- Email: [email protected]
Presidential science advising and the National Academy of Sciences
0160-791x/88 $3 00 + 00 Copyryht Q 1988 Pergamon Press plc
Tccbuo&j II) SW&~. Vol lo. pp 385-393 (1988) Pmccd m the USA All nghrs rercmd
Presidential Science Advising and the National Academy of Sciences An Interview With 1.1. Rabi by William T. Golden
AB.Sm CT It IS well known that Rah spoh fluently, spon&neous&j, e&tavely - whb sutt, wudom, and humor; and that be anj~ycd doing so. But be mte with d$%nlty, consequent/y rarely, He and I were watm fiends fir some 40 years. So when I wanted a paper jium him, I hew the otdy way to get it was to sngage btm m conversattol), tape recorder gorng, occastond~ ieading the witness; then edit the mnstnpt, review it wi2b bim, argot some pornts, and emerge with a final paper. f have ahe tbk wi>b bm several t&s, always pieasw&y. The essay entitled “The prsridcnt and His SC&~@ Auh&’ in the ea.&r vo/ume, Science Advice to the Ptesident (Elmsford, NY: Peigamon Press, 1980) was achieved zti tbts way. The intervtew that follows is baud on two sesshns wrtb Ra&i tn the Lastfew months of bts hfe. I read tt to btm and Heien in galley sbortiy before bir dl?ath at the age of 89. He hked rt, twintied at a few of his iweverent obsewattons and approved it unchanged It is brr last pub/u expressaon.
W&am T. G&h d;mgned de PresiaknhalStwue A&iror~ appamtus for Prestaknt Tmmun m 1910. He t.rPresaaht of the New York ha&my of Schwes. He has served zn the US Navy (World War II), the Atomic Energy Commtishn, tbs Department of State, and the ikecutive O&e of the Presiaht. He recewed the Ihttngvdad Pnbhc Serutce Award of the Natum& Sctence Fwn&ion (1982). Mr. G&h 1san o@er and trwtee of the Amencan Assoctataonfir tbe Advancement of Schce, tbe Amencan Mscenm of Natuml Hutoty, tbe Mount Shu Hospa& rendMealcalS&o/, md tbe Curnegze Instztuttonof Wabmgton; end a member of tbe NattonalAcademy of Pubh Admmuzratzon and of the Amencan PbdosopbwulSoctety. 1.1. Ra& (1898-1988) Nobel Lureate m pbysus (1944), was a member of tbe ongmal Predent’s Sczence Advasog Commrttee (O&e of Defense Mobhatwn), uvu ztsCbarman (1956-57), and contanrrcdrrra PSAC mem&er w&f l%O. He wasa member of tbe GeneraLAdvuory Committee of tbe US Atomu hrgy Commitsaorr(1946-56) and rts Cbazrman (1952-J6). Dr. Utah served on many US Gowmment and UN boards, and reweavednamemns bonotr and&m& He m UmvemtyProfessorEmenta~at Coiambw Unliersq, and wasa memkr of the Amencan PhhsopbruJ Soctetyand of tbe N&nel Academy of Scwnces. This lntetview was fnst pubhshed IIIGolden. W.T , ed , Sctence and Techology Advaceto de Pmident, Congress, andluduxery (Elmsford, NY. Pergvnon Press, 1988). 385
386
W.T. C&Mm
Mr. Golden: Rab, your paper in tbi! j%st volume of this se&s, Science Advice to the President, published in 1980, was rephe witb vkci& chonn, and h&m. Now, seven or eight years later, I hope you U express your up-to-&e thoughts about science and tecbnojogy inputs to tbe highest hush of owr government. Dr. Rabi: Well, I’m discouraged about the trend and the situation. The culture of our government officials is apparently not up to science, There’s been a great departure from the roots: arithmetic, common sense, and the like. The President’s Science Advisor and the President’s Science Advisory Committee have not played effective roles since Nixon abolished them. Like many good intentions, the idea has gone sour, because the subsequent Presidents have not appointed PSACs and President Reagan has downgraded the Science Advisor’s of&e and wants only advice and ideas that please him. The Advisor’s job has been to back up the President-not to help him decide, but to back him up whatever his decision was. That is as far from science as you can get. Mr. Golden: You told me that yourwant to comment about the Nat&a/ AC&my of Sciences, wbicb plays a very important tale in this whole process of tbe eviluatzon of science and technology and of pmvidiffg schce and tecbnohu ad&e to the President and to tbe Congress and, in a sense, indirectly to the Jndicky and to the AmeriGan public. Dr. Rabi: The Academy should play a role, a central role; it is organized to do that. It was organized in such a brilliant way that it is in government and yet out of government. What has happened with the Academy is that we’ve added new divis~onsin recent years, like sociology and economics, that really have no place there. I think there should be no place in the Academy for activities that aren’t connected with hard science, for a very simple reason: The hard sciences are an essential element of our culture and the novel element in our culture for the last few hundred years. Sociology and economics are valuable in themselves, but they’re not science in the sense of physical and biological sciences. When the Academy speaks on such subjects, however, it speaks to politicians who feel they are just as capable of talking about such subjects as are the scientists, maybe more capable. Mr. Golden: You mean when they talk abotit economiGs or the socia/ sciences as distinguisbedjhm the pbyszcal and bioiogicai sciences? Dr. Rabi: Yes. And I think it’s disastrous. We did that with the President’s Science Advisory Committee - I recall Moynihan and some others. And, of course, those social scientists are very knowledgeable; they know all the gossip and so onvery impressive that way. And pretty soon the hard scientists are cowed and don’t speak with their own voices. But we really need their input, however naive it may appear at certain times. It’s an absolutely essential element, Another thing: The academy has grown, and there are too many people in it for intimate, collegial discussions. When any group goes above a certain size, it’s run by an in-group. People like to be elected. And, of course, greater size makes the
