National Academy of Sciences Remarks at the Academy's Annual Meeting.

President Handler, distinguished members of the National Academy of Sciences, guests who are equally distinguished in your own field of work:

I'm indeed pleased to be here. I know that election to the National Academy is the highest honor that can be paid to a scientist or an engineer in the United States, and I again congratulate all of you.

I understand that in the Soviet Union, when someone is chosen to their National Academy of Sciences, his or her salary immediately doubles— [laughter] —and a chauffeured car is made available for use. I understand there's a slight difference in our own country. [Laughter] You immediately get a bill for membership dues, and you are pledged voluntarily to give advice to your Government free of charge. [Laughter] And I thank you for that.

I am honored to address this distinguished convocation and to join with you in commemorating the 100th anniversary year of the birth of Albert Einstein.

The National Academy of Sciences was already a thriving institution when Albert Einstein was born. In 1942, soon after taking out American citizenship, Dr. Einstein was elected to this Academy, becoming at once its newest and, perhaps, its most eminent member. His coming to our country was a matter of carefully considered choice. In this respect, he was like many thousands of scientists from all over the world—drawn to this country by an atmosphere of intellectual freedom, adventure, and hospitality for the pursuit of scientific truth.

That atmosphere has invigorated American life from our Nation's beginnings. Scientists-statesmen such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were among the authors of our own national independence. Their influence helped to establish the young American republic as a place where scientific endeavor was not only encouraged but was honored.

We've never deviated from that commitment. And it's significant, I believe, that the Congress and President Lincoln chartered this National Academy of Sciences at the height of our gravest national crisis. In so doing, they demonstrated a deep understanding of the importance of science to the very survival of our Nation.

There is little that we can predict with certainty. But we can be very sure that whatever the future holds, we will be better prepared for it if we pursue a strong national program of support for science and technology. That's why even in this time of budgetary restraint, I have remained firmly committed to such a program.

Scientific enterprise will be a key to our future strength, but we in this room cannot take this for granted. In this centennial year, it's well to remember that faith in the future was a notable quality of Albert Einstein. Only an optimist could have undertaken the incredibly ambitious task that Dr. Einstein set for himself-the discovery and the explication of the underlying order of our universe.

Throughout his life, Dr. Einstein sought not only to discover order in the natural world, but also to promote order in the human world.

Einstein the humanitarian has much to teach us, as does Einstein the physicist. He saw the pursuit of science as good in itself, but he also saw that the uses of science are only as good—or as bad—as the moral and political choices that determine those uses. In his own words, and I quote, "Concern for man himself and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors—in order that the creation of our minds shall be a blessing and not a curse."

The tree of science is always beautiful, but its fruits can be bitter as well as sweet. Our task is to nourish the tree of science and to attempt as 'best we can to harvest the fruits that are sweet. And that task must be shared by all of us—scientists, engineers, industrial leaders, educators, and public officials alike.

I hope that science and technology in the United States will continue to be shaped by Einstein's vision of knowledge that keeps the good of human beings always at the forefront.

It's in that context that I want to share with you briefly some ideas and observations about basic research, about a strategy for energy technology, about industrial innovation, about scientific cooperation among nations, and about the role of science in helping to control its own most fearsome offspring—nuclear weapons. I'll be very brief.

The last President to address a convocation of the National Academy of Sciences, John F. Kennedy, spoke of basic research in these words: "We realize now," he said, "that progress in technology depends on progress in theory; that the most abstract investigations can lead to the most concrete results; and that the vitality of a scientific community springs from its passion to answer science's most fundamental questions."

One month to the day after President Kennedy spoke those words, he was stricken down by an assassin's bullet. And then began a long period of political trauma in our country. But in many ways, those following years were exciting ones in science and technology—years of breakthrough discoveries in molecular biology, particle physics, and many other fields, and of technological progress epitomized by the triumphant landing of men on the Moon. Yet for scientists, as for so many of the rest of us in politics and other fields, they were also difficult years. American science found itself beleaguered by two very different kinds of antiintellectualism: on the one hand, by the romantic antirationalism of the counterculture and, on the other, by the veiled hostility of a national administration that distrusted the academic and the scientific community.

The latter presented the most serious threat. Federal policy toward science became infected with a simplistic search for a simple fix. Research that seemed to promise a quick payoff was more amply funded, while support of basic research was allowed to decline. The future of our scientific and technological primacy was put at risk.

I came to office determined to reverse that dangerous, shortsighted trend. And today I reaffirm to you my commitment to basic research, the bedrock of our scientific and technological future.

During the 2 years of my own administration, I've proposed increases already of more than 25 percent in Federal funding of basic research. I've asked the Congress to support this increased funding in order to meet the long-term needs of our Nation.

I've also sought to strengthen basic research in the individual Federal agencies. Each agency has been asked to reexamine its own budget request to see how basic research commitments could be strengthened. And we've tried to resolve nonbudgetary problems that have inhibited research in our universities—problems of unnecessary Government regulation and excessive bureaucratic paper shuffling.

