The
Arnold O. Beckman Lecture
in Science and Innovation
May
5, 2004
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Pluralism
as a Foundation for U.S. Scientific Preeminence:
Advancement of Knowledge
and the Freedom and Happiness of Man
Raymond
L. Orbach
Director
Office of Science
U.S. Department of Energy
ABSTRACT
The dominance of American science and
scientists in the latter half of the 20th
century is directly related to the pluralism
of U.S. funding and funding sources, research
and development institutions, and the scientific
workforce.
The competitive nature of the scientific
establishment, coupled with this diversity,
has allowed unconventional ideas and people
to flourish, leading to innovation and discovery. Trends are emerging which threaten this historic
strength, with deleterious consequences for
U.S. scientific innovation, economic strength,
and security.
Introduction
It is a great honor to have been invited
to deliver the 2004 Arnold O. Beckman Lecture
in Research and Innovation.
I am doubly honored because of my personal
acquaintance with Dr. Beckman, my respect
and admiration for his achievements and contributions
to our society, and the distinction of previous
Arnold O. Beckman lecturers. It is a privilege to follow in their footsteps.
My topic today is not particularly
new; many other authors have discussed the
relationship between quality of science and
diversity of support. But you may not be aware of how far back the
tradition of encouraging a diversity of interests
within the U.S. government structures can
be traced.
It is a feature of American society
from the beginnings of our Republic.
One
of the more remarkable precursors of this
American tradition can be found in the Federalist
Papers, specifically No. 10 authored by James
Madison that deals with the question of how
to control factions within government.
According to Madison, one cannot control
the causes of factions without at the same
time destroying liberty.
The answer is to control the effects
of factions by encouraging a multiplicity
of interests, and therefore factions. By taking in more, rather than fewer interests, he wrote in 1787
".you take in a greater variety of parties
and interests; you make it less probable that
a majority of the whole will have a common
motive to invade the rights of other citizens;
or if such a common motive exists, it will
be more difficult for all who feel it to discover
their own strength and to act in unison with
each other."
In
the inevitable competition of interests, the
more factions the better.
The result will be a balance in which
no one narrow faction can dominate.
Federalist paper No. 10 spells out
the dangers of lack of balance, the same concern
in relationship to the support of our scientific
enterprise that I shall express today.
Coupled with Madison's observations
are those of another founder of our Republic,
Thomas Jefferson.
Anyone who has visited Monticello cannot
but be impressed by his devotion to science,
his inventiveness, and his inquisitiveness.
Jefferson penned a double purpose for
the pursuit of science: the advancement of
knowledge and "the freedom and happiness of
man."1 This duality has been a
consistent tradition of American science,
and I believe has led our society, especially
since World War II, to support a multitude
of sources for scientific accomplishment,
government, foundations, and the private sector.
Pluralism
of American Science
The strength of the U.S. scientific
enterprise is due in large extent to its "diversity"
-- the diversity of its workforce, the diversity
of its research approaches, and the diversity
of its support base. Nowhere else in the world does one find such multiplicity of possible
sources for funding research concepts. Most countries have centralized management of the research enterprise,
driven by a sense of non-Madisonian simplicity,
or avoiding "duplication of effort." That
is to say, they desire to promote "efficiency."
But science is not neat: it defies categorization
and, often, even organization.
However,
even as revered a spokesman for the American
scientific enterprise as Vannevar Bush envisaged
something very close to a Department of Science
that would be responsible for virtually all
research, leaving only development in the
hands of mission agencies.2 Such
a top-down and hierarchical system would lead
inevitably, I argue, to the funding of low
risk and "predictable" research, and could
stifle new ideas that buck the scientific
status quo because it would leave open dominance
of the scientific enterprise to a single powerful
interest.
The survival of revolutionary proposals,
achieving paradigm shifts in scientific understanding,
and challenging conventional wisdom depend
upon alternative sources of support so that
they can be "shopped around."
This may all seem self-evident, but
I can personally attest to a continuing drive
towards "simplicity and efficiency."
This takes the form of categorization
of science into "basic" and "applied," a distinction
with which I have never been comfortable.