An Intemew Wzth I.I Rah
387
President of the Academy and the other officers very busy just running the show, in an administrative and fund-raising sense. And it becomes so diverse that they look for all sorts of work which, although important, can be done as well by other groups. So I think the Academy is over-expanded. Too many members, too much staff. It’s too big an organization and requires a lot of money just to keep alive. I have quit going to meetings. It’s not interesting. I can’t find the essential people I want to talk to. They’re lost in the crowd. Maybe I’m showing that I’m an old man. Mt. Golden: Well, you show that you haven ‘t lost your aLert, m&pendent, spin2ed pnatlltejudgment, You ‘ve certainty retained your sense of humor. When did you stop going to the Academy meetings? How fat ba&? Dr. Rabi: Oh, it must be some 10 years ago. The Academy has greatly increased in membership and budget in recent decades. Mt. Go/den: Was it dzfletent under Det Btonk? You used to go regular/y when be was Ptesadent - and you were younger. That 3 quite a while ago. Dr. Rabi: That’s quite a while ago. Then he was followed by Fred Seitz and then by Phil Handler, and now by Frank Press. Fred Seitz changed the scene. He brought in the engineers, put them on an equal level with the scientists; and that, I think, was devastating because, whatever you can say about the engineers (and they’re wonderful and essential people), they’re not scientists. They don’t have that kind of thinking. And they have a lot of money. They feel, therefore, that they’re very powerful and right. It is said that Britain and the US are two people separated by a common language, and I think that’s the scientists and engineers. They’re really very different. I was interviewed by some Japanese a few years ago on just that question. And it occurred to me to say that the difference between them can be best illustrated by the difference between poetry and advertising. Advertising lives on poetry, part of the language and so on, images-that sort of thing. But, of course, advertising is not poetry. Basically they’re very different. So you can sense the underlying cause of my discontent. Mt. Goiden: So you would not have created a National Academy of Engtneermg; or, $it bad been created, you wouLd not have piaced rt zn this close a$f&taon and pa&y with the National Academy of Sczences. Dr. Rabi: That’s right. They could be by themselves. Any connection of engineering with science can only degrade science. Science is other-worldly; engineers are practical people. And the people who get elected are not necessarily great engineers; many of them are heads of corporations and very valuable to our culture, but not to our science. And I have similar views about the Institute of Medicine. They’re different; they have very different outlooks. Mt. Golden: We& zfthe Nationa4 Academy of Sciences were dtia~titedfim other two, what would you vrsuahze it doing that st zsn ‘t dotng now?
the
388
W.T. Golden
Dr. Rabi: It would have to continue to supply studies and ad&e to the government, as it was founded to do, So muchdepends on the President of the Academy and the staff of the National Resea& Cour&l, They have somehow of other to imbue the government with the spirit of science, which is a cultural thing. When you have that, you have a different slant on ever@ing; at least, everything which concerns the government. So I can’t be spec& And, of course, it should be recoga nized that by stepping into all sorts of issues, taking on all sorts of questions, they lose their myrrtique. It’s only the very fundamental questions that should be addressed, 1’11 comment on 8 specific major topic for its value as an example. Recently, a question came up about the report of the Amtrim Physical Society that studied Star Wars; and then it was pointed out there was another opinion. So thepe are these two sides that differed. You realize that on the one side you had ~me of the most eminent scientists and engineers in the world, and on the other side had people who has a vested interest -government employees and so on. Which side should you select? Common sense tells you right off; YOU don’t have to be the common man, which I define in Nixon’s terms-don’t have to be an expert. Did I ever tell you about Nixon’s definition of “common man”? Mr. Go/den: No. Dr. Rabi: On one occasion, Nixon, I, and our host -a man who had headed the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and who had been high in the Department of Defense- were talking, and Nixon referred to the common man, and then began to defiic what he meant: Who is the common man? He said, “Well, it could be the president of a bank or the publisher of a newspaper, the head of a labor union, the superintendent of schools,” and went on that way-this was the man in the street. I thought it was a wonderful definition. Mr. Go/den: We/l, do you tbinh that the Academy’s eflectiveness ri imparred by reason of gettzng the huh of Its funds J%m the Congress, by appropriatma? Do you tbinh it cas be independent? Dr. Rabi: I don’t know. When it gets to be this big and has to live (I don’t know how many employees it has, it’s a large number), then you can’t be independent. You must keep yourself going; there are mouths to feed. Mr. Golden: You’ve indicated that you’dprefer the National Research Council to be a smaller undertakng, with fewer jobs. Dr. Rabi: We have all these think tanks around-God knows, the place is full of them. Very bright, very well-paid people. No need for the Academy to duplicate this stuff. Mr. Go/den: What couZd the Acdemy do to be uniquely helpful to the Congress; and I take it you are also tbinniing of the Executive branch?
