In Scientists in the Classroom: The Cold War Reconstruction of American Science Education, John L. Rudolph writes, “After witnessing the remarkable contributions scientists had made during World War II, the federal government worked to incorporate scientific expertise permanently into the national security arsenal… The public’s understanding of science was seen as crucial to this effort. Yet as the military significance of science became magnified during the Cold War, there seemed to be a corresponding magnification in public misunderstanding of what scientists did. It was this misunderstanding that their educational efforts were designed to correct” (pg. 5). He argues, “It was the technological contest with the Soviet Union and the seemingly nonideological nature of science itself that, in the context of the earlier curriculum debates, allowed these individuals to move into the field of education with few objections from either Congress or the general public” (pg. 7).
Rudolph writes, “For many, science and technology were viewed as one and the same. Furthermore, this science as technology found greatest public support in the relatively limited domains of the physical and biomedical sciences, as the Cold War with the Soviets and the war on cancer and other diseases demonstrated. Venturing into the social realm often generated resistance from vocal conservative minorities, as was evident in the case of government-mandated fluoridation and the movement toward school curriculum grounded in theories of psychological adjustment” (pg. 48). Further, “As maligned as scientists felt during the height of the Red Scare, science itself, even viewed primarily as a means to technological mastery, retained its long-standing connection to truth and rationality, particularly in its method of inquiry. It thus proved to be an attractive ally in Arthur Bestor’s attempt to establish a national committee to recenter the academic disciplines in the school curriculum” (pg. 54-55).
In terms of the Cold War, Rudolph writes, “The longer the conflict was predicted to last, the more important education seemed to become, and the more troubled people were by the existing state of the American education system. As the president’s interdepartmental committee and the National Science Foundation surveyed the educational landscape, it became clear that the problem, just as with the country’s research infrastructure, was one of inadequate manpower resources. In this case, it was the lack of qualified teachers – especially in the sciences – that needed to be addressed” (pg. 63). He continues, “Whatever its philosophical appeal, science provided the foundation on which the technological and military strength of the United States rested and, given the crisis atmosphere across the nation, scientific know-how in research and education was called upon by the federal government to meet the challenge” (pg. 107). Further, “The imperatives of national security required a no more nuanced view of science education than this; increasing the absolute number of technically-proficient citizens was all that was needed” (pg. 115).
Rudolph concludes, “The source of the scientists’ interest in education reform, contrary to the conventional accounts of these events, has less to do with either the activities of professional educators or the technological threat posed by the Soviet Union than has been supposed. The reasons the scientists decided to volunteer their services to the cause of education reform were fundamentally political and tied directly to the rapid integration of science into the national security infrastructure of the United States” (pg. 194). Further, “As important as this public appreciation of the scientists’ technological prowess was, it was an appreciation they sought continually to redirect toward what they saw as their real work: basic research” (pg. 195). ( )