SCIENCE AND THE AMERICAN TRADITION*
by JAMES B. CONANT
President of Harvard University
We are gathered here tonight, I take
it, because we believe
that "to be ignorant of what
occurred before you were born is to be
always a child." I count it a
privilege to give the address at this
annual dinner of a society dedicated to
a furtherance of the study
of the history of this state; I am
particularly glad to be here when
you are dedicating a new addition to
your building and in the
twenty-fifth year of the presidency of
Mr. Arthur Johnson, who
has done so much for the society and
the state of Ohio. I count
it a privilege to be here because I
believe so strongly in the im-
portance of a sense of history as a
stabilizing force in the life of
both an individual and a community.
John Selden, the writer of one of the
earlier significant
English social histories, laid down in
1618 a doctrine about his-
torical studies which I venture to
think might be the platform of
all of us who have a deep interest in
the past. After speaking of
historical truth as a deterrent to
"the many ridiculous impostures
thrust on the too credulous by those
which stumble on in the road,"
he gives a balanced judgment as to the
use and abuse of anti-
quarian zeal:
For, as on the one side, it cannot be
doubted but that the too studious
affectation of bare and sterile
antiquity, which is nothing else but to be
exceeding busy about nothing, may soon
descend to a dotage; so on the
other, the neglect or only vulgar regard
of the fruitful and precious part
of it, which gives necessary light to
the present in matters of state, law,
history, and the understanding of good
authors, is but preferring that
kind of ignorant infancy which our short
life alone allows us, before
the many ages of former experience and
observation which may so
* This is the text of an address
delivered at the sixty-fifth annual meeting
of the Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Society, held at the Ohio State
Museum, Columbus, April 14, 1950.
231
232 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
accumulate years to us, as if we had
lived even from the beginning of
time.
In short, either history is devoid of
meaning, in which case
we should adjourn this meeting now, or
else the study of the past
must enrich our understanding of the
present. And if there was
ever a present when men needed aids to
understanding, it would
seem to be these anxious, complex days
of the mid-twentieth cen-
tury.
My thesis tonight can be summed up in a
relatively few
words: a study of the history of the
American nation on the one
hand, and of the development of the
activity we call science on
the other, shows that certain basic
presuppositions are common to
both enterprises. If that be true, I
venture to believe that in an
age of technology the two traditions
must mutually support and
reinforce each other; a country where
this occurs will be power-
ful because of its dynamic quality, and
in competition with a more
static system will eventually win out.
Needless to say, the con-
trasting system which I have in mind is
that found on the other
side of the iron curtain.
Science and the American tradition go
hand in hand; in the
Soviet Union the tradition of science
is diametrically opposed to
the philosophy of the Communist regime.
Therefore, in the long
run, a competition between the free
countries of the world and
those which lie within the orbit of the
dictatorship of the prole-
tariat must result in a victory for
freedom. This is the conclu-
sion I draw from my study of history;
this is the light a study of
the past seems to me to throw on the
perplexing years that lie
ahead.
But my cautious optimism about the
future, I must admit, is
based on one assumption, namely, that
we can avoid another
global war. If that assumption proves
false, my optimism largely
disappears. Not that I wish to be
counted among those extremists
who talk of the end of civilization or
the human race if we and
the Soviet Union start dropping atomic
bombs on one another.
There are large, densely populated
areas of the world which lie
outside any possible belligerent zones
in such a global war. There
Science and the American
Tradition 233
are large cities with ancient
traditions, cultural centers, particu-
larly to the south of both Russia and
ourselves; at the worst these
would remain untouched. Perhaps it is
the fated task of those of
us now living in the United States to
develop our own civilization
in these uncertain days merely in order
to transmit it to the sur-
vivors of World War III in other lands.
It would be no inglorious
mission. But I for one refuse to assume
any such outcome of our
labors. I believe with intelligence,
patience, and good luck we
can get through the balance of this
century without another global
war; and if we can, I have every
confidence that the free peoples
of the world will win the ideological
struggle of our times.