It takes the form of narrow mission
definition. And it fails to recognize an essential differentiation:
proposal- and mission-driven agencies. The distinction is not perfect, but in general
the former (proposal-driven) applies to the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the
National Institutes of Health (NIH).
These agencies formulate areas for
support in response to proposals from their
respective scientific communities.
The latter (mission-driven) applies
to most other federal agencies: the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE), U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
and National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) are examples.
These agencies have a defined mission,
and research areas are targeted to support
that mission. I should emphasize that there is no inherent
different in quality of research supported
by proposal-driven and mission-driven agencies.
In general, both use peer review to
decide upon funding, and the quality of the
research is indistinguishable.
Before I give some examples, and sound
a few alarms, I would like to comment upon
the reason for the need for both proposal-
and mission- driven agencies, both public
and private.
The reason for this distinction is
the replication of the agency with its drive. The magnificent accomplishments of the NSF
and NIH are in proportion to the very high
quality of research they have supported, driven
by peer review.
As a consequence, I believe inexorably,
they mirror the academic structure that generates
the proposal pressure.
This is not necessarily a bad thing:
great universities most often are organized
around departmental structures that ensure
highest quality performance. However, concomitant with peer review, this
often can lead to a replication of structure
and style within the sponsoring agency.
This mirroring can result in a predilection
towards individual investigator-driven "bench
top" research. Again, there is nothing wrong with this consequence.
The record is replete with research
of the highest quality and deepest insight
resulting from proposal-driven agencies.
But there are dangers if this is the
only vehicle through which the government
can fund science.
Fads can lead to stultification.
Conservatism can creep into the system
leading researchers to avoid risk in their
proposals. Funding may be short term, especially when
resources are tight, enhancing conservatism.
Novel or unconventional approaches
can be stifled. Large-scale investments can also be stifled
by the fear of resources being "drained away"
from traditional programs.
These dangers are well known to proposal-driven
agencies, and internal structures are developed
to surmount them.
I personally witnessed the birth of
the highly successful Institute for Theoretical
Physics, and the Mathematics Institutes sponsored
by the National Science Foundation.
These are now institutions recognized
worldwide for their innovative and interdisciplinary
character.
However, there were substantial birth
pains, with opposition from individual researchers
concerned about resources being drained from
traditional program competition.
The beauty of the American system lies
in its pluralism and the clash of interests
that pluralism can inspire.
Mission-driven agencies complement
proposal-driven agencies.
Many are characterized by high risk-high
payoff research, with long-term commitments
to individuals and groups.
Peer review of the same caliber as
proposal-driven agencies ensures quality,
but the style associated with the agency mission
is different.
The very presence of multiple agencies
to which an investigator can turn ".protects
the freedom of the investigator (who can go
elsewhere if turned down by one agency), stimulates
healthy competition and dynamism in the system,
and prevents the rise of any autocratic center
of power."3
But there is more to it than mere numbers.
Mission-driven agencies are directly
connected to the needs of the country, both
intellectual and economic.
This Jeffersonian end, accomplished
through Madisonian means, enables the very
best basic research addressing the needs of
the nation. The diversity of the U.S. agency missions,
their insistence on quality, and their commitment
to national needs is one of the great strengths
of this nation.
It has led to accomplishments which
may be surprising, but which are universally
acknowledged.
Accomplishments
of a Pluralistic Research Environment
My Office asked a number of private companies, foundations, and U.S. government agencies to list their revolutionary accomplishments. They are an impressive list, too extended to detail here, but are contained in an appendix to this paper. Let me list some that may or may not be surprising to you.
Private
Company Examples
Bell
Telephone Laboratories: sound motion pictures,
stereo recording, the transitor, the first
fax machine, the touch-tone telephone.
Westinghouse
Laboratories: an implantable (nuclear-powered)
artificial human heart.
General
Electric Laboratories: the modern X-ray tube,
the first television broadcast, the man-made
diamond.
International
Business Machines: the automatic sequence
controlled calculator, the first computer
disk storage system, the floppy disk, solid
state optical scanning and later the bar code
scanners in supermarkets, electron tunneling
and later the scanning tunneling microscope.
RCA:
first liquid-crystal display, the first linear
Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS)
and the first production-grade CMOS chip.