Economists estimate that advances in knowledge have accounted for three quarters of our own country's economic growth in this century. By itself, that is a decisive reason for us to support the basic research that undergirds our technological might. But the value of basic research is even higher and deeper than meeting payrolls and spawning new industries; the fundamental concern of basic research is the discovery of truth about the natural universe. The search for truth is a central part of what it means to be human.

No issue illuminates our Nation's practical need for science and technology more than the energy problem.

Oil remains by far the most important energy source, and we are in the painful situation of relying on a greedy and unreliable foreign cartel for nearly half the oil we use in this country. As that onrushing river of foreign oil flows into our country, a river of American money flows out, threatening the health of our economy, the stability of our currency, and even the security of our Nation.

Science and technology can change that, but only if we commit ourselves to a national strategy of developing energy alternatives. We have such a strategy-one that will enable us to move away from imported oil and increasingly move toward nonfossil fuels—and I'm determined that we will pursue it.

Over the next decade or so, we must rely mostly on existing technologies, but we will pave the way for future progress by fostering conservation, domestic production of oil and gas, greater use of coal, the safety of nuclear plants, and the use of solar power.

From about 1990 through the second decade of the next century, we will pass through a dramatic and sometimes bumpy period of transition. Conservation will be forced upon us, and the mix of our energy resources will change as we turn increasingly toward unconventional sources of fuel.

By the second quarter of the 21st century, we will have learned to rely on cleaner, essentially inexhaustible sources of energy. The principal candidates include, of course, fusion and such solar technologies as photovoltaics.

We are preparing right now for these stages of our energy future. Our energy research and development is already larger in its program size than those of all our allies combined. But we must do more. That's why I have proposed the creation of an energy security fund to supplement our normal budget mechanisms. The revenues for this fund will come from a windfall tax on the unearned, excess profits that would otherwise go to the oil companies because of the decontrol of oil prices— over and above needed incentives for exploration and production within our country.

The energy security fund will provide relief to those least able to pay for more costly energy, and large sums will go to finance projects that are important to our energy future, including a regional petroleum reserve, better mass transit, coal and oil shale development, new incentives for solar techniques, and other basic and applied research projects with which many of you are already intimately acquainted.

The energy security fund faces a difficult passage through Congress, but we are making progress became the public supports our proposals. Many of those who only a few weeks ago were dedicated to killing outright the windfall profits tax have now given up on that fight. But the battle is far from over. New strategy seems to be to try to hoodwink the American people by passing a windfall profits tax that is in fact a charade—a tax designed primarily to provide loopholes to the oil companies so that they will get another $4 or $5 billion, in addition to the $6 billion in increased revenue that they would get under decontrol with an honest windfall profits tax proposal passed.

They will try to pass this charade off on the American people as a so-called plowback provision. But it isn't a plowback; it is a plow under and a kickback, and what is going to be plowed under is the energy security fund with its aid to research and its aid to the poor. And what's going to be kicked back to the oil companies is the money that would go to finance these absolutely necessary programs for the well-being of the future of our country.

I ask for your support in the battle to pass an honest windfall profits tax to finance a real energy security fund for our Nation, in consonance with the program that will give greatly increased incentive and greatly increased profits for the oil companies to explore and to discover and to produce additional sources of domestic oil and natural gas.

And I also call on all of you in the scientific and engineering communities to fulfill the trust of the American people by creating the new energy technologies that are so vital to the future well-being of our country.

We need innovation on a broader scale as well, for new ideas in America are central not only to reducing our dependence on foreign oil but also on our efforts to control inflation, to improve productivity of our workers, to protect the environment, and to ensure the prosperity of the American people.

We tend to think of the inventiveness of American industry as a kind of inevitable birthright, but complacency is the last thing we can afford. Too many of our industries in this country have gone stale. Innovative industries in countries like Japan and West Germany put too many of ours to shame. Our competitiveness has begun to slip.

The American free enterprise system has always been vigorous enough and able enough and dedicated enough and well supported enough to prevail. I have no doubt that it still retains those capabilities.

We must nurture an environment in which the new idea and the fresh approach are put to use. The Federal Government bears a large share of this responsibility. We must change government practices that thwart innovation, while enhancing government policies which encourage the development of new products and new processes.

Last year, I directed the Secretary of Commerce to begin a major study of industrial innovation. That study, involving some 30 Federal departments and agencies and consultations with industry, labor, and the universities and the public, will soon be completed. I look forward to reviewing the recommendations and to acting on them, hopefully with your help.

Many of you in this room today are leaders of American business and industry, and I call on you to emphasize innovation in the companies which you serve. Like Federal support of basic research, industrial development and investment in research, both basic and applied, in new products and new processes, is a practical testament of faith in our own future.

Since Kepler's day and before, scientists have been perhaps the most international of all professions in their outlook. In our own time, the explosion of communications and technology has made international scientific communication both easier and more urgent than ever before.

Albert Einstein himself operated on what even then was a very modest budget. He needed little more than a few sharpened pencils and a quiet place to think. But as you know, the task of building upon his work can be much more expensive. Many of the key experiments yet to be done—in both basic and applied technology-are on a monumental scale.