This favorable outcome of a long period
of tension, of un-
certainty, of sacrifice, of struggle
seems to me predicted on the
basis of that knowledge which we who
are gathered here hold in
such high esteem, namely, history. The
history of the American
people has been the history of
increasing democracy, of increas-
ing concern with the welfare of all the
people--slow but sure
progress toward the goals of equality
and tolerance, of "the maxi-
mum of individual liberty,"
"the minimum of class distinction."
I should be the last to undervalue the
significance of all these
elements in our tradition. But the one
I wish to emphasize here
tonight goes back far beyond the
founding of this republic. This
is the tradition of local autonomy,
local responsibility, local initi-
ative--the vigorous independence of
groups of individuals which
gradually became tempered by a
tolerance for the conflicting
opinions of other groups. One could
show how these ideas have
been effective in producing the present
cultural pattern in the
United States, including our devotion
to an economic system in
which there are literally millions of
centers of initiative and de-
cision. The local basis of our free
school system, the almost
chaotic diversity of our methods of
providing education beyond
the high school, many segments of our
religious life--all reflect
the same ancient and solid belief in
the value of independence
for small bodies of men.
Before showing how the same unconscious
suppositions un-
derlie science as well as the American
notion of independence,
234 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
let me remind you of what some
historians have to say about the
origins of this important element in
the conglomerate we designate
the American way of life. You will
pardon my parochialism as
a New Englander, I feel sure, if I
point out that there are those
who believe the form of church
government set up by the Massa-
chusetts Bay Colony three hundred years
ago is the point of origin.
Those of you who are Congregationalists
or have affinity with that
branch of Protestantism may be inclined
to agree with an historian
who sees in the first platform of the congregational form of
church discipline the beginnings of our
liberties. He speaks of
"the very small mustard seed . . .
which should ensure freedom
of action to each local New England
congregation." "From this
seed," he goes on to say,
"there grew the great tree of religious
and civil liberty."
Other writers trace back the idea of
the independence of each
congregation not to New England but to
Old England, to the
triumphs of Cromwell's army and the
rise of the independent
party in the parliament of those days.
But it is not for an amateur
historian to attempt to enter into a
detailed analysis of the inter-
play of religious, social, and
political forces in the seventeenth
century which are reflected in the
history on this continent of
almost all the Protestant faiths.
Suffice it to say that the Congre-
gational or independent method of
organizing religious worship
as contrasted with the Presbyterian or
the Episcopalian has surely
been one highly important factor in
reinforcing the parallel
method of organizing political units.
If in matters of doctrine it was right
and proper for small
groups of earnest men to take their
spiritual destiny into their
own hands, then too it was right and
proper for local groups to
determine their own political future.
It hardly seems to me a
matter of accident that in those
portions of the country that were
settled by pioneers who brought the
Congregational type of church
discipline, political independence has
flourished with special vigor.
Unless I am much mistaken, the history
of this state is a case in
point.
But I must rescue myself from an
overconcern with the
Science and the American
Tradition 235
drama of the settlement of the
West--the making of the United
States--and pass from the American
tradition to a characteriza-
tion of science. Before doing so let me
ask you to note that I have
not been talking about the tradition of individual freedom.
In-
dividual freedom is something else
again--of vast importance, of
course, and closely related to the
independence of like-minded
groups of men. But in the doctrinal
field as in the political, the
notion of individual freedom if pushed
to its extreme leads logi-
cally to philosophic anarchy. This is
another strain in the Ameri-
can tradition, represented by Thoreau.
To be sure, some would
say it is this strain in the American
tradition that is allied to
science, but that is not my view.
There is an element of discipline in
science which is mingled
in a strange way with the basic notion
of free inquiry, and above
all, with a communal acceptance of the
significance of a course
of action. A combination of these three
elements, I submit, is
likewise to be found in the realm of
religious thought as expressed
in the independent congregations, and
in the realm of politics by
the town meeting.
