Section I
Chapter 1:
Scientific and Technical Communication in Context
Part 1;
Part 2;
Part 3
Chapter 2:
Reading Scientific and Technical Texts
Chapter 3:
Writing Scientific and Technical Texts
Part 1;
Part 2;
Part 3
Chapter 4:
Conducting Research
Part 1;
Part 2
Chapter 5:
Understanding Audiences
Part 1;
Part 2
Chapter 6:
Persuasion and Critical Thinking
Part 1;
Part 2
Chapter 7:
Participation and Policy
Part 1;
Part 2
Section II
Chapter 8:
Definitions, Descriptions, and Instructions
Part 1;
Part 2
Chapter 9:
Correspondence
Chapter 10:
Job-Finding Materials
Chapter 11:
Proposals
Part 1;
Part 2
Chapter 12:
Technical Reports
Chapter 13:
Scientific Articles and Abstracts
Chapter 14:
Oral Presentations
Chapter 15:
Formatting, Designing, and Using Graphics
Part 1;
Part 2
Grammar Handbook
Section III
Chapter 16:
Opening
Geoff Cooper:
"Textual Technologies"
Discussion
Chapter 17:
Opening
Steve Fuller: "Putting People Back Into the Business of Science"
Part 1; Part 2
Discussion
Chapter 18:
Opening
William Keith: "Science and Communication"
Discussion
Chapter 19:
Opening
Sujatha Raman: "Challenging High-Tech War"
Discussion
Chapter 20:
Opening
Dale L. Sullivan: "Migrating Across Disciplinary Boundaries"
Discussion
Chapter 21:
→ Opening
Tobias, Chubin, Aylesworth: "Restructuring Demand for Scientific Expertise"
Part 1; Part 2
Discussion
Opening
In November of 1993 President Clinton created the National Science Technology Council, a cabinet-level body composed of secretaries and directors of all the research-oriented departments and agencies in the government. This action was the logical culmination of the claim science and technology are making on fiscal and intellectual resources. By one estimate, half the issues considered by Congress in the last few years involve science and technology, at least indirectly. The House of Representatives has a permanent Committee on Science and Technology, the Senate has two subcommittees whose main purview is science and technology policy, the executive branch has an Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Office of Technology Assessment advises all branches of government on matters concerning science and technology. However, in the era of a shrinking budgets, privatized research and a bloated scientific workforce, the role of the federal government in encouraging and promoting scientific research has come under fire.
Before World War II, American scientific community was largely separate from the government. American science was based mainly on university campuses; the same universities were the major source of funding. In general, scientists were wary of government intervention, and government saw little need to spend a great deal of money on science. It was scientists who first tried to close the gap. In the late 1930s a group of nuclear physicists (among them Fermi and von Neumann) who understood the military consequences of recent discoveries in nuclear science warned the U.S. government. In a now famous letter, Albert Einstein prevailed upon President Roosevelt to secure a supply of uranium for possible military uses. Roosevelt responded by creating the first governmental body specifically involved with science: the Advisory Committee on Uranium. Successors followed — the most significant being The National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) and the extremely influential Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD). None of these agencies threatened the independence scientists valued, and so set a precedent for a national policy dealing with science and technology which allowed scientists considerable freedom.
In 1945 Roosevelt's advisor Vanavar Bush assembled a team of scientists to author a recommendation for government's involvement in post-war science. The recommendation took the form of a report called Science, the Endless Frontier, which called for the creation of what would become the National Science Foundation. It reads, in part:
[S]ince health, well-being, and security are proper concerns of Government, scientific progress is, and must be, of vital interest to the Government. Without scientific progress the national health would deteriorate; without scientific progress we could not hope for improvement in our standard of living or for an increased number of jobs for our citizens; and without scientific progress we could not have maintained our liberties against tyranny.
The word "tyranny" is particularly significant here, for it reflects the struggle between scientists desire for intellectual freedom and government's desire to retain limited control. This struggle was in many ways the birth pains of the NSF. The result was (and is) a compromise. The National Science Foundation Act of 1950 determined that the director would be a presidential appointee, and that the related National Science Board (NSB), the members of which were also appointed by the president, would be limited to an advisory role. The scientific community, for the most part, was pleased: if scientists were not permitted enormous influence in policy-making, they were at least assured of on-going government support and considerable independence.
The greatest increase in real dollars of government funding of science and technology occurred in the 1960s — an effect in part of the Cold War fears aroused by the Soviet Union's launching of an artificial satellite in 1957. The 1970s and 1980s saw a leveling of scientific funding in real dollars; the 1990s, so far, have seen diminished resources and economic restraints, and consequently, a greater strain on decision-makers. Struck by Vannavar Bush, the compact between scientists and society placed science above politics for the national good. Tobias, Cubin and Aylesworth revisit that compact and suggest that those seeking jobs in science revisit it as well. The goals of American science, and of American scientists, are debated in light of the redefinition of national welfare.