Science
Crazy. fancies?
Bernard Dixon
There's a cautionary tale, for those of us who believe politicians should take more interest in the affairs of science, in the recent doings of the Arizona Congressman John B. Conlan. Earlier this year, he launched a personal campaign against "squanderous waste and misuse of tax dollars,"
and among the targets for his criticism were several scientific research projects. Conlan announced that these were "silly," and singled them out for public attack as "boondoggles." Conlan's "silly projects" included the following:
I) A five-year $20,000 studY of the blood groups of Polish Zlotnika pigs, funded by the US Department of Agriculture. 2) An inquiry, sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution, into the bpioselisxhuafrliotgy. of Rane esculanta, a 3) An investigation of mating calls and parotid gland secretions of the Central American Toad,
conducted under a National Science Foundation grant of $21,000.
4) A study of adaptation of lizards in Yugoslavia, also under the auspices of the Smithsonian Institution.
Immediately after Conlan had made known his disquiet through the press, sympathetic taxpayers, who could see just as well as Conlan how absurd were such scientific investigations, began sending him letters of support. The game was up. Scientists had for too long been able to squander public money on crazy fancies, and many people welcomed the appearance of a Congressman who had spotted the game and been prepared to take a public stand on the issue.
Understandably, as reported in the current issue of Bioscience (vol 24, p 607), many scientists have been less happy. Dr George Gorman, for example, a University of California biologist receiving federal funds for work on the Yugoslavian lizard populations of small islands, has jumped into the fray. "It is your perfect right as a citizen and Congressman to watch how our tax money is spent," he has assured Conlan, "but it is immature and unsophisticated to raise objections because the project 'sounds funny' . . . Without deep investigation, who are you to know whether the study of bisexual frogs or Yugoslavian lizard competition is 'important'?"
Dr Gorman pointed out that his lizard work, carried out for its relevance to genetics and ecology, might have practical implications for animal husbandry. In the same vein, Professor Laurence Karp has responded to the crusading Congressman by announcing that the Zlotnika pig research could yield results of importance in an understanding of human disease associated with blood group incompatibilities. Research' on bisexual pigs, he argued, might possibly help our understanding of human transexualism, transvestism, homosexuality, and sexual criminality. Cohlan's bandwagon, Professor Karp, suggested, was "being drawn by that most useful animal — the scapegoat."
It is challenging, in this situation, to decide which side is being most inept. Mr ConIan's position is certainly absurd. By his standards, there is little doubt that virtually all scientific projects are, or could be made to appear, silly. A similarly-minded politician of ear her times would equally have had no difficulty in ridiculing the research proposals of Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Louis Pasteur, or Lord Rutherford. The Congressman is simply floundering — dangerously so — in an area where he clearly lacks the most elemen tary understanding. But it is equally dangerous to respond defensively to such inept criticism, by promising that research which is clearly being conducted without any expectation of immediate payoff, may well have important, defined practical consequences. With people like Conlan around, to suggest tangible rewards that may never materialise, is politically naive. What scientists ought to do, in this situation, is to point out most forcibly that pure research is essential for its own sake, as the groundwork for our increasing understanding of the physical and biological world. It is an activity every civilised community ought to support. It is also one which — quite unpredictably — does occasionally yield practical findings of the most momentous significance. But such results cannot be programmed, let alone delivered on the nail to ignorant but zealous politicians.
Previous page