Each
of these maintained world-class basic research
programs which were intimately tied to their
economic success.
Foundation
Examples
Howard
Hughes Foundation: identified the genes related
to cancer, heart disease, obesity, cystic
fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, and Huntington's
disease.
Rockefeller
Foundation: "golden rice" - genetically modified
organism (GMO) with Beta-carotene to prevent
blindness in countries where rice is staple
food.
Cold
Springs Harbor: developed the first hybrid
corn and formed the basis of modern agricultural
genetics; developed the first cure for Addison's
disease; enabled the recombinant DNA revolution.
Each
of these foundations is immediately identified
with the highest quality research.
U.S.
Government Agency Examples
Office
of Naval Research: Atomic clock, first laser
in ruby; freeze storage of blood, biometrics.
Air
Force Office of Scientific Research: Maser,
integrated circuit, self-healing plastics.
Army
Research Office and Laboratories: superfluidity,
conductive polymers, Hepatitis A vaccine.
Defense
Advanced Research Project Agency: the Internet,
Global Positioning System (GPS), micro-electro-mechanical
systems (MEMS), speech recognition technology
(with NSF).
National
Security Agency: advanced cryptography, and
advanced signal, network, and cyber security
technologies.
National
Institute of Science and Technology: first
molecular clock, atomic laser cooling, Bose-Einstein
condensation.
Department
of Energy: discovery of the chromosomal basis
for sex determination in mammals, artificial
pancreas, artificial retina, nuclear medicine
and proton therapy, human genome project and
genome sequencing/computation technologies,
fate of the dinosaurs, positron emission tomography
(PET).
Department
of Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service):
discovery of phytochrome, the phyiochemical
agent that regulates all aspects of plant
growth; development of near-infrared reflectance
(NIR) spectroscopy; established the plant
cell cultures of Taxus to make TaxolT, the anticancer compound.
National
Institutes of Health: turning mouse embryonic
stem cells into cells that produce insulin,
anthrax genomes sequenced, identified the
genes and developed genetic test for hereditary
breast cancer, discovered cholesterol's role
in heart disease.
National
Science Foundation: "Mosaic" internet browser,
artificial skin that bonds to human tissue,
self-assembling polymers, Antarctic ozone
hole, sequence of the Arabidopsis plane genome,
presence of enormous black hole at center
of our galaxy, Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided
Manufacturing, Doppler RADAR (with the National
Center for Atmospheric Research), edible vaccines,
effects of acid rain, fiber optics, modern
DNA fingerprinting.
National
Aeronautics and Space Administration: ear
thermometer, virtual prototyping, aerodynamic
racing bicycle wheels; joystick controllers,
liquid crystal polymers, non-surgical breast
biopsy technique.
Each
of these agencies exemplifies commitment to
outstanding research. Their contributions illustrate how science can contribute to the
advancement of knowledge and the freedom and
happiness of man.
I suspect you were surprised by some
of the applications to which these agencies
contributed.
My thesis is centered on their individual
character to perform the highest quality of
basic research that then contributes directly
to the public good. Were we to work in reverse: to define the need, and then generate
the agency to meet that need, quality would
be endangered. Further, surprises that could not be predicted
might be missed.
Physical
Science Contributions to Health Care
Let me be specific.
In an important speech on education
and health care titled "A New Generation of
American Innovation," delivered by President
George W. Bush at the American Association
of Community Colleges Annual Convention in
Minneapolis, Minnesota, on April 26 of this
year, the President stated in part:
"Many
of you have seen the advances of -- close
hand of medical research.
Just think of some of the advances
that are coming. We're using a gene chip technology to help
for cancer treatments.
The world is changing dramatically
in the field of medicine in many exciting
ways. We're using brain imaging to discover the physical
causes of mental illness.
We're using tissue engineering to restore
damaged or diseased tissues. And these are all incredible changes, and America
is on the leading edge of change in medicines. And we need to keep it that way."
How did these innovations,
so essential to the physical health of our
nation and world, come about?
Well, the "rest of the story"4
may surprise you. The
first two pieces in this section of the President's
speech - gene chip technology to help for
cancer treatments and brain imaging to discover
the physical causes of mental illness, crucial
medical advances - are squarely contributions
of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of
Science. The third, tissue engineering, is a bit less
so, though several of the Department of Energy
laboratories have made significant contributions
to which I shall return through the artificial
retina project.
