Science is inextricably linked with its environment, its context, and the connection needs qualitative improvement. The institution of science adapted to a context that no longer exists. The context of science continues inexorably to change in fundamental ways, so with the same inexorability science will change or be changed. As the world will not adapt for the convenience of scientists, scientists will make most of the accomodation. Because scientists know most about science it would be best for the institution if they were to deal with the changing situation themselves, provided that they adopt a much broader view of their social responsibility and the context in which they operate. For example, science could emphasize work on identified information needs of officials addressing some part of the ecologic crisis, rather than taking advantage of the crisis to seek more funding for basic research.
Given the U.S. budget situation, it is unrealistic to expect to finesse change by obtaining more funds. The budget situation is good to the extent that it forces needed internal changes, because funding is neither the problem nor its solution. It is hard to see how significant growth in science funding could be logically justified until internal changes better align science with its context. As Tennekes suggests, part of that alignment involves looking at growth in a larger context.
An examination of underlying assumptions and values would be fruitful. Among the former would be the assumption, variously explicit and implicit in attitudes and reactions of some who speak for the scientific community, that science ought to be connected to society only by funding without substantive accountability; this is a manifestation of what Weinberg calls the primacy of ``pure'' research. There is tension between values: Academic freedom is worth protecting, but equally citizens have a right to know and approve of how their taxes are spent and how science and science-based technology affects their lives.
This is a classic case of conflicting values. Our system properly resolves such conflicts by politics. In a political struggle the institution of science may not be strong enough to preserve its status quo when everything else is changing. If the institution resists all change it may lose more than necessary, in particular that which is central: The freedom to conduct science as prescribed by its own canons of professional conduct and scientific rigor; and the freedom to work on specific scientific problems within broad areas of social relevance.
The intent of this paper is to stimulate thought about how to respond constructively to a dramatically changing world, so we end up with a stronger, healthier, more fruitful institution of science; about which elements of the institution are really important and must be preserved and which might be discarded for the improved health of science and society. If the institution of science harmonizes its culture, practice, and results with the legitimate interests of the society that pays its bills, it is likely to prosper. Scientists can do more to make their offering truly useful to their fellow citizens. Science, especially earth science, has much to offer in the emerging struggle over the fate of our planet and the humanity upon it.
Acknowledgments. I am grateful to the many who read and commented on the manuscript, particularly Ronald D. Brunner, Carol R. Byerly, and Roger Pielke, Jr.