The return of the repressed
One might say that what we are calling for is the return of the repressed in science policy. The post-WWII model of science policy, as formulated by Vannevar Bush and adopted by US institutions of science policy, carefully walled off scientific pursuits from societal influences and concerns. Scientific autonomy is a central point in the Bush model. In fact, the social sciences were kept distinct from the original scope of NSF funding. Also taboo for the agency were any questions about the potential societal dimensions of science research. The following is from a 1958 report to the National Science Board:
"The [National Science] Foundation has demonstrated clearly its success in defining its social science program so as to omit such controversial areas. . . . We have identified such regions as sex, religion, race and politics as fields which might be more appropriately supported by private foundations or by governmental agencies with applied social science missions. It would be the intention of the NSF not to support research in sensitive, controversial fields no matter how significant such research may be."
We have since recognized the importance – indeed, the urgency – of thinking through the societal outcomes of science, including questions of ethics, values, and other humanistic concerns. The SciSIP program is a product of that recognition.