Why DOE?
Gene chip technology, as a consequence of chip technology developed and perfected by industry, is one of the wonderful products of the Human Genome project, which was launched by the Department of Energy in order to understand, at the DNA level, the effects of radiation, energy use, and energy-production technologies on human health. DOE pushed the development of sequencing technologies. DOE funded Craig Venter to develop the Expressed Sequence Tags (ESTs) that were used to identify genes. Progress in miniaturization, again led by industry, has led to chips with thousands of wells containing genes and, when assayed, "light up" the genes that have been activated, giving us a picture of the complex interplay of gene functions that are behind most biological functions, including disease. DOE's expertise in the physical and mathematical sciences was responsible for the initiation of these innovations, and many of the methods currently in existence today were an outgrowth of DOE discoveries.
New tools for the diagnosis and treatment of disease are underpinned by DOE's research in nuclear, high energy, and condensed matter physics. Brain imaging is a revolutionary advance that was made possible by the field of nuclear medicine that DOE pioneered. Our work has led to the development of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) that has hugely increased sensitivity for the detection of neuroreceptor activity in the brain. The radiotracer 18-FDG (18-fluorodeoxyglucose), a combination of the short-lived radioactive element fluorine-18 and a sugar (glucose), has helped generate the first functional map of the human brain at work. The field of radiopharmaceuticals is led by the Office of Science within the Department of Energy, generating several new entries over the years for more highly sensitive diagnoses and more targeted (and effective) therapy.
Advances in tissue
engineering have also been enabled by the
Office of Science long-term investments in
materials and microsensors. The artificial
retina project will be one such triumph of
the Office of Science system of rallying multidisciplinary
teams of scientists from DOE laboratories,
the private sector, and academia to attack
a specific problem: the promise of restoring
sight to the sufferers of macular degeneration
and retinitis pigmentosa.
The
collaborative project between five DOE National
Laboratories, the Doheny Eye Institute, University
of California at Santa Cruz, North Carolina
State University, and Second Sight Corporation
has developed an artificial retina through
a number of notable technical successes. A
new material, rubberized silicon, micro-machined
and performing well in pre-clinical testing,
is used to support a multielectrode array
for an artificial retina. A novel technology
using finely powdered diamond crystals was
developed to hermetically seal the device,
protecting it in the eye for the lifetime
of the patient. The technology that is being
developed may be applied not only to the treatment
of blindness, but also in the general field
of neural prostheses. It may be adapted to
help persons with spinal cord injuries, Parkinson's
disease, deafness, and almost any other neurological
disorders. This accomplishment fully expresses
Jefferson's entreaty: advancement of knowledge
and the freedom and happiness of man.
Dangers
to Pluralism
These
examples illustrate how federal agencies in
collaboration with the private sector can
contribute in surprising ways to the advancement
of knowledge and the freedom and happiness
of man. There
is a hand-off from agency to agency (for example,
from DOE to NIH) as the technology matures,
but the initiation can arise from surprising
sources. There are a multitude of examples of this historic
strength of American science and technology. Yet this happy result is threatened by at least three factors:
1)
Lack of long-term investment in basic research
by industry
2)
Pressures to "simplify" support of basic research
among government agencies
3)
Changes in funding patterns amongst federal
agencies
Taken
together, they lead to deleterious consequences
for U.S. scientific innovation, economic strength,
and security.
1) Lack of long-term investment in basic research by industry
Industry
today accounts for more than two-thirds of
U.S. research and development investment (68%).
Research laboratories of major proportions
are maintained by most of U.S. industry competing
on a global basis.
However, note the reference earlier
to the basic research achievements in the
private sector. While many corporations continue
to make significant advances in the sciences,
their relative contribution to basic research
accomplishments has dwindled over time.
Can universities and government agencies
take up the slack?
The intimacy of top quality long-term
and short-to-medium term research in an industrial
environment appears to have been lost. Has this pillar of innovation been sacrificed to short-term "bottom
line" concerns?
Have we "changed a winning game?"
