The Wages of Science

In the United States, Congress approved, last month, increases in the 2003 budgets of both the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation. America is not alone in – vainly – trying to compensate for imploding capital markets and risk-averse financiers.

In 1999, chancellor Gordon Brown inaugurated a $1.6 billion program of “upgrading British science” and commercializing its products. This was on top of $1 billion invested between 1998-2002. The budgets of the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council were quadrupled overnight.

The University Challenge Fund was set to provide $100 million in seed money to cover costs related to the hiring of managerial skills, securing intellectual property, constructing a prototype or preparing a business plan. Another $30 million went to start-up funding of high-tech, high-risk companies in the UK.

According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the top 29 industrialized nations invest in R&D more than $600 billion a year. The bulk of this capital is provided by the private sector. In the United Kingdom, for instance, government funds are dwarfed by private financing, according to the British Venture Capital Association. More than $80 billion have been ploughed into 23,000 companies since 1983, about half of them in the hi-tech sector. Three million people are employed in these firms. Investments surged by 36 percent in 2001 to $18 billion.

But this British exuberance is a global exception.

Even the – white hot – life sciences field suffered an 11 percent drop in venture capital investments last year, reports the MoneyTree Survey. According to the Ernst & Young 2002 Alberta Technology Report released on Wednesday, the Canadian hi-tech sector is languishing with less than $3 billion invested in 2002 in seed capital – this despite generous matching funds and tax credits proffered by many of the provinces as well as the federal government.

In Israel, venture capital plunged to $600 million last year – one fifth its level in 2000. Aware of this cataclysmic reversal in investor sentiment, the Israeli government set up 24 hi-tech incubators. But these are able merely to partly cater to the pecuniary needs of less than 20 percent of the projects submitted.

As governments pick up the monumental slack created by the withdrawal of private funding, they attempt to rationalize and economize.

The New Jersey Commission of Health Science Education and Training recently proposed to merge the state’s three public research universities. Soaring federal and state budget deficits are likely to exert added pressure on the already strained relationship between academe and state – especially with regards to research priorities and the allocation of ever-scarcer resources.

This friction is inevitable because the interaction between technology and science is complex and ill-understood. Some technological advances spawn new scientific fields – the steel industry gave birth to metallurgy, computers to computer science and the transistor to solid state physics. The discoveries of science also lead, though usually circuitously, to technological breakthroughs – consider the examples of semiconductors and biotechnology.

Thus, it is safe to generalize and say that the technology sector is only the more visible and alluring tip of the drabber iceberg of research and development. The military, universities, institutes and industry all over the world plough hundreds of billions annually into both basic and applied studies. But governments are the most important sponsors of pure scientific pursuits by a long shot.

Science is widely perceived as a public good – its benefits are shared. Rational individuals would do well to sit back and copy the outcomes of research – rather than produce widely replicated discoveries themselves. The government has to step in to provide them with incentives to innovate.

Thus, in the minds of most laymen and many economists, science is associated exclusively with publicly-funded universities and the defense establishment. Inventions such as the jet aircraft and the Internet are often touted as examples of the civilian benefits of publicly funded military research. The pharmaceutical, biomedical, information technology and space industries, for instance – though largely private – rely heavily on the fruits of nonrivalrous (i.e. public domain) science sponsored by the state.

The majority of 501 corporations surveyed by the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada in 1995-6 reported that government funding improved their internal cash flow – an important consideration in the decision to undertake research and development. Most beneficiaries claimed the tax incentives for seven years and recorded employment growth.

In the absence of efficient capital markets and adventuresome capitalists, some developing countries have taken this propensity to extremes. In the Philippines, close to 100 percent of all R&D is government-financed. The meltdown of foreign direct investment flows – they declined by nearly three fifths since 2000 – only rendered state involvement more indispensable.

But this is not a universal trend. South Korea, for instance, effected a successful transition to private venture capital which now – even after the Asian turmoil of 1997 and the global downturn of 2001 – amounts to four fifths of all spending on R&D.

Thus, supporting ubiquitous government entanglement in science is overdoing it. Most applied R&D is still conducted by privately owned industrial outfits. Even “pure” science – unadulterated by greed and commerce – is sometimes bankrolled by private endowments and foundations.

Moreover, the conduits of government involvement in research, the universities, are only weakly correlated with growing prosperity. As Alison Wolf, professor of education at the University of London elucidates in her seminal tome “Does Education Matter? Myths about Education and Economic Growth”, published last year, extra years of schooling and wider access to university do not necessarily translate to enhanced growth (though technological innovation clearly does).

Terence Kealey, a clinical biochemist, vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham in England and author of “The Economic Laws of Scientific Research”, is one of a growing band of scholars who dispute the intuitive linkage between state-propped science and economic progress. In an interview published last week by Scientific American, he recounted how he discovered that:

“Of all the lead industrial countries, Japan – the country investing least in science – was growing fastest. Japanese science grew spectacularly under laissez-faire. Its science was actually purer than that of the U.K. or the U.S. The countries with the next least investment were France and Germany, and were growing next fastest. And the countries with the maximum investment were the U.S., Canada and U.K., all of which were doing very badly at the time.”

The Economist concurs: “it is hard for governments to pick winners in technology.” Innovation and science sprout in – or migrate to – locations with tough laws regarding intellectual property rights, a functioning financial system, a culture of “thinking outside the box” and a tradition of excellence.

Government can only remove obstacles – especially red tape and trade tariffs – and nudge things in the right direction by investing in infrastructure and institutions. Tax incentives are essential initially. But if the authorities meddle, they are bound to ruin science and be rued by scientists.

Still, all forms of science funding – both public and private – are lacking.

State largesse is ideologically constrained, oft-misallocated, inefficient and erratic. In the United States, mega projects, such as the Superconducting Super Collider, with billions already sunk in, have been abruptly discontinued as were numerous other defense-related schemes. Additionally, some knowledge gleaned in government-funded research is barred from the public domain.

But industrial money can be worse. It comes with strings attached. The commercially detrimental results of drug studies have been suppressed by corporate donors on more than one occasion, for instance. Commercial entities are unlikely to support basic research as a public good, ultimately made available to their competitors as a “spillover benefit”. This understandable reluctance stifles innovation.

There is no lack of suggestions on how to square this circle.

Quoted in the Philadelphia Business Journal, Donald Drakeman, CEO of the Princeton biotech company Medarex, proposed last month to encourage pharmaceutical companies to shed technologies they have chosen to shelve: “Just like you see little companies coming out of the research being conducted at Harvard and MIT in Massachusetts and Stanford and Berkley in California, we could do it out of Johnson & Johnson and Merck.”

This would be the corporate equivalent of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. The statute made both academic institutions and researchers the owners of inventions or discoveries financed by government agencies. This unleashed a wave of unprecedented self-financing entrepreneurship.