A# Zntnvww With I.I. R&z
389
Dr. Rabi: Oh, helpful to the whole country. It is an independent body, with carefully selected people, American citizens. When problems come up in any important field, the Academy can be asked for advice. The Academy, through its structure, can bring in very good people. That’s what the President’s Science Advisory Committee was able to do because of its composition: marshall the whole, enormous scientific effort from the large number of qualified people in our country. Mr. Golden: You servedar a member of PSAC for many yeaq jam its e&y years; and you were its c&man fir a ttme, It ba beerr aboihhed. Do you tbinh it bax outkued tts usefulness? Or would you /ihe to see a PSAC restored to etitence?
Dr. Rabi: I don’t see how the President can do without one. You see, he’s tried to do without a PSAC. He’s gotten into one mess after another. Of course, the President has to have the capacity to use it. It should consist of people who arc themselves sufficiently important that he could dare to make a decision stand up before the country, if he had their backing. And also sufficiently important that they can’t ignore them. I’m not saying he should always take their advice but he should understand it, consider it, and not ignore it. A PSAC could be of great use to the President. You asked what use it could be. It could give him confidence, if it’s sufficiently well established-confidence when he takes their advice and protection if he does, on either side. And the President had that. Mr. Golden: You ‘re t&#ing
especially of Preszdent Eisenhower.
Dr. Rabi: Yes, I’m thinking especially of Eisenhower. Kennedy was not quite so good, because Jerry Wiesner, for all his great gifts, was no match for McGeorge Bundy; so he got shut out of foreign policy. Bundy was head of the National Security Council: a very important position. Mr. Gohh: So you wouM restore a PSAC. We’re tahinghere in the hope that your thoughts and those of otbers in the booA I’m assembling, wdZstimukzte tbmAing among candirkrtesfor the Presidency in 1988, and tbereafrcr, in tbe hope of injhenczng tbem to mahe more eflective use of sckntijk and techohgtkd advtce in the detenninatihn of federaj government policies over a broad range of zssues that will a#ect the lives of a/l of us. Well, Rab, let me sdrj? a Iittle here. What roles a%you see for the National Academ&s of Science and Engineenhg and tbe Institute of Medicine, as dtitingukbed firn the roie of a President’s Science Advisor and a Presiaht ‘s Science Advisory Commrttee?
Dr. Rabi: Well, a President’s Science Advisory Committee should be concerned with the problems that come before the President. They’re there for the President, for no other purpose. The Academy is there as a group that meets periodically and discusses scientific matters. They can discuss matters of public affairs, but there
390
w. T.
Go/den
should be a scientific base. So it’s an entirely different thing. In their capacity as members of the Academy, they are apolitical. As advisors to the President, the other group are- must be - politically sensitive. The President is and must be political. Mr. Golden: What would you see, then, as the Academy’s role? Do you agree that the Academy should do patiicu/ar study jobs, as they do now, dsrectc’yand via the National Research CounciZ? Dr. Rabi: I think they could do study jobs, but very selectively. Mr. Golden: And the wide vanety of studies that are undertaken Sy the National Research Council? Dr. Rabi: I don’t see why our great governmental laboratortes and other organizations, public and private, can’t do many more of those study jobs. Mr. Golden: You mean the pnvate, not-for-proj?t think tank? Dr. Rabi. Yes. Mr. Golden: The bulk of the think-tank money does come fi-om the government. Dr. Rabi: Yes, we’re using them anyway. I don’t see why the National Research Council, the NRC, should be so heavily involved. And putting the work under the Academy tends to lower the Academy’s stature. With the think tanks you know who they are: This one is a conservative group, that one is less conservative, and so on. Their characters are recognizable. When the National Research Council engages in such work, some of it anyway, it reduces the Academy and its orgaruzations to the think-tank level. Mr. Golden: Rab, you were taking about the Natuxzaf Research Councd a&g work that you believe couldpst as well be done by some of the p&ate, not-for-proft tbinh tank. You were sayrng that the National Academy, by running an NRC, was reduczng rts stature and level. Would you want to contrnue your comments about that? Dr. Rabi: Well, I like that way you said it. I believe that the Academy should avoid domg anything in competition with what can be done as well by private groups. Private groups are responsible to whoever hires them. The Academy is national, they work for the United States, for the government, whether it’s for the President or the Congress or other branches of government. It represents, we hope, the best the United States can offer. Let’s not get in a position that you go into a court where they have their experts on both sides. The Academy should never get into that position. Some of the things that the Academy has addressed itself to are also being worked on by other groups
An Intemew W&J Z.Z. R&a
391
outside. This is all right under certain circumstances, but should be carefully scrutinized. Mr. Golden: If I understand you covectly, Rab, you would have the Academy do a limited num&er of studies when ashed by the government (whrch could be the Congress or tt could be the Presi&nt) on major topics, and confine itseLfto them. And it rhozrld limzt tfie relatively large number ofjobs undertaken through the Natzonal Research Council. Is that what you ‘ve been saying? Dr. Rabi: Yes, but perhaps I don’t know enough about the present situation. It’s easy to say more than one knows. On a related subject, some members of the Academy have felt very strongly that the Academy made damn fools of themselves in recently rejectmg for membership a noted sociologist. And it made a big splash in the newspapers. You saw that? Mr. Golden: Yes, I did see that. Dr. Rabi: That was very unfortunate. Mr. Golden: We/.. the Academy members are a/ways either going to elect peopZe or not elect them, aren ‘t they? There has to be an election process. Dzrerences of views are not a fault of the Academy; indeed, in a way, they are a great strength. Dr. Rabi: No, no, it’s not the fault of the Academy. I wasn’t at the meeting, but this particular instance, in the way it occurred, was unfortunate. It demonstrated that the sociologists shouldn’t have been in the Academy at all. Mr. Golden: You mean any soczologzsts? Dr. Rabi: Yes, any sociologists. Mr. Go/den: And the point you ‘remaking tz that the Academy should confine itself to the physika/ and bzological sciences and mathematics? Dr. Rabi: That’s right. Sociologists have no unique thing to bring to the Academy. The fact that you can have controversy within a discipline, controversy over issues that very often can’t be decided, is significant. It is not true of the hard sciences, at least very rarely. Mr. GoLden: Well, I’m sure it happens. After al.4 consider the Jim Conant incident many years ago. There was a revolt against electzng bim President of the Academy, and Det Bronk became Prestdent. You were probably there. What a&out that?