2) Pressures to "simplify" support of basic research among
government agencies
From
time to time, pressures have arisen for the
creation of a single "Department of Science
and Industry."2 The principal arguments
are that a science department would mean more
bureaucratic clout for science activities,
improve American's ability to mobilize efforts
to address urgent priorities, create synergies
across existing jurisdictional lines, and
eliminate duplication of effort.
Fortunately, for all of the reasons
already elucidated here and elsewhere, these
direct pressures have abated.
However,
they continue to re-surface in a different,
yet related form: scientific missions and
responsibilities limited to single agencies. Though ".Congress has treated science well
in its appropriations, and the good figures
for science during this Administration represent
a strong consensus between the Legislative
and Executive branches that science is important
to our nation's future,"5 turf
issues have increasingly intruded upon the
pluralism for U.S. scientific preeminence.
Examples can be found both inside and
outside government, and could impede the inter-agency
richness enjoyed in a pluralistic environment.
A
recent example can be found in a Congressional
proposal that would limit the purview of the
Department of Energy, Office to Science by
forbidding it to engage in activities involving
human health.6 Yet consider the
above examples where basic research in the
physical sciences, conducted by the Department
of Energy, have led to spectacular advances
in medicine. Such limitations, while perhaps appearing efficient,
in fact deduct from the potential achievements
of the very agency being "protected" by such
language.
3) Changes in funding patterns amongst federal agencies
The benefits of pluralistic American
science research support could hardly be more
evident than in the achievements of U.S. Government
agencies.
Surprises abound:
Freeze
storage of blood (ONR); Hepatitis A vaccine
(ARO); initiation of the human genome project
(DOE); non-surgical breast biopsy technique
(NASA). All of these outcomes are human health related (.happiness of man),
but all of these agencies have different prime
missions. Yet their basic research support has led to
critical advances in innovation, economic
strength, and security.
The trends in relative agency funding
do not auger well for continuation of this
pluralism. While the funding for basic research has improved
markedly over the past half century, either
in "As appropriated" dollars,7
or
in constant 2000 dollars,7
the
balance among agencies has not fared so well
(these are averages over two years to remove
some of the year-to-year fluctuations):
The
changes in percentages are policy driven.
One cannot complain about the sharp
and critically important increases in proposal-driven
agencies: NSF (2% in 1956 to 13% in 2005)
and NIH (14% in 1956 to 56% in 2005).
However, the share of the pie for basic
research in the mission-driven agencies DOD
(22% in 1954 vs 5% in 2005), DOE (31% in 1954
vs 10% in 2005), NASA (13% in 1956 vs 9% in
2005), and USDA (6% in 1954 vs 3% in 2005)
has sharply declined.
".[S]cientific
activities in themselves have no claim on
public resources, and the nation has supported
R&D only because it advances other objectives. R&D thus should not be separated from the
missions of the agencies that support it.
This is the reason there has never
been a federal R&D budget as such; budget
allocations are made by the departments and
represent their assessments of the best means
to accomplish their goals."2
Another
alarming feature of this change in balance
is the impact on the physical sciences, and
their ability to underpin advances in the
proposal-driven agency NIH.
The distinguished former Director of
NIH, Dr. Harold Varmus, has noted this need
explicitly in his op-ed piece titled Squeeze
on Science:
The
NIH does a magnificent job, but it does not
hold all the keys to success.
The work of several science agencies
is required for advances in medical sciences,
and the health of some of those agencies is
suffering..
Medical
science can visualize the inner workings of
the body at far higher resolution with techniques
that sound dazzlingly sophisticated: ultrasound,
positron-emission tomography and computer-assisted
tomography. These techniques are the workhorses of medical
diagnostics.
And not a single one of them could
have been developed without the contributions
of scientists, such as mathematicians, physicists
and chemists supported by the agencies currently
at risk..
Medical advances may seem like wizardry.
But pull back the curtain, and sitting
at the lever is a high-energy physicist, a
combinational chemist or an engineer. Magnetic resonance imaging is an excellent
example.
Perhaps the last century's greatest
advance in diagnosis, MRI is the product of
atomic, nuclear and high-energy physics, quantum
chemistry, computer science, cryogenics, solid
state physics and applied medicine.
