terms of deaths associated with infectious
disease, both in the general population as well
as in soldiers on the battlefront. That comes
from transfusable blood plasma developments,
the production of population quantities of antibiotics
like penicillin, and also importantly, development
of insecticides like DDT to reduce insect -borne
illnesses. So this, I mean, this gave a huge
advantage. And it was ultimately in the context
of the challenge of World War II, excuse me,
World War I, and the Spanish flu that was really
a deciding factor in the war, at least played
a role in it. How can we make sure that these
infectious diseases don't change how the outcome
of World War II plays out? So because there was
this well -established value, I think, in the
output of science. The focus wasn't so much on,
oh, we got to give these people something to
do, but rather, hey, you know. We need to make
sure that in peacetime we can benefit from this
in the same way. It's clear that if we provide
the resources, we attract and develop the talent,
they will produce. We don't necessarily know
what the output will be. We don't know how the
basic knowledge that they generate will translate
to some kind of industrial development or public
health development. But we know that if we do
this enough, we will get those wins like we got
in World War II. So, yeah, as I said, I think
a lot of the focus is on... okay, hey, this was
great. This has provided a huge benefit. The
development also of the biomedical infrastructure
between World War I and World War II played a
huge role in this. We know this is important.
How do we keep it going? All right, I'm going
to pivot back a little bit here. So we've kind
of set up how we ended up with a significant
amount of talent and the means to be able to
support large scientific endeavors. But what
about like... pre -World War II in as far as
those big state scientific endeavors. I mean,
I can point at different things that have happened
that were concerted efforts, but most of them
weren't really led by the state, so to speak.
I mean, one that comes to mind for me is like
mapping the world. I don't know if I would necessarily
call that true science, but science happens because
of it. It was a state -sponsored thing to go
around and map the world and find the new world
and resources and the like, but was like... the
Manhattan Project and the Space Race really the
first of their kind at that scale from the state
specifically? Yeah, I think it's true. And I
think Chris gave a great overview of some of
these. earlier institutions. And so, you know,
as you said, you had governments that sponsored
or states sponsored some of these large, you
know, technical or scientific projects. And so
you can even go back to like Greek city -states
or Roman times. So you had kings who were, you
know, inventing war machines and, you know, like
the death ray, the famous death ray. So I think
there were examples of these. But as you said,
like mapping expeditions, that was, you know,
it's a good example of this where it's a big
endeavor. And I actually want to bring in a little
bit of economics. If I can hear that, this is
what, yeah, so, you know, economists point to
this as kind of a classic public good, you know,
this issue around why do you need a government
here? And so if you think about, you know, maps,
you know, you can also think about canals, railroads,
you know, public health systems, and, you know,
going back to military projects, you know, the
state, why does the state have to get involved?
Well, what, you know, economists point to is
that if you have something like those projects
or knowledge. We can shift to kind of think about
basic science. Once it's created, you actually
can't prevent people from benefiting from it,
right? So once you have the map of the world,
you can't really prevent people from accessing
that knowledge. You know, the idea here is that
like the social returns are much higher than
the private ones. And so if you have any individual
firm, you know, or the private sector, they won't
actually invest in those projects. You need the
government to step in. And so, you know, as you
said, like mapping is a great example. Like once
you've mapped, you know, or surveyed a territory,
a lot of people can benefit from that information.
So if we turn then to, you know, basic scientific
research, it's very similar. So you have like
benefits, right, that are really widespread.
It's also unpredictable. And the benefits often
come much later. And so that's what, you know,
Chris was talking about Bush and kind of that
question around after World War II. You know,
we don't really know what's going to happen with
the science that's being done. And eventually,
maybe it'll lead to things that are going to
be really useful, but we don't know. And so,
you know, I think that was actually Bush's like
key insight is that science is a public. good.
And so, you know, industry alone is not going
to invest in it. They will under invest. And
so you need, you know, the government to step
in. Now, you know, I will say then that, you
know, so we, you know, Chris mentioned like radar,
right. And all these other things that happened
during World War II. And, you know, the benefits
were still right. Like. And benefiting from those
things today. And so what economists call that
is these positive spillovers, because like you
have those initiatives, investments, people working
on it, and then we benefit from it today. Now,
going back to what you said, like, so what about
the Manhattan Project? What about, you know,
the space race? Well, you know, I think the Manhattan
Project, like it was obviously really huge, right?
But, you know, the numbers aren't really if you
think about like how many people were working
on it, right? How much was invested? But I think
what's really unique was like also the fact that
it was interdisciplinary and there was a lot
of uncertainty. But what was striking about it
was that it wasn't just about, you know, trying
to kind of advance the discipline, right? It
was trying to solve like a specific challenge.
So it was built around a problem, which actually
the way science is done in most places, it's
not actually like that, right? Like very interdisciplinary.
