Perhaps I’ve just been in this field too long.
Earlier this month several leading science policy administrators put their names to this article on The Huffington Post. In the piece the authors use the 70th anniversary of Science: The Endless Frontier to argue for using a vision from 1945 to continue America’s status as a prime innovating nation.
The report in question was written by Vannevar Bush to argue for a dedicated source of federal funding for scientific research. This National Research Foundation was not the same thing as the National Science Foundation that emerged. So while the report was not entirely successful in crafting the agency Bush envisioned, it has managed to be successful in crowding out any other major rationale for federal investment in science and technology research. The shorthand it represents is reified by these senior administrators in their article. Both in citing Science: The Endless Frontier and by calling for the same things – more scientists, more investments and more policy champions – the authors do little more than say what could have been said by their predecessors 5, 10, 15 or more years ago.
I’d love to hear a new theme, something that’s younger than me.