Our choice in the years ahead will be between carrying out the few large projects we can afford on our own, as Americans-or by doing many more projects, perhaps even more effectively, in cooperation with other nations. We must continue to choose cooperation—for reasons that go beyond the considerable benefits of sharing the costs and sharing ideas.

With our traditional friends, scientific and technological cooperation can strengthen existing bonds. With others, who may not be quite so friendly, it can help to bridge political and ideological and cultural divisions.

One of the most important purposes of international cooperation in technology and science is to meet the developing needs of the poorer countries of the world.

The future of the advanced countries is increasingly tied up with that of the developing world. Yet, only about 1 percent of the world's civilian research and development is devoted directly to the problems of the poorer half of humanity-problems such as poverty, disease, hunger, education, and resource development. We should be doing more.

A year ago, I proposed the creation of a new Institute for Scientific and Technological Cooperation to mobilize the talents of scientists and engineers in this country and in the developing world to address these critical problems. Instead of providing relief, we would aid the Third World in building its own corps of development scientists and decision makers. And we would join them in mutually beneficial projects in agriculture, medicine, industrialization, and appropriate energy systems.

The Institute for Scientific and Technological Cooperation has been approved already by the House of Representatives and is now before the Senate for consideration. It needs your full support.

Let me turn now to the use and exploration in space where, as on Earth, our purpose is human betterment—material, intellectual, and spiritual.

In the coming era, we will reap a good return on the more than $100 billion the United States has invested in space. From platforms in space, we can indeed continue to improve our world. Every year, satellites make new contributions in such areas as agriculture, environmental monitoring, land use, resource discovery, climatology, and communications.

With the advent of the space shuttle, we will have an unmatchable ability to work in space. We will see a flowering of research and industrial activities in space, and we will make quantum jumps in international cooperation, advancing the causes of peace and human development.

Mankind's leap into space has changed human consciousness forever. The era of manned exploration of deep space is still well in the future, but our senses are already penetrating the outer reaches of the solar system and beyond. No one who has seen those breathtaking pictures of Jupiter and its moons sent back from Voyager I could fail to have been surprised and delighted by them. We can expect many more such surprises, many more such delights, as we probe further into the universe and its mysteries.

And finally, let me say that of all the fruits of science, none is more bitter than nuclear weapons. And of all the responsibilities of nations, none is more urgent than the control of this most terrible menace to our lives and to our civilization.

All of us are thankful that the recent accident at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania ended without harm to the public. That accident may even have served some positive purpose. It has, of course, led us to redouble our determination to improve the safety of nuclear power. Even more importantly, however, it has reminded us vividly of the dreadful consequences of nuclear war.

We have lived too long with nuclear weapons. We've grown too accustomed to their shadowy presence in our lives. We are too apt to forget what the ultimate horror would be: the instant death of millions and the slow and agonizing death of many millions more; the destruction of the cultural legacy of all mankind; the poisoning of air and soil and water for many dark generations to come. In an all-out nuclear exchange, the victim would be nothing less than the past, present, and future of our own human species.

When President Kennedy addressed this body 16 years ago, the Senate had just ratified the most significant step in nuclear arms control until that time-the atmospheric test ban treaty. The SALT II treaty, now nearing completion, is part of the same process—a long, slow progress of gradual steps toward sanity, based on mutual self-interest. And after SALT II, that process will continue with a comprehensive nuclear test ban and then with SALT III.

SALT II will reduce the risk of nuclear war by lowering levels of strategic arms, by containing development of new weapons systems, and by contributing to a more stable political interrelationship between ourselves and the people of the Soviet Union.

Many of the issues involved in assessing the treaty are very complex technically, and the American people will look to the scientific community to help shape an educated public debate. Many of you devoted much effort to the debate over SALT I, and you played a major role in forming the consensus that developed to support that treaty. Today, I ask for a renewal of that commitment.

If science gave us nuclear weapons, it's no less true that science has given us the extraordinary means of verifying compliance with treaties to control those weapons. In the great SALT II debate, which has already begun, the participation of scientists will indeed be crucial.

Albert Einstein also said these words, "The importance of securing international peace was recognized by the really great men of former generations. But the technical advances of our times have turned this ethical postulate into a matter of life and death for civilized mankind today, and made it a moral duty to take an active part in the solution of the problems of peace, a duty which no conscientious law [man] can shirk."

These words were more prophetic than anyone could know, for they were spoken more than a decade before the explosion of the first atomic bomb. Those words are important. I urge you to heed them as we conclude SALT II, the next step towards nuclear arms control and a stronger and more sure worldwide peace.

Americans once had an unquestioned faith in science as a savior. We've grown more skeptical of science, as of so much else in our lives. But we still look to our scientists and to our engineers, our medical researchers and to our doctors, to our inventors and to our thinkers, to improve our lives and to improve the lives of our children.

My concern for the state of American science and technology has made our present efforts a keystone in building a new and a more solid foundation for our common future. I look to the members of this Academy, to the entire scientific and engineering community, to the Members of the Congress, and to the people of our country, to join these efforts through science for a greater America.

Thank you very much.