In
other words, the various sciences together
constitute the vanguard of medical research.
And it is time for Congress to treat
them that way..
Scientists
can wage an effective war on disease only
if we--as a nation and as a scientific community--harness
the energies of many disciplines, not just
biology and medicine.
The allies must include mathematicians,
physicists, engineers and computer and behavioral
scientists..
[I]t
is essential to provide adequate budgets for
the agencies that traditionally fund such
work and train its practitioners. Moreover, this will encourage the interagency
collaboration that fuels interdisciplinary
science. Only in this way will medical research be optimally
poised to continue its dazzling progress.8
The
President's Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology echoes this call for balance
in their report titled Assessing the U.S.
R&D Investment.9
"Recommendation
1.
All evidence points to a need to improve
funding levels for physical sciences and engineering. Continuation of resent patterns will lead to
an inability to sustain our nation's technical
and scientific leadership.
We recommend that beginning with the
FY04 budget and carrying through the next
four fiscal years, funding for physical sciences
and engineering across the relevant agencies
be adjusted upward to bring them collectively
to parity with the life sciences.
And
what are these agencies?
These
are the very agencies whose fraction of the
research pie has diminished significantly
over the last half century.
Summary
and Conclusion
In
summary, these three factors are the dangers
that threaten U.S. scientific preeminence,
a historic and magnificent strength. Restoration within science of Madison's multiplicity of interests
is essential to achieve Jefferson's aspiration:
the advancement of knowledge and the freedom
and happiness of man.
References
1. "Coupling Science and the National Interest,"
Gerald Holton, The Lewis Branscomb Lecture,
Harvard University, 16 March, 2000.
2. American Science Policy Since World War
II, Bruce L. R. Smith (Brookings Institution,
Washington, DC, 1990), pages 161-163.
3. ibid, pages 50-51.
4. With apologies to Mr. Paul Harvey.
5.
John H. Marburger, III, 29th Annual
AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy,
American Association for the Advancement of
Science, April 22, 2004.
6.
See Section 21641(e) of H.R. 6, The Energy
Policy Act of 2003, as passed
by the U.S. House of Representatives on November
18, 2003, now awaiting
consideration in the U.S. Senate.
7.
Ref. 5: "R&D expenditures in this Administration
are up 44% over the past four years to a record
$132 billion proposed for 2005 compared to
$91 billion in FY 2001, and the non-defense
share is up 26%.
The President's FY 2005 Federal R&D
budget request is the greatest share of GDP
in over 10 years, and its share of the domestic
discretionary budget, at 13.5% is the highest
level in 37 years.
Non-defense R&D funding is the
highest percentage of GDP since 1982.
Total U.S. R&D expenditures, including
the private sector was at 2.65% of GDP in
2002, the most recent year for which I data.
I suspect it is above that today.
Its historical high was 2.87% in 1964
as NASA was ramping up for the Apollo program..The
FY 2005 request commits 5.7% of total discretionary
outlays to non-defense R&D, the third
highest level in the past 25 years..While
the President has proposed to reduce the overall
growth in non-defense, non-homeland security
spending to 0.5% this year to address overall
budget pressures, his budget expresses a commitment
to 'non-security' science with a considerably
higher growth rate at 2.5%..During the current
Administration, funding for basic research
has increased 26% to an all-time high of $26.8
billion in the FY 2005 budget request."
8.
Squeeze on Science, Harold Varmus,
Washington Post, Wednesday, October 4, 2003,
page A33. Emphasis added.
9.
Assessing the U.S. R&D Investment,
President's Council of Advisors on Science
and Technology (PCAST), October 16, 2002.
Appendix
The U.S. has been blessed with a complex research support structure since World War II. Its diversity extends from within the Federal Government to the private sector, through corporate and foundation support. Revolutionary accomplishments include:
Bell Telephone Laboratories: the transistor;
stereo recording, sound motion pictures, the
first long-distance TV transmission, the first
fax machine, the touch-tone phone, several
generations of modems, communications satellites,
lasers, solar cells, cellular telephony, lightwave
communication systems, and software (UNIX,
C and C++) that operates, maintains and manages some of
the most sophisticated public and private
communications networks in the world.
