Book Review

Science, Money and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion

N Engl J Med 2001; 345:1283October 25, 2001

Article

Science, Money and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion
By Daniel S. Greenberg. 528 pp. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2001. $35. ISBN: 0-226-30634-8

Daniel S. Greenberg states up front in the introduction to this study that “this is not a work of reverence, as are many books about science.” To those who have followed Greenberg's career — as an investigative journalist for Science magazine; as publisher of Science and Government Report, a biting and penetrating biweekly science-policy newsletter; and as the author of a previous irreverent study of science policy in the United States, The Politics of Pure Science (New York: New American Library, 1967) — such a declaration is unnecessary and even redundant.

But it would be wrong to be diverted by Greenberg's long-held credentials as a gadfly to the science-policy pooh-bahs in Washington, D.C. Although it builds on a vast foundation of first-hand journalistic knowledge, Science, Money and Politics transcends journalistic fact gathering and presents cogently argued themes to explain the history and present state of the “science enterprise” in the United States. The book chronicles many of the events, clashes, and trends in U.S. science policy over the past three decades, from President Richard Nixon's banishment of science from the White House to the high drama in which science funding was held hostage in the titanic budget clash between President Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress in 1995. The book ends on the high note that, in the year 2000, federal support for basic research reached an all-time high of more than $20 billion.

So what is the problem? In Greenberg's eyes, it is that science is in danger of losing its “soul” through a steady “ethical erosion” and the “misuse” of the trust and confidence placed in it by the American people and their political representatives. He states that, “by virtually every relevant measure, the United States leads the world in the financing, quality and volume of research . . . and [it] appears bound to maintain, and increase, its supremacy far into the new century.” Yet those involved in the science enterprise are plagued by fear and paranoia, as exemplified by the self-serving myths of a “golden age” of government largesse in the past, the jeremiads depicting science as a “financially deprived ward of the government,” and the belief that public understanding of science is “an indispensable ingredient of public support for science.”

Greenberg systematically demonstrates that, despite “fiscal doom mongering,” the United States has been “on a research spending spree” for the past 30 years. Between 1969, when Nixon took office, and 1998, total support for research and development in the United States increased from $26 billion to $228 billion; 2000 was the 26th year in which federal support, in constant dollars, was greater than it had been the previous year. Yet in the early 1990s, Nobel prize winner Leon Lederman stated that the “current capacity for research” in the United States was only one third of what it had been in the 1970s — one of numerous examples of statements by science-policy leaders in which, according to Greenberg, “precision took second place to propaganda.”

There is also a widely held but erroneous assumption that “science, democracy and prosperity” are at risk. Greenberg argues that “no evidence is offered, and none exists,” for a correlation between the public understanding of science and the “provision of public money for research.” And in telling examples, he points out that in 1998, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) spent about $500 million on research on breast cancer, a highly publicized and politicized disease, while the Department of Energy spent almost $700 million on research on high-energy physics, a discipline virtually unknown to the public and obscure even to scientists in other fields.

Readers of the Journal will be particularly interested in where biomedical research fits into Greenberg's analysis. He readily acknowledges the extraordinary achievements that have been made in the biomedical sciences and in biotechnology during the past several decades. At the same time, he fears the “ethical erosion of American science” in these areas of research. In Greenberg's view, pressures have emerged from the “pervasive invasion of the money ethic in the conduct and presentation of research.” He cites the increasing incidence of the invention or misuse of data, duplication of research, and flagrant conflicts of interest among scientists involved with corporate programs. He is particularly concerned about the rise of entrepreneurs in universities whose main goal is to promote technology transfer through the exploitation of university patents.

The book is much stronger (and longer) on analysis than on prescription. Greenberg devotes only 5 of almost 500 pages to “modest” recommendations. A central theme of these prescriptions is that working scientists must become more involved in politics. They must speak out regarding the large issues facing the United States and the world, and the nation would benefit greatly if more scientists moved directly into elected and appointed offices. “The aim,” notes Greenberg, “is to dislodge science from its comfortable ghetto and move it into the waters of the political mainstream.”

The press and Congress must also assume new roles: journalists should stop acting as “cheerleaders” for science and become informed and skeptical critics — particularly of the “shrill Washington lobbies for science.” Similarly, Congress should move beyond its “uncritical pandering” to science and instead exercise real oversight and force the executive to institute real spending priorities. Greenberg also recommends several institutional reforms, including a breakup of the “ossified,” elephantine NIH.

Greenberg himself would no doubt admit that none of these proposals are given adequate analysis in the space allotted. No matter. The real strength of this study lies in its challenging and disturbing analyses, which constitute an indispensable primer for all serious debate on the future of the science enterprise in the United States.

Claude E. Barfield
American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC 20036
cbarfield@aei.org