The culture of science also incorporates the model developed by Vannevar Bush in his 1945 report, which asserts that social benefits flow linearly and virtually automatically from the conduct of basic research [Bush, 1980]. The Bush model is ``linear'' in two ways; first, the benefits are proportional to the amount of basic research supported and, second, the new knowledge flows as through a pipeline, that is, through applied research, development, etc., to the creation and delivery of the expected benefits. Thus in this model the university researcher following the canons of his profession is automatically, i.e., with no cognizance of social needs, a social benefactor, even though these canons tend to isolate him from the broader context in which his results will be used.
Another manifestation of this culture is that the most admired and highest-status practice of science is adequately-funded basic research by an individual tenured professor at a research university. Because of this high status most if not all research institutions, through the culture of their constituent scientific staffs, strive toward this paradigm. For example, national labs emulate the paradigm with forms of tenure, resident graduate students, etc. Because this paradigm governs behavior by setting professional goals, standards, and incentives and, like any pillar of the institutional status quo, inherently resists change, we must ask whether---in an era of change---it helps or hinders science.
Therefore, the paper focuses on this paradigm, rather than surveying how each discipline links to its context. I examine this paradigm because it is a great stabilizing force in science. I also recognize the strength of external forces for change. Problems arise in the clash of such forces.