I have been summarizing the news affecting science and education for the last 18+ months. In this series, I try to put this all into context a bit. I am not a historian and this is not intended to be a comprehensive history. I’m trying my best, but please let me know if I’m missing an essential event or perspective. I haven’t finalized the number of posts, but it’ll probably be between five and ten. The first few will cover events prior to 2025.
This has all been helpful for me to put together, so maybe it’ll be helpful to read as well?
It is, admittedly, a very American thing to say that there is a long and rich history of science in the United States. But for as long as the country has existed, the federal government has had an interest in facilitating scientific inquiry.
The Constitution empowers Congress to “promote the progress of science and useful arts”[1]. Precursors to the relationship between the U.S. government and the scientific research enterprise that would develop in the mid 20th century include the chartering of the National Academy of Sciences in 1863[2] to “whenever called upon by any department of the Government, investigate, examine, experiment, and report upon any subject of science or art.” and the opening of the first federal laboratory for medical bacteriology in 1887. This laboratory would, in subsequent decades, be expanded into the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The modern American scientific research enterprise is the result of the dramatic expansion of federal support following World War II. Science: The Endless Frontier, a foundational document for this expansion, articulated several principles that would define the government’s relationship with science in the following decades. These include:
The U.S. federal government should directly support the scientific research enterprise, serving a role distinct from (though complementary with) private industry and other stakeholders.
Investments in basic scientific research as well as in the education and training of scientists are strategic national assets that provide long-term benefits to the nation’s health, prosperity, and security. The country cannot depend on other stakeholders to make these investments[3].
Decisions about the quality and direction of research-related efforts should be made through scientific self-governance (i.e. through peer review) rather than through political processes.
Scientific opportunity should be broadly available. Individuals with scientific talent should have the opportunity to pursue research regardless of their circumstances.
Notably, while The Endless Frontier describes the development of an environment for the practice of high-quality science, it is not prescriptive about what that practice actually entails. Federal engagement with questions related to the quality and reliability of research would emerge later, with a notable early example being the Kefauver–Harris Amendments of 1962, which established more rigorous evidentiary standards for research submitted to the Food and Drug Administration and catalyzed the development and codification of regulations related to clinical trial methodology.
Over the following decades, researchers working within the federally supported research enterprise would document and propose methods for addressing systemic issues in science, including those related to study design and analysis, statistical power, and the selective reporting of research results. Practices such as data sharing, study registration, and even the dissemination of biomedical preprints were discussed and attempted well before the technological infrastructure needed for their widespread implementation became available. When this infrastructure was later built, it would often depend on federal investment.
But these developments did not occur in a vacuum.
Next week: Fraud, Cigarettes, Cancer, Reproducibility, and Open Science
[1] The quoted text is from the Copyright Clause, which is the basis for copyright and patent regulations in the United States.
[2] The NAS’s founding to, at least in part, provide independent advice to government entities on matters of science and technology, is notable given the recent political scrutiny of the Academy following its publication of a report on attribution science.
[3] The Endless Frontier generally discusses this in terms of countries devastated by World War II. However, it also notes that the return on investment for training scientists and supporting basic research is difficult to foresee in a manner that is not always amenable to profit focused private industry.