Let me trespass on your time a little
further, if I may, by
explaining more fully what I have in
mind. In the first place,
experimental science--astronomy,
physics, chemistry, biology--
is of significance not as a body of
"explanations" of the universe
but because it is a dynamic human
activity. Leaving aside en-
tirely all the practical applications
of scientific findings to med-
icine, agriculture, industry, and war,
and looking only at what
we often call "pure science,"
I would maintain the following
thesis: if all the laboratories were
closed tomorrow and no fur-
ther experimentation were permitted,
science as we know it would
automatically cease; our scientific
knowledge would be trans-
formed from a living, growing,
expanding entity to a set of dog-
mas. Time does not permit me to
buttress my proposition. Those
of you who are scientists I feel sure
will grant the correctness of
my contention.
My second point about science is this:
ever since the days of
the amateur scientists of the
seventeenth century, science has been
236 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
not a purely individual affair but a
social activity; in a sense a
communal activity. Yet it has been
independent of government,
of any external authority, and like the
independent churches of
the seventeenth century has rejected
all attempts even within its
own domain to set up governing
officials or authoritarian boards.
It has rejected the equivalent of
bishops and presbyters alike.
Yet it has had a sort of discipline. In
science there gradually
emerges, often after violent battles,
an agreed-on scientific opin-
ion. There is neither total anarchy nor
monolithic uniformity in
science; there is the recognized right
of individual dissent, but
the dissenter must be ready to do
battle for his views. There is
no recognized rule of the majority,
neither appointed nor elected
officials have any power; there is the
accepted premise that scien-
tific inquiry is important and that a
science can be advanced by
controversy related to experiment and
observation. Change is
considered desirable and is taken as a
matter of course.
Modern science is a vast fabric woven
of many threads. To
trace any one of them back over the
course of a century or two
would be to run into heresy, that is,
vigorous dissent, from what
was then orthodoxy; but the clash of
opinion was not sterile but
fruitful, the opposing camps of
scientists in the major conflicts
eventually produced new advances by the
very divergence of their
views. I submit that the history of the
United States has not been
dissimilar. Turn to any number of the
great issues which have
profoundly moved our people. Who can
say that except in a few
instances the right lay entirely on the
one side or the other? Is it
not rather that out of the conflict
came new views, better prospects
for the welfare of the people, of the
nation, and of our institu-
tions? So at least it seems to me. Free
inquiry within an ac-
cepted framework of reason and one set
of value judgments has
produced what we call science; a free
competition of ideas has
each generation refined the concepts of
this American society of
free men.
Twenty-five years ago anyone putting
forward the thesis I am
upholding here tonight would have had
difficulty in making a
contrast; he would have been hard put
to it to find a contrasting
Science and the American
Tradition 237
picture to the one he was painting of
the union of the traditions
of science and those of a free society.
Alas, today the contrast
is readily at hand. Indeed, to my mind,
it is the fundamental
issue which divides the world.
Incredible as it seems to many of
my generation, the Soviet Union is not
only a brutal police state
--that the world has often seen--but a
society which bases all its
actions on an authoritarian philosophy
of science. I use these
words advisedly. For dialectical
materialism as developed by
Lenin and now interpreted by the
handful of men who control the
Communist party in Russia (and the
world) places science in a
central position. That may be
flattering to the scientist, but we
now realize full well the price he
pays. There is no free play for
the dissenters; there is on the
contrary a ruling doctrine, an over-
riding official philosophy. And what is
more important, there is
an official group to determine what is
orthodox and what is not.
The authority of this tribunal
acknowledges no limitations; the
whole field of science is quite as much
within its jurisdiction as
politics or economics. Indeed, one may
perhaps say even more,
for as I said a moment ago, the founders
of the party doctrine
early placed the sciences in the
forefront of their philosophy.
As a consequence there is a party
doctrine in biology based
on the work of Lysenko. This work has
been challenged by almost
all non-party biologists both inside
and outside Russia. But what-
ever may be Lysenko's shortcomings as
an experimenter and a
theorist, he must be a skillful
intriguer, for he stands high in the
inner circles of the Communist party.