In the two decades that followed, the number of patents registered to universities increased tenfold and they spun off more than 2200 firms to commercialize the fruits of research. In the process, they generated $40 billion in gross national product and created 260,000 jobs.

None of this was government financed – though, according to The Economist’s Technology Quarterly, $1 in research usually requires up to $10,000 in capital to get to market. This suggests a clear and mutually profitable division of labor – governments should picks up the tab for basic research, private capital should do the rest, stimulated by the transfer of intellectual property from state to entrepreneurs.

But this raises a host of contentious issues.

Such a scheme may condition industry to depend on the state for advances in pure science, as a kind of hidden subsidy. Research priorities are bound to be politicized and lead to massive misallocation of scarce economic resources through pork barrel politics and the imposition of “national goals”. NASA, with its “let’s put a man on the moon (before the Soviets do)” and the inane International Space Station is a sad manifestation of such dangers.

Science is the only public good that is produced by individuals rather than collectives. This inner conflict is difficult to resolve. On the one hand, why should the public purse enrich entrepreneurs? On the other hand, profit-driven investors seek temporary monopolies in the form of intellectual property rights. Why would they share this cornucopia with others, as pure scientists are compelled to do?

The partnership between basic research and applied science has always been an uneasy one. It has grown more so as monetary returns on scientific insight have soared and as capital available for commercialization multiplied. The future of science itself is at stake.

Were governments to exit the field, basic research would likely crumble. Were they to micromanage it – applied science and entrepreneurship would suffer. It is a fine balancing act and, judging by the state of both universities and startups, a precarious one as well.

Booker Washington’s Tireless Work in the US For Socio-Economic Development For Black Americans

Booker T. Washington who after being emancipated from slavery had only managed to get a primary education got probationary admittance to Hampton Institute and proved such an exemplary student, teacher, and speaker that the principal of Hampton Armstrong recommended him to Alabamans to lead them to establish a school for African Americans in their state.

In 1881, he was hired as the first principal of a school being founded in Alabama. under a charter from the Alabama legislature for training teachers, the first time a black was being offered such a high position.They soon found the energetic and visionary leader they sought in Washington. Washington thus became the first principal of the Tuskegee Normal and Industrial Institute. which he built from scratch into the most reputable and stable higher institution for blacks in the United States.

In 1895, Washington was asked to speak at the opening of the Cotton States and International Exposition, an unprecedented honor for an African American at that time.. His Atlanta Compromise speech there explained his major thesis, that blacks could secure their constitutional rights through their own economic and moral advancement rather than through legal and political changes. Washington’s address was widely welcomed in the African American community and among liberal whites North and South. Whites approved of his views. Thus he won over diverse elements among southern whites, whose support for the programs he envisioned and brought into being especially in the area of education he harnessed easily.

He was supported by W.E.B. Du Bois at the time but several years later the two started having differences. Washington’s conciliatory stand angered some blacks including Du Bois who feared his conciliatory stance would encourage the foes of equal rights. Whilst Washington valued the “industrial” education oriented toward actual jobs available to the majority of African Americans at the time Du Bois demanded a “classical” liberal arts education among an elite he called The Talented Tenth. Both sides sought to define the best means to improve the conditions of the post-Civil War African-American community. However, despite not condemning Jim Crow laws and the inhumanity of lynching publicly, Washington privately contributed funds for legal challenges against segregation and disenfranchisement, such as his support in the case of Giles v. Harris which went before the United States Supreme Court in 1903..

Washington the public figure often invoked his own past to illustrate his belief in the dignity of work. “There was no period of my life that was devoted to play,” Washington once wrote. “From the time that I can remember anything, almost everyday of my life has been occupied in some kind of labor.” This concept of self-reliance born of hard work was the cornerstone of his social philosophy.

Although not everyone agreed with Booker Washington, he became a respected leader who helped many schools and institutions gain donations and support from the government and other private donors. From this position of leadership he rose into a nationally prominent role as spokesman for African Americans

Washington’s philosophy and tireless work on educational issues helped him enlist both the moral and substantial financial support of many philanthropists. He became friends with such self-made men from modest beginnings as Standard Oil magnate Henry Huttleston Rogers and Sears, Roebuck and Company President Julius Rosenwald.

Washington associated with the richest and most powerful businessmen and politicians of the era.These individuals and many other wealthy men and women funded his causes, such as in supporting, running and equipping the institutions of higher education at Hampton and Tuskegee. Besides being seen as a spokesperson for African Americans, he became a conduit for funding educational programs. His contacts included such diverse and well-known personages as Andrew Carnegie, William Howard Taft, John D. Rockefeller, Henry Huttleston Rogers, and Julius Rosenwald, to whom he made the need for better educational facilities well-known. As a result, countless small schools were established through his efforts, in programs that continued many years after his death.

A representative case of an exceptional relationship was Washington’s friendship with the millionaire industrialist and financier Henry H. Rogers (1840-1909). Henry Rogers, a self-made man, had risen from a modest working-class family to become a principal of Standard Oil, and had become one of the richest men in the United States. Around 1894, Rogers heard Washington speak at Madison Square Garden. The next day, he contacted Washington and requested a meeting, during which Washington later recounted that he was told that Rogers “was surprised that no one had ‘passed the hat’ after the speech.” The meeting began a close relationship that was to extend over a period of 15 years. Although he and the very-private Rogers openly became visible to the public as friends, and Washington was a frequent guest at Rogers’ New York office, his Fairhaven, Massachusetts summer home, and aboard his steam yacht Kanawha, the true depth and scope of their relationship was not publicly revealed until after Roger’s sudden death of an apoplectic stroke in May 1909.

A few weeks later, Washington went on a previously planned speaking tour along the newly completed Virginian Railway, a $40 million dollar enterprise which had been built almost entirely from a substantial portion of Rogers’ personal fortune. As Washington rode in the late financier’s private railroad car, “Dixie”, he stopped and made speeches at many locations, where his companions later recounted that he had been warmly welcomed by both black and white citizens at each stop.

Washington revealed that Rogers had been quietly funding operations of 65 small country schools for African Americans, and had given substantial sums of money to support Tuskegee Institute and Hampton Institute. He also disclosed that Rogers had encouraged programs with matching funds requirements so the recipients would have a stake in knowing that they were helping themselves through their own hard work and sacrifice, and thereby enhance their self-esteem.

$1,000,000 was entrusted to Washington by another prosperous contact, Anna T. Jeanes (1822-1907) of Philadelphia in 1907. She hoped to construct some elementary schools for Negro children in the South. Her contributions together with those of Henry Rogers and others funded schools in many communities where the white people were also very poor, and few funds were available for Negro schools.

Julius Rosenwald (1862-1932) was another self-made wealthy man with whom Washington found common ground and from whom he received much support. By 1908, Rosenwald, son of an immigrant clothier, had become part-owner and president of Sears, Roebuck and Company in Chicago. Rosenwald, a philanthropist, was deeply concerned about the poor state of African American education, especially in the Southern states.