And so, you know, I think the Manhattan Project,
it was like, you know, different because no one
knew whether it could actually like, you know,
work out and you had physics. You had physicists,
you had chemists, you had mathematicians, you
know, all these different people coming together
at a scale that hadn't existed before. So I think,
you know, during wartime, you have this kind
of push that, you know, there's something even,
you know, bigger that's going on. I think the
other thing that's interesting about it is that
the concentration of talent, right? So you had
so many leading scientists, you know, and it
was really something that can't happen automatically,
right? It involved, you know, institutions, funding,
migration. happened to. And so, and then you
move to the space race, where I think, you know,
a lot of what was learned from the Manhattan
Project, you know, kind of translated, but it
became something permanent, right? So it wasn't,
the Manhattan Project was something kind of temporary,
right, during this crisis period. And now, obviously,
then you go into kind of, you know, the Cold
War period, and you have, you know, NASA and
these standing institutions. And, you know, obviously,
like, how that was able to happen, given, you
know, kind of like the costs associated with
it. Obviously, there was like a political aspect
to it that maybe we can return to. But I think
that, you know, kind of transition to kind of
permanence is interesting. Yeah. I was just gonna
say, let's go to that debate. I mean, that seems
we've already kind of talked about it. I know
very little about it. You mentioned that we have
Vanir Bush and Harley Kilgore. So, I mean, that
debate is the way the space race or those institutions
became permanent. So yeah, sorry, go ahead. No,
I was just gonna leave it. I was just Yeah, go,
go, just go. I don't know much about it. Yeah.
No, I Yes. So no, I love this, this conversation
and talking about this debate, because the setup
of the National Science Foundation through the
NSF Act is really where the foundation of the
modern US science apparatus starts. So this debate
was about Yeah, how do we go about that? Bush
had his very clear vision, which he laid out
in The Endless Frontier. focused largely on scientific
autonomy, attraction and retention of talent,
letting science basically run its own course
and in time trust that there will be valuable
output. He was extremely concerned with, as Ina
mentioned, extremely concerned with focusing
too much on very sort of specific directions,
whether that came from industrial players that
had like a commercial need, needed to create
immediate profit, or if that was even coming
from political figures who wanted certain. things
to be focused and not others. So he ultimately
really wanted the science to be the core focus
and let the scientists steer the ship. The vision
of Kilgore, which makes sense in the context
of the time, he was from West Virginia. He was
one of the New Deal senators. His focus was largely
on, okay, well, if we believe in science has
value, it should be value for the public. So
if it's value for the public, the public should
have... some say and how what science gets done
and how it gets articulated. So there was like
one of the core differences was this idea of,
OK, who makes these funding decisions? Of course,
on the Bush side, it was the scientists, the
experts, and basically in a peer review process.
Whereas Kilgore wanted scientists to be a major
voice in that room. But there was sort of a committee
structure where there would be members of the
general public in some cases. There would also
be political appointees. It would be steered
by a director who would be appointed, I believe,
by the president. So, you know, the vision there,
at least from his point of view, was, well. We
don't want to just have these scientists go do
their interesting things that they're focused
on. We need to make sure that it benefits the
general public. So, again, it fits into that
dynamic of New Deal politics and where the Senate
and really where Congress was at at the time.
I'm going to make a very, very crass observation.
Keep in mind that I'm a Canadian. It just seems
to boil down of. One was pro -regulation and
one was not. Yes and no. I mean, yeah. I mean,
I think, again, what's interesting, I think,
about this debate, and I'd love to hear your
thoughts on this too, Ina, is that the operation
that they were focused on, right, this idea of
public and political players being involved or
not purely sort of a scientific effort. the reasons
for that and the justification for that have
really kind of changed over time. And what I
mean by that is, is that what Bush was concerned
with wasn't necessarily what I would say scientists
are concerned with now in today's world, of there
being more and more political control and a fear
of sort of shifting things in a direction that
doesn't necessarily serve the evidence and the
science. So anyways, yeah, I find this conversation
really interesting because Kilgore's perspective
and the perspective of those who supported him
has merit, right? Like one of the big issues
that we have right now and that maybe even contributed
to the position that the U .S. is in is that
there isn't a lot of dialogue between science
and the public. The public benefits from science.
The public pays for the science. But there's
not necessarily a lot of – view into how the
sausage is made or dialogue between the two.