General Electric Laboratories: the modern X-ray tube; the tungsten filament, a breakthrough in lighting efficiency; equipment used in the radio broadcast; the first television broadcast; the man-made diamond; Lexan engineering plastic; the magnetron, the basis of the microwave; improvements in CT scanners, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
Westinghouse
Laboratories: first industrial atom smasher; first nuclear
power plant in US; the reactor for the first
nuclear powered naval vessel built in U.S.
; an implantable (nuclear powered) artificial
human heart;
International
Business Machines (IBM):
the Vacuum Tube Multiplier; the Automatic Sequence Controlled Calculator
(also called the Mark I); IBM
7090, one of the first fully transistorized
mainframes; the first computer disk storage system; FORTRAN; the floppy disk; solid state optical scanning and later the bar
code scanners in supermarkets; ATMs; the Local
Area Network (LAN) standard; Electron Tunneling
and later the Scanning Tunneling Microscope
(IBM scientists also discovered how
to move and position individual atoms on a
metal surface, using an STM);
fractal geometry; the first polymer to
become superconducting;
the first thin-film superconducting devices;
the Data Encryption Standard (DES); Dynamic Random Access Memory
(DRAM) and later the high-speed cache,
or buffer memory; the IBM 350 RAMAC (Random
Access Method of Accounting and Control) disk
file, an advance that helped make possible
on-line computing systems; the first "self-learning"
program, a demonstration of the concept of
artificial intelligence; some credit IBM with the development of "word
processing" and the
first true PC.
RCA:
Semiconductor diode junction capacitor in 1956, thin-film field effect
transistor and Liquid Phase Epitaxy in 1961,.
Between 1963 and 1968, RCA pioneered the research
and development of the first liquid-crystal
display (LCD). The Labs also developed the
first linear Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor
(CMOS) in 1964 and, working with the Solid-State
Division, developed the first production-grade
CMOS chip, the 1802, in 1974.
Motorola: car radio, transistor radio, walkie talkies, pagers, cellular telephones.
Celera: Drosophila (fruit fly) sequence; Human
Genome draft sequence (independent of HGP); and assembly of the mouse genome.
Howard Hughes foundation: discovered that RNA can act as an enzyme; identified
the genes related to cancer, heart disease,
obesity, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy,
a form of and generated
large RNA libraries that can be used to turn
off individual human and mouse genes to study
their function; established conclusively that
prions are proteins, and that they do not
depend on genes or other factors for transmission
of their traits; induced differentiating cells
to revert to being stem cells; designed and
constructed a novel functional protein that
is not found in nature.
Rockefeller foundation: "golden rice" - GMO with Beta-carotene (essential
precursor to vitamin A) to prevent blindness
in countries where rice is staple food.
Cold Springs Harbor Labs: demonstrated the phenomenon of "hybrid
vigor", developed the first hybrid corn
and formed the basis of modern agricultural
genetics; isolated the "pregnancy hormone"
prolactin; developed the first cure for Addison's
disease; used X-ray mutagenesis to produce
a high-yielding strain of Penicillium
mold that increased wartime penicillin production
fivefold; showed conclusively that DNA is
the molecule of heredity; McClintock's theory
of transposition ("Jumping genes") - the foundation
for Recombinant DNA; developed a rapid and
inexpensive means to separate differently-sized
DNA molecules by coupling ethidium bromide
staining with agarose gel electrophoresis;
first to isolate a human cancer gene- "oncogene"-
called "ras"
and identified
a form of the gene in yeast, providing a powerful
model system for experiments on the gene's
function; showed how an oncogene and an anti-oncogene
interact biochemically in the cell; showed
that telomeres, the ends of chromosomes, shorten
with age and that certain cancer cells lack
the telomere shortening; found ORC "origin
recognition complex" protein complex that
initiates DNA replication; discovered a new
tumor suppressor gene called p16, which is
mutated in a large number of melanomas; developed
a powerful technique "Representation Difference
Analysis" which allows scientists to compare
sequences of DNA from diseased and healthy
tissue and identify rapidly even tiny differences;
documented RNA Splicing "introns";
and developed techniques for purifying new
restriction enzymes "molecular scissors"
from numerous microorganisms - enabled the
Recombinant DNA revolution.