In 1912 Rosenwald was asked to serve on the Board of Directors of Tuskegee Institute, a position he held for the rest of his life. Rosenwald so adequately endowed Tuskegee that Washington could now spend less time traveling to seek funding. This allowed him to devote more time towards the management of the school. Later in 1912, Rosenwald provided funds for a pilot program involving six new small schools in rural Alabama, which were designed, constructed and opened in 1913 and 1914 and overseen by Tuskegee. The model proving successful, Rosenwald established The Rosenwald Fund, to replicate it all over the South. The school building program was one of its largest programs. Using state-of-the-art architectural plans initially drawn by professors at Tuskegee Institute, the Rosenwald Fund spent over four million dollars to help build 4,977 schools, 217 teachers’ homes, and 163 shop buildings in 883 counties in 15 states, from Maryland to Texas. The Rosenwald Fund used a system of matching grants, and black communities raised more than $4.7 million to aid the construction of these schools which became known as Rosenwald Schools. By 1932, the facilities could accommodate one third of all African American children in Southern U.S. schools.

Each school was originally founded to produce teachers. However, graduates had often gone back to their local communities only to find precious few schools and educational resources to work with in the largely impoverished South. To address those needs, through provision of millions of dollars and innovative matching funds programs, Washington and his philanthropic network stimulated local community contributions to build small community schools. Together, these efforts eventually established and operated over 5,000 schools and supporting resources for the betterment of blacks throughout the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The local schools soon grew to great sources of much community pride and were of priceless value to African-American families during those troubled times in public education. This work was a major part of his legacy and was continued (and expanded through the Rosenwald Fund and others) for many years after Washington’s death in 1915.

As Washington’s influence with whites and blacks grew he reaped several honors. In 1901 he wrote Up From Slavery – his autobiography which became a bestseller.. Up From Slavery, first published in 1901, is still widely read today. As a result of his work as an educator and public speaker, Washington became influential in business and politics. Washington did much to improve the overall friendship and working relationship between the races in the United States.He also became an advisor to the then President of the United States – Theodore Roosevelt in the process becoming the first black ever to dine at the White House with the President., though it created a huge stir. Many whites thinkingt that it was wrong for whites and blacks to mix socially, were horrified at their President for doing so. Roosevelt defended his actions at the time, and continued to ask for Washington’s advice, but without inviting him again.

Eventually Washington’s leadership of blacks began to be undemined by the attitude of whites to the progress of blacks. It became apparent that the whites that had gained control of Southern institutions after Reconstruction did not ever want the civil and political status of blacks to improve – regardless of how hard they worked or how much character they had. They passed laws to keep them from voting and to keep them from mixing with whites in schools, stores and restaurants.

Washington’s critics. charged that his conservative approach undermined the quest for racial equality. Washington was criticized by the leaders of the NAACP, which was formed in 1909, especially by W.E.B. Du Bois, who demanded a harder line on civil rights protests. After being labeled “The Great Accommodator” by Du Bois, Washington replied that confrontation would lead to disaster for the outnumbered blacks, and that cooperation with supportive whites was the only way to overcome pervasive racism in the long run. Although he did some aggressive civil rights work secretively, such as funding court cases, he seemed to truly believe in skillful accommodation to many of the social realities of that age of segregation. While apparently resigned to many undesirable social conditions in the short term, he also clearly had his eyes on a better future for blacks. Through his own personal experience, Washington knew that good education was a major and powerful tool for individuals to collectively accomplish that better future.

“In all things purely social we can be as separate as the fingers,” he proposed to a biracial audience in his 1895 Atlanta Compromise address, “yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” Even though his methods partly arose from his need for support from powerful whites, some of them being former slave owner, it is now known, that Washington secretly funded anti-segregationist activities. But he never wavered in his belief in the attainment of freedom: “From some things that I have said one may get the idea that some of the slaves did not want freedom. This is not true. I have never seen one who did not want to be free, or one who would return to slavery.”

However, by the last years of his life, Washington having moved away from many of his accommodationist policies, speaking out with a new frankness, attacked racism. In 1915 he joined ranks with former critics to protest the stereotypical portrayal of blacks in a new movie, “Birth of a Nation.” He also spoke out against lynchings and worked to make “separate” facilities more “equal.”

Washington was now the dominant figure in the African American community in the United States, especially after he achieved prominence for his Atlanta Address of 1895. To many politicians and the public in general, he was seen as a popular spokesperson for African American citizens. Representing the last generation of black leaders born into slavery, he was generally perceived as a credible proponent of educational improvements for those freedmen who had remained in the post-Reconstruction, Jim Crow South.

Throughout the final 20 years of his life, he maintained this standing through a nationwide network of core supporters in many communities, including black educators, ministers, editors and businessmen, especially those who were liberal-thinking on social and educational issues. He gained access to top national leaders in politics, philanthropy and education, and was awarded honorary degrees. Critics called his network of supporters the “Tuskegee Machine.”

Washington did much to improve the overall friendship and working relationship between the races in the United States. When Washington’s autobiography, Up From Slavery, was published in 1901, it became a bestseller and had a major impact on the African American community, and its friends and allies. Washington in 1901 was the first African-American ever invited to the White House as the guest of President Theodore Roosevelt. His autobiography, Up From Slavery, is still widely read today. As a result of his work as an educator and public speaker, Washington became influential in business and politics. In addition to Tuskegee Institute, which still educates many today, Washington instituted a variety of programs for rural extension work, and helped to establish the National Negro Business League in 1900 in an effort to inspire the “commercial, agricultural, educational, and industrial advancement” of African Americans. For his contributions to American society, Washington was granted an honorary master’s degree from Harvard University in 1896 and an honorary doctorate from Dartmouth College in 1901.Booker’s leadership also earned him honorary degrees from Harvard University and Dartmouth College. He wrote several books, and several more books have been written about him.

Shortly after the election of President William McKinley in 1896, a movement was set in motion that Washington be named to a cabinet post, but he withdrew his name from consideration, preferring to work outside the political arena.

Washington was married three times as revealed in Up From Slavery, where he gave all three of his wives enormous credit for their work at Tuskegee emphasizing that he would not have been successful without them.

Fannie N. Smith was from Malden, West Virginia, the same Kanawha River Valley town located eight miles upriver from Charleston where Washington had lived from the age of nine to sixteen (and maintained ties throughout his later life). Washington and Smith were married in the summer of 1882. They had one child, Portia M. Washington. Fannie died in May 1884..

Washington next wed Olivia A. Davidson in 1885. She was born in Ohio, educated at Hampton Institute and the Massachusetts State Normal School at Framingham and spent time teaching in Mississippi and Tennessee. Washington met Davidson at Tuskegee, where she had come to teach. She later became the assistant principal there. They had two sons, Booker T. Washington Jr. and Ernest Davidson Washington, before she died in 1889.