One of my favorite stats, I pulled this from
a survey once, is that the average member of
the U .S. public knows significantly more fictional
scientists than they do real ones. To me, that's
a big, big problem. What? Really? Yeah. I mean,
again, this is one survey. I think it was a sample
size of about 1 ,000. But the idea is that the
general interactions of the scientific community
are relatively insular. go to our meetings, we
hang out at our universities and have these conversations,
whereas the public doesn't necessarily get to
be involved in those conversations. Another good
example, look at how we publish science. A lot
of it ends up behind paywalls or ends up in places
where it's really difficult to understand and
access. So it means that over time, as we become
more specialized, that the separation between
the two has really grown. So now... As we're
seeing changes in how the government perceives
the value of science and how it should be done,
we don't necessarily have maybe as much public
support as we could simply because they don't
have as good of an insight into who we are, how
we operate, and how that work has benefited them
over decades of contributions. This is all really
fascinating. I don't know if you have heard about
the Golden Fleece Award, which is... I had to
look it up again, but it's, so it was in like
the 1970s, the Senator from Wisconsin would basically
give an award to essentially like the science
that was like kind of the most ridiculous or
something like that. And so anyway, but it reminds
me a little bit of these kind of like, you know,
if you just kind of look at. projects that are
funded by the NSF, they, you know, it's hard
for people to understand, like, why should we
be investing in these projects, right? Like it's,
and there's so many of these famous examples,
they sound ridiculous. And then actually, it
turns out, like, you know, though that research
was like critical, right, to like some advance
in health. And so it's, you know, I think what
Chris was saying that, you know, it's like, it's
hard sometimes to, you know, you want the public
to be involved in these things and to, you know,
kind of have a voice. But then, yeah, I think
it's It's hard to kind of have those connections
happen. And I think this also goes back to what
we were talking about with like, you know, why
the. government needs to invest in science? And,
you know, how do you actually measure the benefits?
Well, it's really hard to measure long run benefits.
So I know that a lot of, there's been a lot of
effort by policymakers, economists, to try to
like, look at like NSF grants, like what is,
you know, what are the returns to those investments
to the government and society? Well, how do you
measure that, right? It's very difficult to think
about, like, everything that came out of like,
you know, this one NSF grant, well, there, you
know, there could be you know, related things
that have discoveries, right? Or it's, you know,
how do you kind of track, like, what's the paper
trail to measure that? And I think that's where,
if you think about, you know... What politicians
worry about, like, you know, they're, you know,
voters, they want to know what the benefits are.
And so I think we're in this period now, again,
of like, where, you know, there's kind of reflection
on like, how do we actually measure those benefits?
And how can we show the public that useful to
invest in this kind of research? So I just want
to get back to so how did the frontier the the
ideas that were put out in that book end up winning
the day? We've kind of missed that part of the
question. And then we're already kind of talking
about it. So how does that then hook up with
the social contract between scientists and what
the state actually looks like? What's expected
of both sides? So I guess first, how did the
Bush idea end up winning the day? Like, how did
that all that debate kind of crystallize into
what we have? I think obviously a lot of things
go into how folks end up voting and how these
bills end up being drawn up. You know, from my
perspective, I do think that there was a significant
respect for Bush and his office and the success
that it had brought in World War II. So that
carried a lot of weight in this conversation.
So you've got this scientist who is. plugged
into the levers of power in D .C. that understands
who he needs to be talking to, has built up these
relationships over many years, has all of these
different massive successes that can be pointed
to to say, hey, I know how this should be done
and ultimately how it should be successful. And
it's also important to note that The Endless
Frontier, yes, it was. articulated by Bush. But
behind the scenes, he ran multiple committees
with countless other experts that provided sub
-reports that then informed his larger strategy.
So there was already, I think, a critical mass
amongst leadership and science to... back this
proposal. So from my point of view, how influential
Bush was and really his connection with both
science, the scientific community, and with government
is at least a key part in how that viewpoint
won out. Whereas again, Kilgore, influential
politician, a senator, but not necessarily a
scientist equipped to talk about how things should
be done. And honestly, maybe we'll talk about
this later, but... That reflects an interesting
change in maybe even public attitude towards
science and sort of rising anti -intellectualism.
I think at the time, there was much more respect,
especially within government, for what intellectual
sort of science -facing people brought to the
table. Whereas now, there is increasingly more,
whatever you want to call it, sort of skeptical,
folks that are skeptical of science that have
viewpoints that are more pseudoscience. And that
is also better reflected in the folks that represent
them in government. which was not the case necessarily
then. So we have the debate. Now we have kind
of like a social contract built between the state,
the scientists, and the public. What was actually
that look like? What was expected on both sides?