w*T.
392
Go/den
Dr. Rabi: Well, that’s minding its own business. People say it’s political. Most of the members just didn’t like him personally. Mr. Golden: Didn’t like Dr. Conant?
Dr. Rabi: Yes, That’s right. His fellow chemists. And I can understand that, though I had great respect for Conant. Mr. Goiah:
But bk feZ.
chemrsts, or some of them, anyway, didn ‘t care for him?
Dr. Rabi: That’s right; enough to defeat him. Mr. Golden: I think Ken Pitzer was one of the leaah of that reuol... Do you recali? He was at the Atomic Energy Commiwon at the tmme. Must have been around 1948.
Dr. Rabi: I don’t remember whether Ken was involved. I know some of those who were. I felt resentful of Conant at the time. Anyway, I think Bronk was a better President than Conant would have been. Mr. GoZ&n: That ‘rpast, however, That’s interest&g chit-chat about btitoly. We ‘re concerned witb the history of the fitnre, Rab, aren ‘t we?
Dr. Rabi: I think we’ve sort of run our course. There’s been a dtcline since about the end of 1960. A general decline in the country. Mr. Golden: In the country as a whole?
Dr. Rabi: In the country as a whole, and these other things are symptoms of it. Intellectual and perhaps moral decline. I was alarmed, troubled, at the power of the President: This young man said, “We’ll go to the moon.” Mr. Golden: Kennedy.
Dr. Rabi: Yes. And, by God, WCwent to the moon. It wasn’t a thought-out thing, this enormous project. And the same sort of thing is Reagan saying, “We’ll do the SD1- Star Wars.” Roth of those decisions were for Political reasons. They certainly didn’t have the backing of the Department of Defense. It’s the power of Presidency. And unchecked. Kennedy was and Reagan is popular. Now Reagan seems to want the power of an absolute monarch. Mr. Golden: Well, not quote.
Dr. Rabi: I mean, he had the Congress cowed and until recently he could do anything, almost anything.
393
Mr. Golden: You’re ta@mg #bout the SDI?
Dr. Rabi: The SDJ js one, but there were all sorts of other things. For example, war against the Central Americans. This sort of thing. The point is, you begin to worry about democracy- that we could vote for him. The facts arc all against him. PIis record in California was dreadful. So as i said, I’m discouraged. When I look at this new set of candidates, I wonder whether we’ve extended democracy too far. That’s the general idea. Who would ever have made what’s_his-name President? The football player. Mr. Golden: Footbah’plbyer? Well, I don %know - wbat ‘sthe ahsion? somebody wbo was tbe President?
You mean
Dr. Rabi: The Vice President who then became President. Mr. Golden: We4 gosh, you can’t be refehg a footbalp~ayer, be was a baberahber.
to Harry Truman, &ecause be wasn‘t
Dr. Rabi: I mean Ford. Mr. Golden: Oh, was Gerald Ford a foothaLlphyer? 1 didn ‘t remember that. We4 that’s a cultural matter. Let? turn to thefindame~tah. Ra&, recently you were talking about tbe smportance of sczknce and its being a sepamte, very special eZement in our sockty, world society and culture. Ra&, put it in your words.
Dr. Rabi: Science is the basic element, the novel clement in our culture over the last four or five hundred years. It’s overwhelmingly powerful; but unless undcrstood, unless we learn to live with it congenially, it can destroy our country and the world. Mr. Gohkn: Andyou were saying that tbe Nathal A&my could be increakagiy znfluentzhl witb tbe Presiuknt, any President wbo bas tbe will and tbe capacity to unahtand such matten- as you feZt Preshat ECenbower dd. And wztb other facsts of tbe government. Those were about your words.
Dr. Rabi: Yes, in conclusion, I think every President should have a Science and Technology Advisor and a PSAC. And I think that the National Academy of Sciences has been and can and should be a strongly supportive and influential part of the advisory mechanism to the President and to the Congress- and to the American people.