Washington’s third marriage took place in 1893 to Margaret James Murray. She was from Mississippi and was a graduate of Fisk University. They had no children together. Murray outlived Washington and died in 1925.

Blacks were solidly Republican, but after 1890 many lost the vote in the deep South (but continued to vote in border and northern states). Washington emerged as their spokesman and was routinely consulted by Republican national leaders about the appointment of African Americans to political positions throughout the nation. He worked and socialized with many white politicians and notables. He argued that the surest way for blacks eventually to gain equal rights was to demonstrate patience, industry, thrift, and usefulness and said that these were the key to improved conditions for African Americans in the United States and that they could not expect too much, having only just been granted emancipation..

Despite his travels and widespread work, Washington remained as principal of Tuskegee. This had serious strain and stress on him. Washington’s health was therefore deteriorating rapidly; so much so that he collapsed in New York City and was brought home to Tuskegee, where he died on November 14, 1915 at the age of 59. With the permission of his descendants, examination of medical records indicated that he died of hypertension, with a blood pressure more than twice normal, confirming what had long been suspected. He was buried on the campus of Tuskegee University near the University Chapel. At his death Tuskegee’s endowment exceeded US$1.5 million. His greatest life’s work, the work of education of blacks in the South, was well underway and expanding. A man who overcame near-impossible odds himself, Booker T. Washington is best remembered for helping black Americans rise up from the economic slavery that held them down long after they were legally free citizens.

In 1934, Robert Russa Moton Washington’s successor as president of Tuskegee University, arranged an air tour for two African Americans aviators, and afterward the plane was christened the Booker T. Washington.

On April 7, 1940, Washington became the first African American to be depicted on a United States postage stamp.

The first coin to feature an African American was the Booker T. Washington Memorial Half Dollar that was minted by the United States from 1946 to 1951. He was also depicted on a U.S. Half Dollar from 1951-1954.

On April 5, 1956, the hundredth anniversary of Washington’s birth, the house where he was born in Franklin County, Virginia was designated as the Booker T. Washington National Monument. A state park in Chattanooga, Tennessee was named in his honor, as was a bridge spanning the Hampton River adjacent to his alma mater, Hampton University.

In 1984, Hampton University dedicated a Booker T. Washington Memorial on campus near the historic Emancipation Oak, establishing, in the words of the University, “a relationship between one of America’s great educators and social activists, and the symbol of Black achievement in education.”

Numerous high schools and middle schools across the United States have been named after Booker T. Washington.

At the center of the campus at Tuskegee University, the Booker T. Washington Monument, called “Lifting the Veil,” was dedicated in 1922. The inscription at its base reads: “He lifted the veil of ignorance from his people and pointed the way to progress through education and industry.”

He was funded by Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, dined at the White House with Theodore Roosevelt and family, and was the guest of the Queen of England at Windsor Castle.


o Washington, Booker T. The Awakening of the Negro, The Atlantic Monthly, 78 (September, 1896).

o Up from Slavery: An Autobiography (1901).

o Washington, Booker T. The Atlanta Cotton States Exposition Address (Sep, 1895).

o The Booker T. Washington Papers University of Illinois Press online version of complete fourteen volume set of all letters to and from Booker T. Washington.

o James D. Anderson, The Education of Blacks in the South, 1860-1935 (1988)

o Mark Bauerlein. Washington, Du Bois, and the Black Future” in Wilson Quarterly (Autumn 2004)

o W. Fitzhugh Brundage, ed Booker T. Washington and Black Progress: Up from Slavery 100 Years Later (2003).

o Louis R. Harlan, Booker T. Washington: The Making of a Black Leader, 1856-1900 (1972) the standard biography, vol 1.

o Louis R. Harlan. ‘Booker T. Washington: The Wizard of Tuskegee 1901-1915 (1983), the standard scholarly biography vol 2.

o Louis R. Harlan. Booker T. Washington in Perspective: Essays of Louis R. Harlan (1988).

o Louis R. Harlan. “The Secret Life of Booker T. Washington.” Journal of Southern History 37:2 (1971). in JSTOR Documents Booker T. Washington’s secret financing and directing of litigation against segregation and disfranchisement.

o Linda O. Mcmurry. George Washington Carver, Scientist and Symbol (1982)

o August Meier. “Toward a Reinterpretation of Booker T. Washington.” The Journal of Southern History, 23#2 (May, 1957), pp. 220-227. in JSTOR. Documents Booker T. Washington’s secret financing and directing of litigation against segregation and disfranchisement.

o Cary D. Wintz, African American Political Thought, 1890-1930: Washington, Du Bois, Garvey, and Randolph (1996).

o Booker T. Washington High School

o Booker T. Washington’s West Virginia Boyhood

o Works by Booker T. Washington at Project Gutenberg

o Up from Slavery, Project Gutenberg edition

o Up from Slavery, Electronic Edition

o Booker T. Washington’s 1909 Tour of Virginia on the newly completed Virginian Railway

o Dr. Booker T. Washington papers – comments about Henry Rogers

The African American Almanac, 7th Ed., Thomson Gale. Reproduced in Biography Resource CenterThomson Gale.

o The Booker T. Washington papers digital archive, University of Illinois Press searchable index to complete annotated text of all important letters to and from Washington and all his writings.

o A Criticism of the Atlanta Compromise by W.E.B. Dubois

o Booker T. Washington Delivers the 1895 Atlanta “Compromise” Speech from the American Social History Project / Center for Media and Learning (Graduate Center, CUNY) and the Center for History and New Media (George Mason University)

Secret Intelligence in the Undiscovered Country

This presentation does not reflect the opinions of the Defense Intelligence Agency or the U.S. Department of Defense.

Consider for a moment the words of William Shakespeare who characterized our fear of the future in Hamlet. Hamlet tells us that it is better to suffer the ills of the day than to travel to the Undiscovered Country.

“The undiscovered country, from whose borne no traveler returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of” Hamlet is not expressing a fear not of dying, but of not knowing what lay ahead. He was saying it is the future we fear. And in a world so characterized by turbulent change, it is understandable why so many are unsettled by the future. Historical accounts generally show the feeling amongst the populace was the same in the Renaissance and in the Age of Enlightenment.

Today I would like to share with you another vision of the future. In this scene there are two children playing in the sand. They are arguing over how the sand castle should be built. In the background one can see a massive tidal wave. It is 100 feet high and stretches as far as the eye can see. The roar is deafening, and yet the children keep arguing, oblivious to the coming future.

That is what the future looks like to me. We are in the beginning of a fundamental restructuring of civilization and most of us are asleep at the wheel or worse yet, so engaged in our everyday activity that we can’t see it coming.

I’d like to talk for a few minutes about the future and what it means for intelligence and national security. I think the best way to address this subject is in four parts:
1. What is the current environment of change?
2. What does this Undiscovered Country look like?
3. What is the future context of National Security?, and
4. What intelligence capabilities will we need for National Security?