Yeah, I mean, I could start. I think Chris maybe
could fill in some of the institutional. But,
you know, the way that I think I was thinking
about this is that, you know, between kind of
scientists and society, there was a bit of kind
of like a bargaining, right? So, yeah, this contract
was that, you know, you have these institutions
that were created after the end of World War
II. And essentially the government kind of agreed
to provide long -term support for research, significant
amounts of it. And, you know, with relatively
few strings attached. So Chris talked about autonomy,
right, and kind of these other aspects of kind
of the Bush, you know, Bush's approach. And in
return, scientists were expected to generate
knowledge that would then, you know, contribute
to national security, right, economic growth,
public health, and like social progress. And
so I think one thing that, you know, I've been
reflecting on also seeing kind of changes in
the last year or so, right, is like how much
trust there was in the system, right? And so
if you think about on the policymaker side, they
were willing to kind of, you know, fund research
without exactly knowing what the payoffs were
going to be. So going back to like, what are
the benefits, right? And so, you know, again,
kind of giving grants to researchers who are
doing basic science, or, you know, even applied
work that they don't really know if it's if there's
going to be a return. And so, you know, there
wasn't really even, you know, we can, I don't
know if we've talked yet about 1980 and the Bayh
-Dole Act, but even prior to that, right, there
was like, Again, very little prospect of commercial
impact. Faculty at universities weren't really
patenting based on research that was funded by
federal funds. And so, again, going back to this
idea that there was this understanding that basic
research was a public good. There didn't have
to be a commercial impact. And so, you know,
I think this idea that like the. the scientists,
you know, could kind of do what they thought
was kind of the most beneficial from a scientific
perspective. Now, and, you know, I think this
is this kind of feature of the post -war contract,
which is autonomy. And so government funded science,
but they didn't really dictate every research
question. Now, I also think then, you know, the
social contract is also about talent. And so,
you know, we talked earlier about, you know,
kind of thinking about the U .S. becoming, you
know, Chris mentioned Bush also talked about
this, like being open to scientists and students
coming from around the world. Right. And so the
importance of like attracting talent, a big part
of that. And actually, I have some work right
now looking at the importance of the 1965 Immigration
and Nationality Act, which was like just around
the time of Civil Rights Act. President Kennedy
was was really pushing for this. But if you look
at how science developed and kind of who the
scientists were, it really changed a lot in that
time because you had a lot. lot of international
students coming to do PhDs in the U .S., staying
and, you know, having their careers here, but
also scientists coming. I mean, if you look at
data on like Nobel Prize winners, right, like,
you know, a lot of Nobel Prize winners did their
prize winning work in the U .S., but actually
like were born in other countries, right? So
again, this idea that immigration is a big part
of the story. And also, you know, Chris mentioned
there was also a lot of investment in universities,
right? And so training, training talent. And
so those became the places where you had training
happening and the science happening and, you
know, had very open institutions. And so I think,
you know, this question today about like, are
we revisiting that social contract? You know,
I think there's a lot more pressure on scientists,
on universities to really show what the returns
are. What are they producing? How is that impacting
the economy? And I think, you know, that kind
of departs a bit from Bush's. vision, which is
that society really has to invest in research
because of these long run benefits that are really
large, even if you can't predict them. And so,
you know, again, I think there's this challenge
right now of like, how do we balance this of
like showing that it's useful and it's helping
the economy when a lot of the research that's
being done that needs, you know, that. previously
it was funded, we, you know, don't know what's
going to happen. And I think also with talent,
right, we are in this period of potentially like
restricting talent that comes to the U .S. And
so, you know, we're in a system where like I
think over 30 percent of our PhDs awarded in
the U .S., you know, our international students.
Yeah, and even in some fields, even more. So
I think computer science, it's like, you know,
seen like 60%. So and you think about, you know,
these fields that are really critical in terms
of like, you know, innovation happening. And
so, you know, science is so international. And
so kind of what happens if you start to, you
know, some of the policies that are being discussed
about kind of shortening the length of the PhD,
if you're, you know, for non citizens, or, you
know, other policies that could change things
a lot. Yeah, and just on that point too, you
know, obviously as we've already sort of alluded
to, a lot of science policy changes have happened
in the last year and a half in the United States.
But one of them on that point about sort of...
homegrown U .S. citizen talent versus attracting
talent from elsewhere, there's also been destabilization
of the existing policies that support homegrown
scientists, right? So a very good example is
the NSF's Graduate Student Research Fellowship
Program. So as of very recently, the number of
awards that have been given out has been as dropped
significantly. I believe the past year it was
about half. I think the administration then ultimately
revised that and added a few. few hundred more.
But the point stands that between 2024 and 2025,
the number of U .S. citizens receiving this reward,
those are the only people that are eligible for
it, has dropped. But amazingly, if we're talking
about how do we prove value in these types of
things, that fellowship, which was a part of
the NSF from the very early days. was responsible
for producing, if I'm not mistaken, I think about
50 Nobel laureates, or at least they were supported
in part by that program, right? So that shows
just how valuable that program is if we do it.