The Office of Naval Research: atomic clock; fracture mechanic (with AFOSR)s;
first digital computer; first laser in ruby;
atomic powered submarine; radiation dosimeter;
freeze storage of whole blood; deep diving
submarine; x-ray diffraction analysis of molecular
structure; biometrics; quick clot and numerous
weapons system advances including underwater
acoustics technologies.
The Air Force Office of Scientific Research:
Maser/Laser (with other DOD);integrated circuit;
computer mouse; GPS (with DARPA); Josephson's
superconductivity work; Photothermal Deflection
Spectroscopy (PTDS); self-healing plastics;
and numerous weapons systems advances including
Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine
Technology.
The Army Research Office and Laboratories:
Superfluidity;
theory of superconductivity; electronics and
maser-laser principle (with other DOD); conductive
polymers; fullerenes (with other agencies-
DOE, NSF, other DOD)); semiconductor heterostructures
used in high-speed and opto-electronics; Hepatitis A Vaccine;
and numerous weapon system advances including
night vision technology.
Defense Advanced Research Project Agency:
the
internet; GPS; MEMS; speech recognition
technology (with NSF); and numerous weapon
system advances including stealth technology
(the F-117 Fighter and B-2 Bomber).
Central Intelligence Agency: U2 spy plane; lithium batteries (with other
agencies - DOE, ONR); image processing techniques
and specialized tools applied for the detection
of breast cancer; blackbird spy plane; and
reconnaissance satellites.
National Security Agency: advanced mathematics; advanced cryptography;
and advanced signal, network and cyber security
technologies.
The National Institute of Science and Technology,
U.S. Department of Commerce: first atomic (really molecular) clock; redefined the unit of length based
upon high precision measurements of the speed
of light; Bose-Einstein condensation; atomic laser cooling; PCR-based DNA Profiling Standard and Mitochondrial
DNA Sequencing standard.
U.S. Department of Energy: discovery of the chromosomal basis for sex determination
in mammals; documented
the effects of radiation on developing fetus
or other rapidly dividing cells such as in
cancer tumors; smoke detectors; artificial
pancreas; artificial retina; nuclear medicine
and proton therapy; human genome project and
genome sequencing/computation technologies;
Standard Model of particle and interactions;
accelerating universe; massively parallel
supercomputing; fate of the dinosaurs; positron
emission tomography (PET), and single-photon
emission computed tomography (SPECT),; Buckyballs
(with other agencies); composite materials;
accelerators, synchrotrons and neutron sources;
sustained man-made fusion reaction; plasma
displays; ATP explained; CFC role in climate;
and the ability to predict the properties
and behavior of materials from simulations
at the atomic scale.
The Environmental Protection Agency:
Development
of improved methods for detecting drinking
water contaminants to reduce outbreaks of
illness; Creation of computer-based models
of long-range transport of air pollution that
can be used by states in designing pollution
control programs; Demonstration of strategies
to reduce children's exposure to lead in the
home, a risk factor for impaired nervous system
development; Evaluation of the potential of
chemicals to interfere with the endocrine
system of humans and wildlife; Developed advanced
methods for monitoring the condition of the
environment, using data sources such as satellite
imagery and ground-based ecological
measurements; Developed a new method of testing
for viruses in drinking water; Demonstrated
potential health effects of arsenic and chlorination
by-products and has identified potentially
harmful chemicals created when ozone is used
to disinfect water;
U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agricultural Research Service): Beltsville Sperm-Sorting Technology allows livestock producers to predetermine the sex of their animals; Research on vaccines and other controls for avian leukosis, a major chicken disease, the technology may give cancer researchers and human immunologists a clue as to how cancer and the AIDS virus work; breeding soybeans with resistance to root knot nematodes and to several foliage-feeding insects made this a staple crop in the U.S.; Fire resistant textiles were made possible with THPC; DEET; the molecular structure of one of the ribonucleic acids (RNAs); Phytochrome-the physiochemical agent that regulates all aspects of plant growth; Development of near-infrared reflectance (NIR) spectroscopy; Improved understanding of the nutritional needs of the elderly, infants, and other specialized groups; lactose-modified milk, called Lactaid;