Let’s talk about the current climate of change first. A few years ago I was leading a Space Architecture Study for the National Security Space Office. The work was supposed to consider how space would operate 20-25 years into the future. Someone commented to me that nothing we do would change; that we had space capabilities that we have been working on that long that still have not been fielded.

I thought for a moment to consider what actually had changed in just that time period:

1. No Global Positioning System – a capability that is not only a pillar of our military force projection; but an essential element of the global economy.
2. No cell phones A technology which most can’t do without. (no text messaging)
3. No Internet or at least no World Wide Web. I don’t have to tell you how much global connectivity has changed the planet.
4. Twenty-five years ago there were also no laptop computers, digital cameras, cable TV, DVDs, hybrid cars, or MP3 players. The list is almost endless.

The importance of these changes is that no longer is technology just a solution to a problem; but it is actually altering the way the inhabitants of this planet think and act. But change is in fact, even more fundamental. Societies are actually restructuring due to the changes brought about by technology. For the next few decades, national security efforts will have to operate in this context.

In the United States, as in many other places in the world, we have moved from agrarian based societies to industrial ones to now information based society. Shrinking work units, decentralization, distributed media outlets, rapid re-capitalization, customized products, short product life, etc. All these changes are the hallmarks of a knowledge-based society.

** We are becoming a “Service Based” society. Is that a bad thing? If it is you equate services to McDonalds. But remember services also include doctors, scientists, engineers, writers, printers, software developers, etc. Knowledge will become the currency of the future.

We are living in a time when we are witnessing a crash of the institutions and civilization we have known. We are also lucky to be witness to the civilization that is arising. This fundamental change is causing frictions in this country and even greater frictions throughout the world. It is likely to do so for decades yet to come.


Let’s now turn our attention from our present-day changing society to the future. If chaotic change is the nature of modern day society than what can we say about the future? What can we say about trends for the future? Let’s look at just a few future trends.

1. Future Trend. Societies will continue to integrate globally. While the majority of information-enabled societies will integrate well, there will be a clash of cultures with extremist societies enabled by the global transportation and information flow. This clash is very likely going to be with us for decades. Also, many countries are going through periods of industrialization and in a lesser-developed state and therefore more inclined towards nationalism. They are resentful of outside influence. Economic engagement (often seen as intrusion) into these countries will be a source of friction.

2. Future Trend. Climate Change will stress global resources. Impoverished countries will feel the effects of global climate change in crop failures, starvation, infectious diseases, mass population movements, and water shortages. As governments are unable to cope with these conditions, they will be ripe for revolutions, societal upheavals, and terrorism. I want to put a caveat on the issue of global climate change. While the affects of global climate change are likely to be challenging; particularly for susceptible nation-states; they may be somewhat mitigated for the world as a whole by technology. It is for this reason that I would be hesitant to be too great a predictor of gloom concerning global climate change.

The fundamental problem with most predictions is that they make a critical and often false assumption that things will continue as they are.

A classic example of this problem occurred about 110 years ago. It was the great horse-manure crisis. *

In the year 1900 London had 11,000 horse drawn cabs and several thousand buses, each of which required 12 horses per day, a total of more than 50,000 horses. In addition, there were countless carts and drays all delivering goods needed by the rapidly growing population of the world’s largest city. Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer reflected the results of a study concluding that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure. There were numerous cities with a similar problem and numerous studies with similar dire predictions.

The problem did indeed seem intractable. The larger and richer that cities became, the more horses they needed to function. The more horses, the more manure. Moreover, all these horses had to be stabled, which used up ever-larger areas of increasingly valuable land. And as the number of horses grew, more and more land had to be devoted to producing hay to feed them and this had to be brought into cities and distributed by horse-drawn vehicles. Urban civilization was doomed. Well I think we all know the story from here. Henry Ford applied assembly line production techniques to the automobile. The crisis was averted. History has shown that necessity is still the mother of invention. And even now, we are seeing environmentally friendly” products in vast numbers and environmental issues are rank “third” on the list of most important issues in the upcoming presidential election.

If I were to predict anything about the future of global climate change; it would be that the threat of it will drive a new technology revolution that surpasses the recent revolution in telecommunications. That said, I think we can still expect some stressing of global resources to support those countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change.

3. Future trend. We will experience a revolution in new environmental and related technologies introduced into society. These include alternative technologies for production of power, food, drinking water, construction, transportation and a host of other necessities. These technologies will be created based on the fear of global climate change, global telecommunications, economic pressures, aging populations and the desire for better quality of life.

4. Future trend. Population migration. There was a time when one was born, lived, and died within a 50-mile radius. I think anyone who has lived in the US knows that this is no longer the case. We see world migration trends that the show movement of people from developing societies to developed societies in search of a better life. Families of the future will be spread over continents impacting the concept of the family and relationships between nation states.

(The great horse-manure crisis. Stephen Davies, senior lecturer in history at Manchester Metropolitan University in England.)

5. Future trend. The population of the Earth – particularly industrialized countries has moved from large families to small ones. These nations are growing older. For example, in Japan the median age will be 50 by the year 2020. Many other advanced industrialized countries show similar trends. Many European nations have negative growth rates. This global trend will have impact on labor pools, tax bases, health care, and the development of health related technologies. With an older global population we are likely to see enormous social and economic stresses.

6. Future trend. Job movement. US Dept of Labor assessments show that six of the top 10 jobs did not exist five years ago. Technical knowledge is doubled every two years. So we are training future workers for jobs that don’t yet exist on technology that has not yet been invented, to solve problems we don’t even know are problems yet.

The American worker of the future will work for at least 10 companies by the age of 38. That person will be a member of a knowledge based work force. Most traditional manufacturing jobs will continue to move overseas; a byproduct of globalization. The advancements in technology that are driving changes in manufacturing processes are a particularly important and underlying aspect of this trend. For thousands of years agriculture was the main product of civilization. The Industrial Revolution shifted production and the work populace along with it as factories came into being and cities grew. In its infancy, the United States had over 85% of its workers involved in agriculture. Today that figure is between 1% and 2%. In Europe that number hovers at around 13%.

The same trend is occurring now as numbers of manufacturing jobs shrink and the numbers of knowledge based jobs increase. Advances in robotics technology, digital imaging, and computing capabilities are changing the manufacturing base. Less and less people are working in manufacturing as robotic systems replace humans. In the same way the numbers of persons involved in agriculture diminished, so to will the numbers of persons operating machines. Manufacturing processes known as Additive Layer Manufacturing will allow small factories and even individuals to create single products from a fine powder of metal, nylon or carbon-reinforced plastics. However, more and more educated people with specialized technical skills will be required to develop, install, and maintain specialized equipment.

The evolution of the future “information worker” may, in fact, cause a new economic paradigm with a small number of information innovators, leaders, and workers producing the majority of society’s wealth. What happens to the rest of us?