So why cut the numbers? If we're concerned about
increasing representation of U .S. citizens in
our own science, sort of why destabilize one
of the few programs that really does that quite
well? Okay, just because I could keep you guys
here and talk about this forever. But I'm going
to have to skip a couple of questions because
we're jumping around, which is fantastic. But
also, we're quickly shifting in our discussion
towards the present. And I still think we need
to hit one kind of... shift that kind of happened
I guess in the late 70s or into 80s although
I think you guys will get into it and tell me
that I'm wrong and it goes further back than
that but like how we changed in the viewing of
ownership of scientific discovery because there
was a point somewhere along in the 80s at least
I recognized it a bit more in the 90s where it
became controlled a bit more by corporations
and you started to have even science fiction
put corporations as governments and stuff like
this in the far future. So there was definitely
a shift that was happening, wasn't there? Yeah,
I mean, I could talk about one... piece that
I'm a bit more familiar with. Well, I think you've
already mentioned the act as well, right, in
the same time frame. Yeah, that's what I was
going to maybe touch on is that kind of a real
turning point that a lot of economists have also
studied kind of the impacts of this was the Bayh
-Dole Act, which was in 1980. And so that was
essentially a law that allowed universities,
faculties, members who are working on research.
that kind of has commercial potential to patent
and license inventions that arose from, and the
key is from federally funded research. And so
before that, you know, the federal government
really retained the, you know, the rights, the
IP. And, you know, you hear in these stories
that like, you know, there were kind of all these
really promising discoveries that were kind of
like sitting, you know, sitting on ideas, sitting
on dusty shelves, right? That like nothing ever
happened with. And so, you know, the goal then
was to really make it easier to move these discoveries
from laboratory into commercial products. And,
yeah, it's interesting because, like, it was,
you know, buy and dole. And so, you know, there
was, like, this, you know, bipartisan effort.
And buy, actually, I think the story in... But
I think that his wife had, you know, a form of
cancer, you know, and had a health issue. And
essentially, like, you know, there was no therapy,
you know, there was nothing that was developed
because it hadn't, you know, there was research
that had been promising that wasn't commercialized.
Maybe Chris knows the story better. But yeah,
so I think this idea that like, how can we actually
get this science kind of, you know, into like
helping society was a goal. And so, you know,
there's been. And research has kind of looked
at this shift and, you know, what as faculty
started to kind of commercialize more. And actually,
the NSF has its own program, which I'm involved
a little bit in evaluation of, which is called
the NSF I -Corps program. So it's actually something
that is funded by the, you know, by the NSF to
try to train. It's like an entrepreneurship training
program. So you take faculty at universities
and, you know, how do you get them thinking about
the market? you know, for their research? What
would be the product that would be developed?
And so, but I think that shift, yeah, it was
really in the 80s. Yeah, no, I think you nailed
it. The only piece I would add to it is also
I believe it's in 1981, but there's a major shift
in tax structure as well, that there was the
addition of basically making investments by companies
and by corporations into research and development,
something that they could ultimately deduct.
So that shift, being able to make those expenses
something that was not necessarily purely out
of pocket, coming purely out of their profits,
they could instead shift it from their total
revenue. So, yeah, I mean, I think those two
things together. in addition to the fact that
the... Although the total research dollars coming
from the Fed continue to rise, the proportion
relative to economic output continue to drop
throughout this period. So as the federal government
is taking less and less ownership of how research
is done, you're seeing these changes in policy
and law that are encouraging investment from
industry into science. And by and large, I think
that's a great thing. It's led to a lot of valuable
products. Certainly, you see a surge. and things
like pharmaceutical companies and diagnostic
companies after this period. But yeah, I would
say, as Ina mentioned, the early 1980s was a
point where the emphasis was, how can we make
science more commercial? It's a double -edged
sword, certainly, but that was really where they
were focused. So then how does that knock on
effects to other parts of the scientific apparatus?
NASA is famous for letting all of their patents
go straight to the public. And so now you have
these institutions that are trying to potentially
commercialize those patents. So was there knock
-on effects throughout the apparatus? Well, what
I would say is that starting in this period and
continuing until now, because of that point of
emphasis, how do we make the research that we're
doing valuable to the public or valuable to some
kind of commercial enterprise. You see less and
less interest in necessarily funding higher risk,
more basic research programs. So instead, the
emphasis becomes, yeah, what's the long tail
view of this research? What is the immediate
impact? How fast will we be able to get there?
And then work that is a little bit more... that
doesn't necessarily have a direct line to some
kind of commercial value becomes less and less
emphasized. Now, granted, there have been changes
also in certain grants that were created to help
avoid that or reinvest in basic research in a
traditional sense. But I think really that change
in attitude continued to seep into these agencies
that are run by the federal government and put
more and more pressure on scientists to, yeah,
to be how do we make your work as productive
as possible? So I would say maybe that's the
kind of the through line is that these changes
in policy precipitated a general attitude of
how do we make research immediately more valuable
to the public? OK, so just before we get to the.
the present day, I'm in Canada, I'm not in the
US, you know, Europe, did they have the same
kind of shift towards more corporate entities
and trying to make sure that, you know, these
things became quicker to market and to add to
the citizens of the country? Or was it really
just follow the leader from the States? Like,
how did that all come to be? Yeah, I mean, I
think that, yeah, I wouldn't say that. Europe
and Canada just followed the U .S. I mean, I
think I'm actually so I'm in Europe right now
in France. And yeah, I mean, I think there is
this idea of, you know, similar ideas that you
want, you know, you want to the public, you want,
you know, the government wants to see the benefits
of what they're investing in. But but I would
say, you know, my sense is that Canada. Europe,
for sure, has placed more emphasis on publicly
funded science and less pressure on universities
to patent discoveries or create startups compared
to the U .S. innovative activities and starting
entrepreneurship startups i mean there's really
great examples from europe but if you look at
you know people always say if you just look at
mit and like kind of kendall square like there's
like so much activity there um compared to kind
of you know if you look at a typical kind of
country in over here. And so, you know, I think
just this idea that U .S. is much more kind of
innovative and has a lot more of this commercialization.