Once his views were de-
clared consistent with
"dialectical materialism," all other opin-
ions were declared bourgeois and
anti-revolutionary. Biologists
on the other side of the iron curtain
who once ventured to disagree
with Lysenko have now recanted. This is
no solitary case. There
is a party line in philology, believe
it or not. There is the begin-
ning of a party doctrine in atomic
physics. Incredible things are
being said and written by the leaders
of Soviet science.
The world is divided, then, not so much
by differences in
forms of government or in the
organization of economic life
(great and important as these
differences are), but by the distinc-
238 Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Quarterly
tion between a dynamic and a static
philosophy of thought and
action. The Soviet system is static as
all authoritarian systems
are. In the long run in this atmosphere
new ideas in science
cannot develop any more than they can
in politics or economics.
Here there are no centers of
initiative, no local autonomy of in-
dependent groups; clashes between rival
camps of thinkers are
soon ordered to cease and the issues
settled by appeal to a single
philosophy as interpreted by the high
priests in the Kremlin.
Technology, the application of
scientific knowledge to specific
problems can proceed under these
conditions. It is so proceeding
at a rate faster than some of us had
thought possible, no doubt of
that. For the short run, in terms of
efficiency the Soviet system
may seem to have a certain advantage
over us. But for the longer
run I cannot see how an essentially
static authoritarian philos-
ophy can compete with a dynamic philosophy
in an age when tech-
nology is of such vast importance for
peace and war.
Therefore, I conclude as I began with
the praise of history,
and with a cautious optimism about the
future drawn from the
history of science and of the American
people. As long as we
stay true to our traditions, so long we
will be in the course of a
strong current of history which has
vastly extended the boundaries
of human knowledge and, as a
by-product, transformed medicine,
agriculture, industry, and alas, the
art of war. There are a few
in this country who from time to time
moan because we have no
single unifying national philosophy.
These people would do well
to look carefully at the Soviet scene.
They would do well to ex-
amine more closely the history of our
republic. If they do so
they will realize the vast sources of
strength that are inherent in
that strange benign chaos we call the
democratic way of life.
SCIENCE AND THE AMERICAN TRADITION*
by JAMES B. CONANT
President of Harvard University
We are gathered here tonight, I take
it, because we believe
that "to be ignorant of what
occurred before you were born is to be
always a child." I count it a
privilege to give the address at this
annual dinner of a society dedicated to
a furtherance of the study
of the history of this state; I am
particularly glad to be here when
you are dedicating a new addition to
your building and in the
twenty-fifth year of the presidency of
Mr. Arthur Johnson, who
has done so much for the society and
the state of Ohio. I count
it a privilege to be here because I
believe so strongly in the im-
portance of a sense of history as a
stabilizing force in the life of
both an individual and a community.
John Selden, the writer of one of the
earlier significant
English social histories, laid down in
1618 a doctrine about his-
torical studies which I venture to
think might be the platform of
all of us who have a deep interest in
the past. After speaking of
historical truth as a deterrent to
"the many ridiculous impostures
thrust on the too credulous by those
which stumble on in the road,"
he gives a balanced judgment as to the
use and abuse of anti-
quarian zeal:
For, as on the one side, it cannot be
doubted but that the too studious
affectation of bare and sterile
antiquity, which is nothing else but to be
exceeding busy about nothing, may soon
descend to a dotage; so on the
other, the neglect or only vulgar regard
of the fruitful and precious part
of it, which gives necessary light to
the present in matters of state, law,
history, and the understanding of good
authors, is but preferring that
kind of ignorant infancy which our short
life alone allows us, before
the many ages of former experience and
observation which may so
* This is the text of an address
delivered at the sixty-fifth annual meeting
of the Ohio State Archaeological and
Historical Society, held at the Ohio State
Museum, Columbus, April 14, 1950.
231