7. Future Trend Ubiquitous Sensors. Miniaturized sensors are becoming pervasive in society, particularly industrialized nations. Governments and companies alike use sensors to mange public transportation, track product delivery, manage warehouse and store inventories, regulate public utilities, provide public health and safety, characterize environmental conditions, and secure property.

8. Future Trend Loss of Nationalism. The US and other advanced “information based” societies will suffer a degrading belief in nationalism. I was amazed to read a recent study that surveyed members of “Gen Y” on friendships. The study showed Gen Y made no distinction between on-line friends and ones they see on a regular basis. What a profound situation: “Our kids view their contacts all over the world the same way they see friends every day.” This trend along with global migration patterns one asks “what does this mean for the concept of a nation state now, and two generations from now? For America, the concept of a nation state, as we know it is crumbling and we are in for some extraordinary changes in a very short period.

Another factor driving the loss of nationalism is the growth in Internet. The speed of Internet doubles approximately 12 months. There is no theoretical limit to this trend. The increase in speed is allowing more and more information to be shared. This increase will allow people to maintain a virtual global presence sharing 3D real time video, massive data, and globally connected processing. In decades to come we will reach a point where the human race will be fully integrated. Societies will be come economically, legally, socially, and politically intertwined. Education and scientific knowledge will become globally available.
9. Future Trend “Loss of the Masses.” I’m not quite sure what to call this trend but it is perhaps the foundation of change that is occurring globally. Our society used to be one characterized by masses: mass media, mass production, mass industrialization, and mass movements.

Mass media is a term used to denote the media designed to reach a very large audience such as the population of a nation state. The term was coined in the 1920s with the advent of nationwide radio networks, mass-circulation newspapers and magazines, although mass media (like books and manuscripts) were present centuries before the term became common.

Gone is the concept of “Mass” as one point of the distribution of knowledge. A more accurate term is “public media” where Internet has opened up communications to every individual through electronic media and print media to include:
• Broadcasting, in the narrow sense, for radio and television.
• Various types of discs, tapes, digital storage devices.
• Film
• Blogs, web casts, and podcasts, for news, music, speech, and video
• Mobile smart phones
• Mobile computing, iPods, Galaxy Tab, etc.
• On demand publishing -books, magazines, and newspapers.
• Massive Multi Play on-line games PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, and Wii.

Every person can publish materials to every one of these communications media leveling the playing field with corporate media giants. I suspect we will also see the same “de-massification” trends in unions, religions, education, politics, etc. As the means for global communications and production increases so too does the ability for self-expression and individualism. Therefore, the future will feature small groups bonding together for a specific cause before going their own way again. Enhanced telecommunications and media production is the key for enabling this trend.

The impacts of Internet and expanding global telecommunications infrastructure and technology are difficult to predict. Only now are we witnessing the effects of instantaneous public communications on political institutions. Nations and non government organizations will grapple to control regional and global communications to limit, manipulate, or direct the popular will of people. Limiting Internet will prove exceedingly difficult as global communications becomes inextricably integrated to economic well being.

Manufacturing too is becoming distributed or “de-massified”. Digital imaging, Computer Aided Design, and advanced robotics allows for machines to convert to different product lines allowing for short production runs. This capability allows for a small factory to make short run multiple product lines at minimal cost. The extreme of this process is 3-D printing allowing for individuals to make items at home. In decades to come consumers will benefit from low cost tailored product lines.


Okay, those are just a few trends that are on the horizon. Now let’s consider for a minute the impact of these trends on national security.

We are going to operate in a dramatically different environment then we do today. The society we know will be different; likely with different perspectives and probably different (and multiple) value systems as well. The same will be true for many countries drawn into globalization.

Our concept of what it means to “defend ourselves” decades from now may be dramatically different from what it is today. With globalization accelerating, defending a nation state may become an exercise more in cyber warfare, global policing functions, nation building and support, small unit combat operations, and exerting diplomatic, political, and economic influence.

With this future in mind certain conditions will exist as critical aspects of our National Security.

Cyber Security Cyber security will be required not just for military or government operations but for the national economy as well. In decades to come, the majority of the U.S. economy will rely on Internet. No single element of national infrastructure offers a greater vulnerability. Cyber attacks combined with physical attacks against select facilities could cripple the U.S. economy, perhaps beyond recovery.

Think about business, defense, local, state, and national government functions, etc. all occurring at literally the speed of thought. This is what the future holds and the World Wide Web is the key component integrating consumer and government services into our lives. These services continue to increase as more business migrate their presence on to the World Wide Web. Less than 20 % of US businesses are on the web now.

Some would say there is already a cyber war on going between nation states, and between nation states and individual actors. The US Department of Defense alone is on the receiving end of one billion cyber attacks each day. And yet with all this activity global doctrine for cyber warfare is as primitive as nuclear doctrine in the late 1940s. How do you respond if your country is attacked? What if the attack is not lethal? Targeted against industry or critical infrastructure? What level of attribution is appropriate for what type of response? The future safely and well-being of cyberspace cannot be over emphasized for any modern society.

Power of the People. Theorists in international relations try to identify what factors drive nations to war. They attempt to answer the crucial question at what point is a population willing to risk the lives of its sons and daughters in support of its national interests? I suggest that the advances in technology, globalization, and the resultant changes in culture and societal structure are altering those paradigms to a considerable degree. For example, democracy has lost its zeal, especially in long standing democratic societies. People who do not have to fight for freedom and judicial equality prefer living off the achievements of those who did. The opposite, however, can be said for those eager to taste the fruits of democratic existence.

I know it seems hard to imagine now, but in the future, with less children per family, an older population, being fully “globalized”, and facing the stresses of health care and food costs, we will find a citizenry far less supportive of armed conflict. The same will be true in advanced industrialized societies with low birth rates (i.e. Europe, Japan). Those states will be more likely to go to war for economic reasons than ideological ones. And when that is the case, the preference will be to execute conflict with little to no causalities. War may in fact become a uniquely robotic adventure.

Destructive Power Going Up. For many years after WWII the United States and parts of Western Europe led the world as the nexus of scientific knowledge. That situation has changed and will continue to do so.

Scientific and technological centers of excellence are emerging in Eastern Europe, China, Japan, India, Italy, and Russia. Global communications has fueled the spread of scientific and engineering knowledge. Along with the spread of scientific and engineering knowledge come the ability to develop energetic explosives, chemical and biological weapons, and high-energy weapons. Individuals and small groups can posses the same destructive force of armies.

Cities vs. the Countryside. There is an argument to be made that WMD development efforts, terrorists, and insurgents will retreat to the countryside as pervasive sensor networks of the future emerge in cities and at border crossings.

Decision Making. The decision to go to war will, more and more, become a decentralized decision-making process. The Federal Government (President and Congress) will lose considerable decision making power to people, foreign governments, and International bodies. Thus, decisions become micro and macro with a loss of power in the middle.