But yeah, I mean, I think this is where I think
kind of back to this, I keep bringing this up,
but I think this is, you know, problem that countries
are trying to solve, which is like, how do you
preserve science as a public good while also
turning these discoveries into, you know, economic
and social benefits. So, and I will mention,
you know, there's one thing that came to mind
when Chris was speaking just now. And then you
mentioned, you know, about NASA giving away patents.
And there was such an interesting study that
this economist Heidi Williams did of looking
at Solara and like when kind of, you know, kind
of the human genome project. And this is like,
you know, like a big... a big effort right international
effort and you had kind of this interesting like
now economists love what we call natural experiments
so you had kind of this you know private you
know effort to try to you know, to do this. And
then you also have the public effort. And what
Heidi was able to show is that it's a bit random
of like which genes like were, you know, kind
of ended up being discovered. And so you had
patents on the private ones and not on the public
ones. And then she could like follow what happened.
And I think this idea like what came out of that
work, and there's been kind of follow up to and
it's a bit more nuanced, but but the idea that
if you have, you know, the public has access
to this information, and it's like not patented,
then you're going to get more follow -on innovation.
And so, and I haven't seen, well, you know, I
haven't seen a study on NASA. Maybe it's a good
topic for a PhD student in economics to pursue.
But I think that's something we're still learning
about because, you know, this thing we, you know,
we didn't get into it. We didn't have time today,
but like, you know, patents, are they good or
bad? That's a big question, right? You know,
you need incentives for people to invest into
that, you know, R &D. And if you don't have a
patent, then people may not do it. But then,
you know, this tension, then it's also you're
not kind of giving access to that discovery to
other people. So anyway, I think that's another
topic for another session. Yeah, it's a whole
can of worms. But I think we've kind of arrived
at the present. Gosh, I got to tell you, when
I look south, I'm like, holy smokes, what is
going on? How much change can one country do
in just two years? So, I mean, I wrote this question
originally, but I don't even know where to take
it. I feel like I'm pretty information dense.
I take in a lot of information. But I don't even
know how to process, like, what's these ramifications
going on? Because even if you, you know, switch
the policy 180 degrees, you can't go back to
what it was. Like, it's not that simple. So,
I don't know. I'm just going to leave it there
and leave it to you guys. Yeah. I mean, yeah.
Boy, is it hard to summarize the scale and scope
of recent changes to U .S. science policy. kind
of across the government. But sticking to our
areas of expertise, it's been a whirlwind. I've
been maintaining this tracker for my company
that basically just pulls articles about different
changes so that I can have it all in one place.
And just after a year and a half, it's a really
long document. Some things are more minor. Some
things are massive changes. But I would say,
to your point, one of the most important... points
of discussion in a general sense is that science
relies on stability and reliable infrastructure
to continue to produce discoveries that then
lead to innovations. So as you do these mass
shifts, as you change things dramatically from
how they've been done and how they've been productive,
that destabilization in and of itself puts the
infrastructure and the enterprise at risk. So
even if some of these policies have a rosy end,
how they're being rolled out, And ultimately,
the lack of scientific input on how these are
being developed and rolled out is a big, big
part of the problem. Just quickly, you know,
we've seen. grant terminations, freezes in delivery
of grant funds, including some that support clinical
trials and longitudinal studies. There have been
massive personnel cuts to scientific agencies
and including government scientists. There's
certainly an effort to have more tighter, centralized
political control over both the work being done
at some of these agencies, as well as their ability
to communicate externally. You know, I mentioned
the NSF. GRFP cuts. And maybe today, I think
where most people are focused is, again, that
additional layers of political oversight, especially
on grant funding decisions. There's been a lot
of discussion about a recently proposed rule
by the Office of Management and Budget to effectively
set aside. scientists -led decision -making in
the funding of scientific research. So instead
of it being peers evaluating the work and deciding
who gets funded, ultimately those folks would
shift to more of an advisory role, and then a
political appointee would be responsible for
making those decisions. That also goes as far
to include how their ability to use those funds
to publish science, the ability to travel for
conferences, it just... It injects, as I said,
a layer of political influence into the process.