Tccbuo&j II) SW&~. Vol lo. pp 385-393 (1988) Pmccd m the USA All nghrs rercmd
Presidential Science Advising and the National Academy of Sciences An Interview With 1.1. Rabi by William T. Golden
AB.Sm CT It IS well known that Rah spoh fluently, spon&neous&j, e&tavely - whb sutt, wudom, and humor; and that be anj~ycd doing so. But be mte with d$%nlty, consequent/y rarely, He and I were watm fiends fir some 40 years. So when I wanted a paper jium him, I hew the otdy way to get it was to sngage btm m conversattol), tape recorder gorng, occastond~ ieading the witness; then edit the mnstnpt, review it wi2b bim, argot some pornts, and emerge with a final paper. f have ahe tbk wi>b bm several t&s, always pieasw&y. The essay entitled “The prsridcnt and His SC&~@ Auh&’ in the ea.&r vo/ume, Science Advice to the Ptesident (Elmsford, NY: Peigamon Press, 1980) was achieved zti tbts way. The intervtew that follows is baud on two sesshns wrtb Ra&i tn the Lastfew months of bts hfe. I read tt to btm and Heien in galley sbortiy before bir dl?ath at the age of 89. He hked rt, twintied at a few of his iweverent obsewattons and approved it unchanged It is brr last pub/u expressaon.
W&am T. G&h d;mgned de PresiaknhalStwue A&iror~ appamtus for Prestaknt Tmmun m 1910. He t.rPresaaht of the New York ha&my of Schwes. He has served zn the US Navy (World War II), the Atomic Energy Commtishn, tbs Department of State, and the ikecutive O&e of the Presiaht. He recewed the Ihttngvdad Pnbhc Serutce Award of the Natum& Sctence Fwn&ion (1982). Mr. G&h 1san o@er and trwtee of the Amencan Assoctataonfir tbe Advancement of Schce, tbe Amencan Mscenm of Natuml Hutoty, tbe Mount Shu Hospa& rendMealcalS&o/, md tbe Curnegze Instztuttonof Wabmgton; end a member of tbe NattonalAcademy of Pubh Admmuzratzon and of the Amencan PbdosopbwulSoctety. 1.1. Ra& (1898-1988) Nobel Lureate m pbysus (1944), was a member of tbe ongmal Predent’s Sczence Advasog Commrttee (O&e of Defense Mobhatwn), uvu ztsCbarman (1956-57), and contanrrcdrrra PSAC mem&er w&f l%O. He wasa member of tbe GeneraLAdvuory Committee of tbe US Atomu hrgy Commitsaorr(1946-56) and rts Cbazrman (1952-J6). Dr. Utah served on many US Gowmment and UN boards, and reweavednamemns bonotr and&m& He m UmvemtyProfessorEmenta~at Coiambw Unliersq, and wasa memkr of the Amencan PhhsopbruJ Soctetyand of tbe N&nel Academy of Scwnces. This lntetview was fnst pubhshed IIIGolden. W.T , ed , Sctence and Techology Advaceto de Pmident, Congress, andluduxery (Elmsford, NY. Pergvnon Press, 1988). 385
386
W.T. C&Mm
Mr. Golden: Rab, your paper in tbi! j%st volume of this se&s, Science Advice to the President, published in 1980, was rephe witb vkci& chonn, and h&m. Now, seven or eight years later, I hope you U express your up-to-&e thoughts about science and tecbnojogy inputs to tbe highest hush of owr government. Dr. Rabi: Well, I’m discouraged about the trend and the situation. The culture of our government officials is apparently not up to science, There’s been a great departure from the roots: arithmetic, common sense, and the like. The President’s Science Advisor and the President’s Science Advisory Committee have not played effective roles since Nixon abolished them. Like many good intentions, the idea has gone sour, because the subsequent Presidents have not appointed PSACs and President Reagan has downgraded the Science Advisor’s of&e and wants only advice and ideas that please him. The Advisor’s job has been to back up the President-not to help him decide, but to back him up whatever his decision was. That is as far from science as you can get. Mr. Golden: You told me that yourwant to comment about the Nat&a/ AC&my of Sciences, wbicb plays a very important tale in this whole process of tbe eviluatzon of science and technology and of pmvidiffg schce and tecbnohu ad&e to the President and to tbe Congress and, in a sense, indirectly to the Jndicky and to the AmeriGan public. Dr. Rabi: The Academy should play a role, a central role; it is organized to do that. It was organized in such a brilliant way that it is in government and yet out of government. What has happened with the Academy is that we’ve added new divis~onsin recent years, like sociology and economics, that really have no place there. I think there should be no place in the Academy for activities that aren’t connected with hard science, for a very simple reason: The hard sciences are an essential element of our culture and the novel element in our culture for the last few hundred years. Sociology and economics are valuable in themselves, but they’re not science in the sense of physical and biological sciences. When the Academy speaks on such subjects, however, it speaks to politicians who feel they are just as capable of talking about such subjects as are the scientists, maybe more capable. Mr. Golden: You mean when they talk abotit economiGs or the socia/ sciences as distinguisbedjhm the pbyszcal and bioiogicai sciences? Dr. Rabi: Yes. And I think it’s disastrous. We did that with the President’s Science Advisory Committee - I recall Moynihan and some others. And, of course, those social scientists are very knowledgeable; they know all the gossip and so onvery impressive that way. And pretty soon the hard scientists are cowed and don’t speak with their own voices. But we really need their input, however naive it may appear at certain times. It’s an absolutely essential element, Another thing: The academy has grown, and there are too many people in it for intimate, collegial discussions. When any group goes above a certain size, it’s run by an in-group. People like to be elected. And, of course, greater size makes the
An Intemew Wzth I.I Rah
