Shifting the Agenda of Science and Technology

As David Orr points out, the research agenda in the United States— as well as in many other countries that have followed the U.S. lead—is largely tied to considerations of relatively short-term profits and shortterm military advantage (short-term especially relative to the timeframe of conservation biology). The Pentagon’s continued sponsorship of much research at the frontiers of many fields—often pursuing a narrow definition of national security as the possession of faster, more powerful weapons than anyone else—is one major factor, as is the increased dependence of universities on corporate support. Many academic scientists, engineers, and their institutions have become as intent about cashing in on their own bright ideas as any corporate sponsor would be. That poses its own potential for conscious and unconscious bias and for shortsightedness in the conduct of research. The resulting focus on short-term competitive advantages, whether in war or in the marketplace, does often seem to shove to the end of the line broader concerns about how the world’s research capacity can best serve the public interest. That means the neglect of the very social and ecological innovations that will be necessary to increase real, long-term national security for today’s small world. Orr has outlined a sensible plan for shifting our public agenda for science and technology to the most pressing needs of humanity and other species. Perhaps the most useful comments to add to his proposal would be specific examples of how innovative experiments related to this urgent work are already underway. Taking note of them, it is all the more possible to imagine a future in which such social advances have taken firm root.