And yeah, a lot of people are very concerned
about what that means because of what we've described
in this episode, that that is fundamentally not
how science has been done in the United States
up until now. Yeah. And to put, I guess, a labor
and economic point on it, it must be, I assume,
going to be harder to retain and attract new
talent. Right now. And that's exactly. Yeah,
I think that's where, you know, we talked already
a little bit about immigration. Right. And so
this idea of attracting talent. But that's, you
know, thinking about global talent. But, you
know, I think what we're going to pick up on
what Chris was talking about with what's happened,
you know, in terms of government agencies. And
so we didn't really get to talk much about, you
know, after World War Two. that you had kind
of the role of a government scientist, right?
And it became a really attractive career path,
right? And so you had these agencies, right,
NASA, EPA, NIH, and you had government scientists,
you know, really, you know, talented individuals
who, you know, wanted to come to work for these
agencies, you know, because there were these
also, you know, mission, you know, mission driven
agencies. And, you know, we think about the scientific
workforce, you know, often we focus on universities
often, but really like, you know, within the
government, you have so much, you know, kind
of in terms of science being produced and these
career paths. And so now when we're in this period
where what Chris was talking about, where you
have, you know, workforce reductions, you have
all, you know, going back to the Mertonian norms,
you know, some of these things around community
and, you know, going to conferences or, you know,
autonomy, those have also changed. And so it
really raises, I think, long -term questions
about the long term, whether, you know, the government
will be able to attract talent, right? So given
that there is this now uncertainty and the trust
is kind of, you know, maybe been eroded, you
know, will people see these institutions as desirable
places to build careers? And, you know, this
is true also for economists, right? It's like
we have a lot of PhD economists would also go
work for government institutions. And so, you
know, I think we all have stories we know of
people who've kind of gone through this and are,
you know, aren't sure about whether even in the
future, they're going to want to work for the
government. So, you know, and even we can go
back to the Manhattan Project, we've talked about
a lot, but like, you know, what if all the, you
know, Oppenheimer, Feynman, you know, Fermi,
what if they didn't want to be involved, right?
So then that becomes a question. If you don't
have the talent wanting to be a part of it, what
does that mean? Yeah. And just to add to that,
what would have happened if folks like Einstein
didn't feel safe to emigrate into the United
States? Would they have gone somewhere else?
Would the Manhattan Project have been missing
key players that ultimately led to the success
of the project? So, yeah, I mean, as I said,
I think the immigration story here is a huge
part of the problem. The United States has benefited.
Its point of leadership is not just the output
of the science, but it is also that the United
States in the last 50 years has been kind of
the place to do the research, the place to come
to conferences and to meet other scientists.
also to get their education. Maybe they go home,
maybe they go back to China, they go back to
Sweden, but they might have gotten their graduate
schooling done in the United States. They may
have done a postdoc here. So if we start to dial
that back down, how does that trickle down to
the folks, everyone else in the United States
that has benefited maybe quietly from the work
of all of these immigrants? For sure. I do want
to touch on one more thing before we get to call
outs and the infamous last question. I've had
to skip over a lot because You guys are so fascinating,
and I keep learning more and more things. But
there's this last question I really want to touch
on, and I get it. You guys have definitely made
the case today that science is always, at least
how we conduct it, how we build it within a state
or an institution, is political. But it also
became the literal backbone of law and regulation.
I mean, we didn't get the time to talk about
it, but the Clean Air Act, EPA's founding. I
guess, are we kind of reaping the reaper's harvest
at this point? Because that kind of made science
political, or at least the scientist in absentia,
because we are not very good talkers, political
is like an entity. Because government does it,
to some individuals, it can't be trusted. Like,
is that kind of where we're in today? Is that
kind of a one way to sum it up? Chris? Huge question.
I know, I know. I saved the worst for last. I'm
sorry. No, no, it's a great question. You know,
I think I would actually argue, and I have many
times at this point, that, as you said, science
is inherently political. If it depends on the
function of government, it depends on politics.
U .S. scientists for decades enjoyed bipartisan
support, and that led to all of these things
that we've discussed, and that's great. As that
shifts, now suddenly we're realizing the fact
that because the scientists themselves are not
necessarily as equipped to maybe do the advocacy,
they're not close enough to the levers of power.
Maybe they're not as good at organizing. Now
that there is less sort of well -established,
trusted support, the scientists were sort of
caught. I would say U .S. scientists were caught.