387
President of the Academy and the other officers very busy just running the show, in an administrative and fund-raising sense. And it becomes so diverse that they look for all sorts of work which, although important, can be done as well by other groups. So I think the Academy is over-expanded. Too many members, too much staff. It’s too big an organization and requires a lot of money just to keep alive. I have quit going to meetings. It’s not interesting. I can’t find the essential people I want to talk to. They’re lost in the crowd. Maybe I’m showing that I’m an old man. Mt. Golden: Well, you show that you haven ‘t lost your aLert, m&pendent, spin2ed pnatlltejudgment, You ‘ve certainty retained your sense of humor. When did you stop going to the Academy meetings? How fat ba&? Dr. Rabi: Oh, it must be some 10 years ago. The Academy has greatly increased in membership and budget in recent decades. Mt. Go/den: Was it dzfletent under Det Btonk? You used to go regular/y when be was Ptesadent - and you were younger. That 3 quite a while ago. Dr. Rabi: That’s quite a while ago. Then he was followed by Fred Seitz and then by Phil Handler, and now by Frank Press. Fred Seitz changed the scene. He brought in the engineers, put them on an equal level with the scientists; and that, I think, was devastating because, whatever you can say about the engineers (and they’re wonderful and essential people), they’re not scientists. They don’t have that kind of thinking. And they have a lot of money. They feel, therefore, that they’re very powerful and right. It is said that Britain and the US are two people separated by a common language, and I think that’s the scientists and engineers. They’re really very different. I was interviewed by some Japanese a few years ago on just that question. And it occurred to me to say that the difference between them can be best illustrated by the difference between poetry and advertising. Advertising lives on poetry, part of the language and so on, images-that sort of thing. But, of course, advertising is not poetry. Basically they’re very different. So you can sense the underlying cause of my discontent. Mt. Goiden: So you would not have created a National Academy of Engtneermg; or, $it bad been created, you wouLd not have piaced rt zn this close a$f&taon and pa&y with the National Academy of Sczences. Dr. Rabi: That’s right. They could be by themselves. Any connection of engineering with science can only degrade science. Science is other-worldly; engineers are practical people. And the people who get elected are not necessarily great engineers; many of them are heads of corporations and very valuable to our culture, but not to our science. And I have similar views about the Institute of Medicine. They’re different; they have very different outlooks. Mt. Golden: We& zfthe Nationa4 Academy of Sciences were dtia~titedfim other two, what would you vrsuahze it doing that st zsn ‘t dotng now?
the
388
W.T. Golden
Dr. Rabi: It would have to continue to supply studies and ad&e to the government, as it was founded to do, So muchdepends on the President of the Academy and the staff of the National Resea& Cour&l, They have somehow of other to imbue the government with the spirit of science, which is a cultural thing. When you have that, you have a different slant on ever@ing; at least, everything which concerns the government. So I can’t be spec& And, of course, it should be recoga nized that by stepping into all sorts of issues, taking on all sorts of questions, they lose their myrrtique. It’s only the very fundamental questions that should be addressed, 1’11 comment on 8 specific major topic for its value as an example. Recently, a question came up about the report of the Amtrim Physical Society that studied Star Wars; and then it was pointed out there was another opinion. So thepe are these two sides that differed. You realize that on the one side you had ~me of the most eminent scientists and engineers in the world, and on the other side had people who has a vested interest -government employees and so on. Which side should you select? Common sense tells you right off; YOU don’t have to be the common man, which I define in Nixon’s terms-don’t have to be an expert. Did I ever tell you about Nixon’s definition of “common man”? Mr. Go/den: No. Dr. Rabi: On one occasion, Nixon, I, and our host -a man who had headed the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and who had been high in the Department of Defense- were talking, and Nixon referred to the common man, and then began to defiic what he meant: Who is the common man? He said, “Well, it could be the president of a bank or the publisher of a newspaper, the head of a labor union, the superintendent of schools,” and went on that way-this was the man in the street. I thought it was a wonderful definition. Mr. Go/den: We/l, do you tbinh that the Academy’s eflectiveness ri imparred by reason of gettzng the huh of Its funds J%m the Congress, by appropriatma? Do you tbinh it cas be independent? Dr. Rabi: I don’t know. When it gets to be this big and has to live (I don’t know how many employees it has, it’s a large number), then you can’t be independent. You must keep yourself going; there are mouths to feed. Mr. Golden: You’ve indicated that you’dprefer the National Research Council to be a smaller undertakng, with fewer jobs. Dr. Rabi: We have all these think tanks around-God knows, the place is full of them. Very bright, very well-paid people. No need for the Academy to duplicate this stuff. Mr. Go/den: What couZd the Acdemy do to be uniquely helpful to the Congress; and I take it you are also tbinniing of the Executive branch?
