We will discuss the 1945 document "Science: the Endless Frontier" by
Dr. Vannevar Bush, one of the "grandparents" of computing (no relation
to the current President Bush).  This is the proposal that initiated
the establishment of the US National Science Foundation (NSF), which
is the source of most of the department's funding.  It is a
fascinating historical document, and is still the best statement of
the mission of public support for science.

The document is linked through the CPS 300 page under "science in the
public interest", at the bottom.  You can find it at:

http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm

NSF posted it as part of their 50-year celebration.  You can find
related material at the prefix URL: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50.

Dr. Bush made this proposal at the end of World War II.  This was a
time when the United States was just beginning to embrace the idea
that we could pursue grand objectives in science in technology as a
nation with government support.  Certainly this view was influenced by
the outcome of the Manhattan Project, which developed the atomic bomb
and created a consortium of National Labs that survives to this day.
The US government adopted Dr. Bush's proposal almost in its entirety.
It reshaped the scientific enterprise in this country, as well as the
institution of the university.  Even so, its underlying premises are
still controversial.

I won't ask you to read this document in detail.  There won't be a
test.  But I would like for you to be interested enough to absorb its
message and reflect on it.  Please think about the following
questions, and come prepared with some interesting/provocative
views on these points. 

(1) What are some examples of the kinds of positive impacts or "grand
challenge" problems that can justify public funding for science?

(2) To what degree must science serve these specific objectives in
order to justify public funding?  What is the "right" level of public
support for science, and the "right" level of burden to place on
scientists to justify their funding?  How should the government decide
what science is worthy of public support, and how much support?
(E.g., look at the "five fundamentals" toward the end of the
document.)

(3) Does the rationale still apply today?  What has changed, and how
should the mission of science and public support for science adapt to
respond to those changes?  For example, computation has evolved during
that half-century from a gleam in Dr. Bush's eye to a full-fledged
academic discipline and one of the world's largest industries.  What
benefits does public support for computer science research
specifically provide for the public?

(4) The US government has been following Dr. Bush's prescription for
almost 50 years.  In what ways has this experiment succeeded?  In what
ways has it fallen short?  What are some of the dangers of public
funding for science?  (For example, consider some of the issues raised
in Chapter 5.)

(5) According to Dr. Bush, what ways other than direct subsidy are
available to government to support or encourage science?  How are they
relevant to scientists?  Why (in his view) are they not sufficient?

(6) According to Dr. Bush, what is the proper role of university
research labs, as distinct from national labs and industry labs?  How
does this support or undermine to the teaching mission of the
universities?  Is it good or bad for the students?  (E.g., Have the
concerns of the Moe Committee proven to be valid?)