flat footed. We're surprised by a lot of these
changes. So why I say I disagree some is just
to say that I think that because science has
always had this, or modern science has always
had this political connection, that we need to
do better to actually be. part of those conversations
things like You know, there are policy fellowships,
you know that help support scientists and get
them into roles of established roles in government
I'd love to see more representation of scientists
in in actual elected positions I would say that
increasing the amount of political activity for
scientists is a good thing That may not necessarily
be very partisan. It may be focused on specific
issues of expertise. But I think the time may
have passed where we can just trust that the
government and maybe also to some extent the
public will continue to foot the bill without
us necessarily having to keep them along for
the ride. Yeah, no, I think that's great. And
I'll just add, I guess one thing that I was thinking
about, because I think this is a great question,
is, you know, it's whether that science is political
or that it's politically consequential. And so,
you know, if you think about, like you mentioned,
you know, Clean Air Act and you think about,
you know, kind of other ways that we turn to
scientists to provide us like with evidence to
make policy decisions, I think that's something
that I hope will continue. And I think this is
where, you know, if we think about, you know,
even the Manhattan Project, right? Like scientists
made... you know, that possible, right? The atomic
bomb, but scientists didn't decide to build it,
fund it or use it. So those are political or
military decisions and not clear if it was good
for society, right? And so, but I think there's
kind of distinction between, yeah, there's the
science and, you know, for example, like telling
us whether a pollutant is going to increase health
risks, but then it's up to, you know, society
and our politicians and, you know. policymakers
to kind of then think about how much you know
regulation should society should there be right
and so i think yeah it's nuanced and so i don't
know i think we're entering a period for all
the reasons that you know we've discussed already
and chris was pointing to where Now, whether
there's trust in those institutions to use the
science, I think that's kind of a question. And,
you know, I think this is where, you know, kind
of whether we're going to kind of continue to
have these institutions like peer review, replication,
you know, thinking about, you know, vaccine research
effective, you know, whether the evidence can,
we're going to have institutions that can actually
like help us get the right science, scientific
evidence that kind of helps with the policy decisions.
You know, and then just like going back to something
that we started with, too, of like thinking about
what I've seen in different places. So like going
back to Tajikistan and former Soviet countries,
I really think like, you know, scientific institutions
seem to be most effective when they're open and
independent. Right. And so. That, I think, is
the question now. You know, if we need credible
science, you know, are we going to be able to
have kind of, yeah, those institutions remain
that are going to be open and independent? So,
yeah, let's see. I'm optimistic still that we
will come, you know, we will make it through,
but let's see. Yeah, me too. I think stealing
yourself from doom is one of the most important
things that we can do right now and remain focused
on, yeah, how can we continue to do science and
maybe protect what remains of successful policy?
So, yeah, I mean, like I said, I think it's important
that – I'll say this obviously as a communicator,
very self -serving. But, yeah, I think a groundswell
of empathetic scientific communicators can go
a long way towards – having these individual
conversations with members of the public. And
if everyone is able to influence a small number
of people to support these policies or learn
even a bit about the evidence that goes behind
them, I think we will ultimately be much better
off. Sure, it would have been better that we
did more of that 20 years ago. Maybe we, you
know, our circumstance now would be different.
But, you know, maybe what's the old saying? The
best time to start was yesterday. The next best
time to start is today. And I think that's really
where I try to encourage folks. Perfect. That's
a great place to end the main part of the interview
on a positive note. I always prefer that to the
doomsayers because then we get stuck and we don't
do anything. So now it's time for call outs.
And this is just an opportunity to call out past
colleagues, future work, something you read the
other day that you thought everyone should hear,
really anything at all. And you could have nothing
to call out at this moment because you've talked
too much because I've already had you for over
an hour. I think I'm good. Maybe I'll just say
one that relates very closely to our discussion
today. Go read The Endless Frontier. It's not
a particularly long or dense text. Not every
single aspect of it was turned into policy, but
it does lay, I think, a view of how science and
government can work together productively. And
I think folks will find themselves, scientists
especially, just kind of nodding along the way.
So yeah, I would say this has been a... core
focus of the discussion, so go check it out.
Awesome. Now, it's time for the infamous last
question. Who wants to go first? Who wants to
tell their favorite science joke? No volunteers?
Do I have to pick? Alright, I'll do it. Hopefully
the delivery is good enough and it's not just
me thinking that this is funny. Oh, no, no, no.
The worse the delivery, the better. The more
groaning, the better. Good. Okay. So really,
this is maybe dad jokes, which I'm becoming more
and more good at. Yes. Okay. So this is one I
came across recently, and I really love it. Darwin
counted finches and Mendel counted peas. Watson
and Crick counted on Rosalind Franklin. I like
that. Okay. Should I go? You go for it. All right.
So this one. It actually came in handy very recently.
My 10 -year -old had his first kind of introduction
in his science class to the particle theory of
matter. So here we go. Why should you never trust
an atom? They make up everything. Perfect. Thank
you guys so much for being on. This was amazing.
Yeah, thanks for having us. Yeah, I learned a
lot. It's great. Likewise. And that's an episode
that is in the books. Definitely the longest
one I've ever put out. So I'm going to keep this
real brief. We've only got two more episodes
left of season two. And then we'll be taking
a bit of a break until September. So thanks for
sticking with us. And if you liked it, leave
a review. Reviews are really important to the
show and getting it out there to other people.
Stay tuned because the next two episodes you
definitely don't want to miss. In a world so
chaotic, so misbehaved, echoes of melodies remind
us it's always. Colors weave stories, painting
the sky, swaying to rhythms as the galaxies fly
by. Chasing down wonders, always seeking.