A# Zntnvww With I.I. R&z
389
Dr. Rabi: Oh, helpful to the whole country. It is an independent body, with carefully selected people, American citizens. When problems come up in any important field, the Academy can be asked for advice. The Academy, through its structure, can bring in very good people. That’s what the President’s Science Advisory Committee was able to do because of its composition: marshall the whole, enormous scientific effort from the large number of qualified people in our country. Mr. Golden: You servedar a member of PSAC for many yeaq jam its e&y years; and you were its c&man fir a ttme, It ba beerr aboihhed. Do you tbinh it bax outkued tts usefulness? Or would you /ihe to see a PSAC restored to etitence?
Dr. Rabi: I don’t see how the President can do without one. You see, he’s tried to do without a PSAC. He’s gotten into one mess after another. Of course, the President has to have the capacity to use it. It should consist of people who arc themselves sufficiently important that he could dare to make a decision stand up before the country, if he had their backing. And also sufficiently important that they can’t ignore them. I’m not saying he should always take their advice but he should understand it, consider it, and not ignore it. A PSAC could be of great use to the President. You asked what use it could be. It could give him confidence, if it’s sufficiently well established-confidence when he takes their advice and protection if he does, on either side. And the President had that. Mr. Golden: You ‘re t&#ing
especially of Preszdent Eisenhower.
Dr. Rabi: Yes, I’m thinking especially of Eisenhower. Kennedy was not quite so good, because Jerry Wiesner, for all his great gifts, was no match for McGeorge Bundy; so he got shut out of foreign policy. Bundy was head of the National Security Council: a very important position. Mr. Gohh: So you wouM restore a PSAC. We’re tahinghere in the hope that your thoughts and those of otbers in the booA I’m assembling, wdZstimukzte tbmAing among candirkrtesfor the Presidency in 1988, and tbereafrcr, in tbe hope of injhenczng tbem to mahe more eflective use of sckntijk and techohgtkd advtce in the detenninatihn of federaj government policies over a broad range of zssues that will a#ect the lives of a/l of us. Well, Rab, let me sdrj? a Iittle here. What roles a%you see for the National Academ&s of Science and Engineenhg and tbe Institute of Medicine, as dtitingukbed firn the roie of a President’s Science Advisor and a Presiaht ‘s Science Advisory Commrttee?
Dr. Rabi: Well, a President’s Science Advisory Committee should be concerned with the problems that come before the President. They’re there for the President, for no other purpose. The Academy is there as a group that meets periodically and discusses scientific matters. They can discuss matters of public affairs, but there
390
w. T.
Go/den
should be a scientific base. So it’s an entirely different thing. In their capacity as members of the Academy, they are apolitical. As advisors to the President, the other group are- must be - politically sensitive. The President is and must be political. Mr. Golden: What would you see, then, as the Academy’s role? Do you agree that the Academy should do patiicu/ar study jobs, as they do now, dsrectc’yand via the National Research CounciZ? Dr. Rabi: I think they could do study jobs, but very selectively. Mr. Golden: And the wide vanety of studies that are undertaken Sy the National Research Council? Dr. Rabi: I don’t see why our great governmental laboratortes and other organizations, public and private, can’t do many more of those study jobs. Mr. Golden: You mean the pnvate, not-for-proj?t think tank? Dr. Rabi. Yes. Mr. Golden: The bulk of the think-tank money does come fi-om the government. Dr. Rabi: Yes, we’re using them anyway. I don’t see why the National Research Council, the NRC, should be so heavily involved. And putting the work under the Academy tends to lower the Academy’s stature. With the think tanks you know who they are: This one is a conservative group, that one is less conservative, and so on. Their characters are recognizable. When the National Research Council engages in such work, some of it anyway, it reduces the Academy and its orgaruzations to the think-tank level. Mr. Golden: Rab, you were taking about the Natuxzaf Research Councd a&g work that you believe couldpst as well be done by some of the p&ate, not-for-proft tbinh tank. You were sayrng that the National Academy, by running an NRC, was reduczng rts stature and level. Would you want to contrnue your comments about that? Dr. Rabi: Well, I like that way you said it. I believe that the Academy should avoid domg anything in competition with what can be done as well by private groups. Private groups are responsible to whoever hires them. The Academy is national, they work for the United States, for the government, whether it’s for the President or the Congress or other branches of government. It represents, we hope, the best the United States can offer. Let’s not get in a position that you go into a court where they have their experts on both sides. The Academy should never get into that position. Some of the things that the Academy has addressed itself to are also being worked on by other groups
An Intemew W&J Z.Z. R&a
391
outside. This is all right under certain circumstances, but should be carefully scrutinized. Mr. Golden: If I understand you covectly, Rab, you would have the Academy do a limited num&er of studies when ashed by the government (whrch could be the Congress or tt could be the Presi&nt) on major topics, and confine itseLfto them. And it rhozrld limzt tfie relatively large number ofjobs undertaken through the Natzonal Research Council. Is that what you ‘ve been saying? Dr. Rabi: Yes, but perhaps I don’t know enough about the present situation. It’s easy to say more than one knows. On a related subject, some members of the Academy have felt very strongly that the Academy made damn fools of themselves in recently rejectmg for membership a noted sociologist. And it made a big splash in the newspapers. You saw that? Mr. Golden: Yes, I did see that. Dr. Rabi: That was very unfortunate. Mr. Golden: We/.. the Academy members are a/ways either going to elect peopZe or not elect them, aren ‘t they? There has to be an election process. Dzrerences of views are not a fault of the Academy; indeed, in a way, they are a great strength. Dr. Rabi: No, no, it’s not the fault of the Academy. I wasn’t at the meeting, but this particular instance, in the way it occurred, was unfortunate. It demonstrated that the sociologists shouldn’t have been in the Academy at all. Mr. Golden: You mean any soczologzsts? Dr. Rabi: Yes, any sociologists. Mr. Go/den: And the point you ‘remaking tz that the Academy should confine itself to the physika/ and bzological sciences and mathematics? Dr. Rabi: That’s right. Sociologists have no unique thing to bring to the Academy. The fact that you can have controversy within a discipline, controversy over issues that very often can’t be decided, is significant. It is not true of the hard sciences, at least very rarely. Mr. GoLden: Well, I’m sure it happens. After al.4 consider the Jim Conant incident many years ago. There was a revolt against electzng bim President of the Academy, and Det Bronk became Prestdent. You were probably there. What a&out that?