The U.S. is a representative form of democracy. At the micro level, the dispersion (demassifying) of the media fueled by the Internet provides communication capabilities allowing for direct engagement between the government and the governed. It allows for the average person to be heard by millions and exert political pressure on the governing apparatus. Our current system of representative government is not particularly suited to this form of direct democracy. In fact, by design the framers of the Constitution ensured decision-making processes were slow to make sure emotions of the moment did not drive national policy. The speed of global communications will set in place a high level of friction between politicians and constitutes as the former tries to respond to the instantaneous demands of the latter.

At the macro level, foreign governments and international bodies are taking a greater role in national decision making. This situation is true not only for war, but for environmental issues, political issues, legal decisions, economic and trade issues, business and investment practices, information technology standards, etc. Even today, there is great international pressure against the independent action of nation states. And yet the processes for transnational decision-making are, at best, immature. The world continues to rely on diplomats, global, or quasi-global bodies based on “pre-digital age” organizational structure and processes. There is no construct, process, model, or simulation that understands and integrates nation state values and decision-making practices. The result is that international treaties and agreements go through a time consuming and arduous process of negotiation, analysis, re-negotiation, analysis, recommendation, and approval. This process often outlasts the assignments of those subject matter experts supporting them. At this point we have looked at the current environment of change, some future trends, and the type of environment in which national security will have to be executed. Let us finally turn our attention to future national security requirements.


Intelligence at the Speed of Thought. For future national security needs, the most stressing intelligence requirements will be for remote-sensing systems to detect, track, cross-que, and characterize fleeting targets in real time. This ability will require a global network of sensors to detect and track individuals, vehicles, chemicals, materials, and emanations. Pervasive CCTV systems now present worldwide in airports, border crossings, railroads, busses, and on the streets of many cities will be integrated and supported by powerful computers, smart software agents, vast facial pattern and retina recognition databases, and communications infrastructure. These systems will be integrated with sensors and databases detecting, identifying, and characterizing spectral signatures, chemical compositions, DNA, effluents, sounds, and much more.

Precision Targeting/Precision Strike. Exquisite characterization of intelligence targets will be required for future wars. We have seen the nature of warfare move historically from the employment of mass armies, mass navies, and mass bombings to policing actions, special operations, assassinations, and precision strike. Does this trend mean massive regional or global conflicts are not possible? Of course not, but those conflicts have become far less likely over recent decades. A single battle such as Stalingrad where 1.5 million people were lost will not be representative of the vast majority of future national security actions.

Global Network of Sensors. The global network of sensors will provide the ability to intervene in near real time state and non state actors. This capability will enable immediate police or combat actions requiring a global presence (whether by single nation or through allies). Immediate precision response is possible provided the international agreements are in place. In other words, it doesn’t do any good to be able to detect weapon’s grade uranium or perhaps a terrorist in country A. if that government will not do anything about it. Real Predictive Intelligence The future National Security environment will require great strides in predictive intelligence and associated modeling capabilities. Advanced modeling software and analytical capabilities pulling from global data (multi media, multi lingual) sources will do the following:
• Provide situational awareness
• Understand human social interaction and media impact on events
• Calculate political stability
• Assess technology developments

Robotics There is less willingness to sacrifice sons and daughters as advanced societies grow wealthier and the family unit grows smaller. This is particularly true when the reasons for military action are not clear and survival of the nation state is not at stake. Many future combat actions will necessarily be conducted by robots. In fact, this is already occurring. But the future will see robots employed in large numbers providing discrete reconnaissance, unattended (and manned), pervasive surveillance, combat support, and security functions. These intelligence missions will require expanded communications, advanced processing capabilities for target discrimination, and mems technology for miniature structures, sensors, actuators, and microelectronics.

Scientific and Technical Intelligence Perhaps one of the greatest challenges for Intelligence Services is the “demassification” of scientific knowledge. Of course, the world as a whole is probably better off having scientific knowledge pervasive in societies. However, the downside to the demassification of the world’s scientific knowledge will be the near pervasive ability to create weapons of mass destruction, associated delivery systems, technology advanced reconnaissance systems and new generations of weapons.

Demassification of Intelligence Like much of societal structure and services Intelligence Services will continue to “demassify” in their collection capabilities. Collecting a country’s secrets will be important. But increasingly so too will be the ability to collect thousands of indicators from open source documents, global sensors, and physical phenomena to ascertain a country’s true intentions. The greatest challenges for those intelligence services will be in the integration, exploitation, and analysis of vast amounts of data. “Smart software” will be the wave of the future.

Cyber Espionage I wrote in the mid 1990s that China’s intelligence services had invested heavily in cyber capabilities to collect information. In 2011, the US National Counter-intelligence Executive affirmed this conclusion naming China and Russia as the world’s two most active players in cyber espionage. I see this trend only accelerating.

The Undiscovered Country will be one characterized by turbulence and uncertainty. For the next few decades Intelligence Services will be stressed as they try to adapt to global changing environment.

The Global Warming Debate and Media Bias

Few topics have engendered as many claims and counterclaims of media bias as has global warming.* Certainly, there is much bias in the reporting of climate science and that is the main reason the average person is confused or misinformed. The issue of Climate Change and the Media was the subject of a 2006 Senate hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. It is a good place to start to examine the matter.

Media Bias generally refers to accusations of either censorship or propagandismon the part of particular news sources, where such content is framed in the light of a preconceived agenda. Relevant categories of bias include favoring a station’s corporate economic interests, having a political slant, or sensationalism that tends to distort news to make it a better commercial “product.”

The Hearing: The hearing was chaired by Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK). In his opening statement, he accused the media of over-hyped reporting, of subverting its role as an objective source of information on climate change into the role of an advocate, and of hyping scientifically unfounded climate alarmism. Apparently no testimony was needed.

It was an interesting cast of characters who testified before the committee, two climate skeptics, a climatologist, a science historian, and an oil company lobbyist.Their testimony and the author’s short comment on each follow below:

Dr. R. M. Carter is a marine biologist and well known author from Australia. Dr. Carter testified that his research showed that throughout history, the rise in global temperatures had proceeded rising carbon dioxide concentration. His claimed that some natural cause must be causing the Earth’s temperature to rise, which released the carbon dioxide.

Comment: After the hearing, he was challenged by climatologists to produce any research showing the natural cause he claimed, but none has yet been produced. He also should have been aware that the recent CO2 increase has come from the billions of tons of fossils fuel burned each year by man. It is interesting that Senator Inhofe was concerned about the media bias in Australia.

Dr. Daniel Schrag is a climatologist from the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard. He testified that there is no serious debate about whether the Earth will warm as carbon dioxide levels increase over this century – as it will. The burning of coal, oil and gas, and deforestation are playing a significant role in increasing CO2 levels. The current level, in excess of 380 parts per million (ppm), is higher than it has been for at least the last 650,000 years, and perhaps for tens of millions of years. We know from Lonnie Thompson’s work on tropical glaciers that this warming is not part of any natural cycle.

