In the final analysis

JOM, Jun 2002 by Robinson, James J

"At the core of each discipline, there develops a consensus of the learned .... On the frontier of the discipline, there is a lot of disagreement."

-E.D. Hirsch, Jr.

The frontier of a discipline; now, that's where the fun is-knowledgeable debate, impassioned exchanges, fiery discourse, and occasional hair pulling (one of the reasons so many of us display attractive bald spots). Although I'm not an argumentative person by nature (preferring to simply get my own way), I certainly appreciate the virtues of a vigorous exchange of ideas. Why? Debate shows that we care. A clash of perspectives indicates that people are willing to make an effort. Disagreement indicates that some of us have considered issues, have staked out positions, are willing to articulate the rationale for our beliefs, and are desirous of converting others to a particular point of view. This is not to say that argument for the sake of argument is to be treasured; that is only worthwhile when performed by Monty Python. Nor am I referring to the art of the master rhetorician, who is content to let form triumph over substance (think of a politician; better yet, don't). What intrigues me is the honest exchange of well-reasoned but seemingly incompatible ideas.

We see this confluence of ideas at its most elegant in environments of reasonable intellectual exchange, where special interests, hidden agendas, politics, and deal-making are rejected in favor of scholarly opinion and facts. We see it at its nadir when elected officials formulate a governmental budget. Ugh! Like many of you, I closely follow the ebb and flow of the U.S. federal government's annual budgeting process. Not because I enjoy this particular debate, but because I have a professional's interest and because I want to know how family, friends, and members are going to be affected. Over many months, many people exchange many ideas and debate many perspectives until we learn which programs will thrive and which will die.

As I write, the National Science Foundation (NSF) looks to be in good shape, which is great because they do a wonderful job. Today, the talk is of trying to double the foundation's budget over five years, taking annual expenditures to somewhere around $7 billion. Sounds good, but we'll see. There's a lot of ground to make up between the health and physical sciences. As the NSF does so much work to support science education, I am hopeful that their current and future efforts may do more to spur youth toward technology as a career path. Within the United States, the vocational choices of young people are distressing to university materials programs, technology-center businesses, and member-based professional societies.

At another one of my favorite agencies, NASA, an independent task force has been formed to "perform an independent external review and assessment of research productivity and priorities for the entire scientific, technological, and commercial portfolio of NASA's Biological and Physical Research Enterprise, and to provide recommendations on how to achieve the greatest progress in high-priority research." I hope that a consensus of the learned will be attained and prevail.

Whether today's budget trends become tomorrow's budget realities remains to be seen. After all, in the world of politics, priorities have a habit of changing with the polls, especially in an election year. So, what looks good as I write this in early May could look dismal when you read it in June. And about that, there can be no debate.

James J. Robinson

Editor