w*T.
392
Go/den
Dr. Rabi: Well, that’s minding its own business. People say it’s political. Most of the members just didn’t like him personally. Mr. Golden: Didn’t like Dr. Conant?
Dr. Rabi: Yes, That’s right. His fellow chemists. And I can understand that, though I had great respect for Conant. Mr. Goiah:
But bk feZ.
chemrsts, or some of them, anyway, didn ‘t care for him?
Dr. Rabi: That’s right; enough to defeat him. Mr. Golden: I think Ken Pitzer was one of the leaah of that reuol... Do you recali? He was at the Atomic Energy Commiwon at the tmme. Must have been around 1948.
Dr. Rabi: I don’t remember whether Ken was involved. I know some of those who were. I felt resentful of Conant at the time. Anyway, I think Bronk was a better President than Conant would have been. Mr. GoZ&n: That ‘rpast, however, That’s interest&g chit-chat about btitoly. We ‘re concerned witb the history of the fitnre, Rab, aren ‘t we?
Dr. Rabi: I think we’ve sort of run our course. There’s been a dtcline since about the end of 1960. A general decline in the country. Mr. Golden: In the country as a whole?
Dr. Rabi: In the country as a whole, and these other things are symptoms of it. Intellectual and perhaps moral decline. I was alarmed, troubled, at the power of the President: This young man said, “We’ll go to the moon.” Mr. Golden: Kennedy.
Dr. Rabi: Yes. And, by God, WCwent to the moon. It wasn’t a thought-out thing, this enormous project. And the same sort of thing is Reagan saying, “We’ll do the SD1- Star Wars.” Roth of those decisions were for Political reasons. They certainly didn’t have the backing of the Department of Defense. It’s the power of Presidency. And unchecked. Kennedy was and Reagan is popular. Now Reagan seems to want the power of an absolute monarch. Mr. Golden: Well, not quote.
Dr. Rabi: I mean, he had the Congress cowed and until recently he could do anything, almost anything.
393
Mr. Golden: You’re ta@mg #bout the SDI?
Dr. Rabi: The SDJ js one, but there were all sorts of other things. For example, war against the Central Americans. This sort of thing. The point is, you begin to worry about democracy- that we could vote for him. The facts arc all against him. PIis record in California was dreadful. So as i said, I’m discouraged. When I look at this new set of candidates, I wonder whether we’ve extended democracy too far. That’s the general idea. Who would ever have made what’s_his-name President? The football player. Mr. Golden: Footbah’plbyer? Well, I don %know - wbat ‘sthe ahsion? somebody wbo was tbe President?
You mean
Dr. Rabi: The Vice President who then became President. Mr. Golden: We4 gosh, you can’t be refehg a footbalp~ayer, be was a baberahber.
to Harry Truman, &ecause be wasn‘t
Dr. Rabi: I mean Ford. Mr. Golden: Oh, was Gerald Ford a foothaLlphyer? 1 didn ‘t remember that. We4 that’s a cultural matter. Let? turn to thefindame~tah. Ra&, recently you were talking about tbe smportance of sczknce and its being a sepamte, very special eZement in our sockty, world society and culture. Ra&, put it in your words.
Dr. Rabi: Science is the basic element, the novel clement in our culture over the last four or five hundred years. It’s overwhelmingly powerful; but unless undcrstood, unless we learn to live with it congenially, it can destroy our country and the world. Mr. Gohkn: Andyou were saying that tbe Nathal A&my could be increakagiy znfluentzhl witb tbe Presiuknt, any President wbo bas tbe will and tbe capacity to unahtand such matten- as you feZt Preshat ECenbower dd. And wztb other facsts of tbe government. Those were about your words.
Dr. Rabi: Yes, in conclusion, I think every President should have a Science and Technology Advisor and a PSAC. And I think that the National Academy of Sciences has been and can and should be a strongly supportive and influential part of the advisory mechanism to the President and to the Congress- and to the American people.