Comment: His testimony represents the accepted scientific viewpoint on global warming. Skeptics would claim there is still a serious debate, that the science is not settled, and that man is not the cause of global warming. His testimony contradicted that of Dr. Carter on natural causes and he quoted a source for his information.

Dr. David Deming is a geophysicist from Oklahoma University. He reported that his research on oil well borehole temperatures showed a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. He also claimed that the Earth’s temperature has not gone up in the last 10 years and that the Earth had entered a cooling period.

Comment: The one degree temperature rise he reports is consistent with NASA’s data but NASA’s data also shows that 1998 and 2005 have been record highs and that the trend is clearly upward. Dr. Deming is a controversial figure and he has been removed from most of his teaching duties at OU because of his unorthodox views.

Dr. Naomi Oreskes is a Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California. She testified that in1983 the National Academy formed the Nierenberg committee to examine the scientific evidence of global warming. The committee accepted the scientific conclusions, but declined to view global warming as a problem, predicting that any adverse effects would be adequately remedied by technological innovation driven by market forces. This prediction has not come true as technological innovation has not saved the homes of the citizens of Shishmaref, Alaska, nor stopped the acidification of the world’s oceans, nor prevented the melting of polar ice.

Comment: The testimony was an accurate account of the history and points out some of the effects of global warming on the oceans and the lives of native Alaskans. The village of Shishmaref, inhabited for 400 years, is facing evacuation due to erosion from waves now allowed by the disappearance of year round sea ice, and by the thawing of coastal permafrost. Skeptics would claim that there is no global warming so there was no need for markets to respond, that the melting ice is natural, and the oceans are only more acidic by 0.1 pH unit. (Note: That is 20% more acidic.)

Dan Gainor is a Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow and Director of the Business & Media Institute (BMI). He testified that journalists claiming to provide the “truth” on climate change are criticizing America for its stance on the issue and on the Kyoto treaty, while ignoring the billions of dollars such an agreement would cost America. The media is obsessed with Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth.” Let’s recall the media’s irresponsible position, when roughly 30 years ago they reported a new ice age was coming and we would all freeze to death.

Comment: He claims journalists reporting global warming are unpatriotic and anti-business. Of course, BMI was formed to combat media bias against America’s free enterprise system and expose the anti-business agenda of environmental extremists. He is correct that some reporters sensationalized the “new ice age”, but after 30 years, he and others are still using the incident to discredit the press and science. His attack on Gore’s movie was unfounded. Interestingly, in 2007, Dr. Carter was the star witness for the plaintiff in Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education, who sought to prevent the educational use of An Inconvenient Truth in England. The court apparently did not agree with Dr. Carter and ruled that, though the film had some errors, it was substantially founded upon scientific research and fact and could be shown.

Was the hearing biased? It would seem balanced in that two of the four scientists who testified represented the scientific side and two were skeptics. However, it was actually heavily weighted toward the skeptic side. A CNN survey found that 97% of climatologists who are active in climate research say the Earth is warming and humans play a role, yet two of the four scientists who testified do not agree. Dr. Carter and Dr. Deming have research records in other fields that give them credibility as scientists but they are also journeymen for climate skepticism who can be counted on to deny global warming. Dr. R.M. Carter claimed the warming was from natural causes though he has not published or produced any research to back his claim, though asked. Dr. David Deming claimed the Earth warmed until 1998 and then entered a cooling trend. NASA’s data shows that 2005 was the warmest year on record so that is clearly not right.

Dan Gainor’s testimony was not balanced by an opposing view and there were not really any testimony from journalists. The witnesses might have included Eric Pooley, deputy editor of Bloomberg Businessweek, who thinks that the press misrepresented the economic debate over carbon cap and trade, failed to perform the basic service of making climate policy and its economic impact understandable to the reader, and allowed opponents of climate action to set the terms of the cost debate.

The purpose of the hearing was seemingly to discredit the journalists and the scientists who do not agree with Senator Inhofe’s views. In his opening statement, he named and criticized a number of journalists and news organization who had been critical of him or his views those those accused were not there to defend themselves. He claimed they were not accurately reporting the “hard science”, though his own beliefs are inconsistent with the “hard science” produced by scientific research. His stance on global warming, which he has stated many times is “Global warming is a hoax”.

Is the media biased? The “media” includes many sources, but overall the answer seems to be “Yes”. The media likes to sensationalize stories to attract attention and it often moves on without correcting the errors it commits. The story about the “Coming Ice Age” is an example. Few scientists believed that story at the time, but some editorial writers are still pointing to it as a failure of science. TV weather reporters often claim that a particular weather event is caused by global warming. That cannot be proven but it keeps the controversy stirred up and provides easy targets for skeptics. There is also a rush to be first with a story before the matter has been investigated as in the case of Climategate. After all the controversy, charges, and counter-charges, the investigations cleared the scientists of scientific misconduct. But, once a story is “out there”, it can never be taken back.

The media also has a general bias toward the status quo. It’s easy, it involves little risk to the newspaper, and it is fine with those who have a financial or political interest in continuing the status quo. In 1997, the Wall street Journal published an article titled “Science Has Spoken, Global Warming Is a Myth”. The article turned out to be a hoax but it came right before the Senate was to consider the Kyoto Treaty and may have influenced the Senate to reject ratification, thus maintaining the status quo.

The press also presents stories as controversies to catch readers interest. They sometimes try to present both sides, even though there is little evidence to support one side. This is certainly true in the case of global warming where all the world’s major scientific organizations have endorsed statements that global warming is occurring, that it is caused mainly by mans’ activities, and it is causing undesirable changes in the environment. Sometimes the press doesn’t even try to present both sides. Newspapers often report politician’s statements critical of climate science without balancing it with a scientist’s opinion. One example would be that many newspapers print Senator Inhofe’s famous statement “Global warming is a hoax.” but never point out that all four scientists at his hearing, even the skeptics, testified that the Earth was warming. Another point of view was presented at the hearings by another committee member, Senator James M. Jeffords (I-VT) who said” I can only say that I am sorry that I was not able to do more to change the minds of the few skeptics that remain in our nation. The climate is warming, it is due to human activity, and only a change in human behavior will ensure that my grandchildren will not suffer the consequences.”

Journalism Ethics: The solution to much of the bias would be for journalists and news media to follow the Ethical code of The Society of Professional Journalists, who believe that it is the ethical duty of the journalist to:

Seek Truth and Report It: Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Act Independently; Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public’s right to know.

Be Accountable Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

It is a principle of professional ethics that anyone who practices the profession, whether a member of the organization or not, is bound by the code of ethics of the profession. In this case, the Journalist’s Ethical Code should apply to anyone who is involved in reporting the news.

(c) 2010 J.C. Moore