||"THE IVORY GHETTO" 11 On a less global scale, the harmful effects on a national level are often pointed out. Federal government involvement in technological programs ' and, to a much lesser extent, in basic research in the sciences has grown into a major public undertaking. Yet, there have been only one or two members of Congress during this period of growth with training in the sciences beyond the smattering stage. How can we develop sensible policies for government support of research under such conditions? There are a number of scientists who are pointing out that some of the big problems which we face, such as the arms race and the population explosion, probably have no technological solutions.5 With massive misunderstanding of science and technology, and a resulting misplaced faith in them, how are we going to avoid frittering away our time looking for non-existent technological panaceas when other solutions are urgently needed? On yet a smaller scale than these global and national effects of the gap are those which show up in our educational customs and on the individuals that our universities, colleges and schools serve. In my remaining time I wish to talk about this least grandiose aspect of the communication gap. I want to argue that the scandalous neglect of general scientific education is a waste of an intellectual resource and a misfortune for its victims, the occupants of the ivory ghetto. At the outset, let me set certain things straight: science education alone is notoriously inadequate. This is much more generally realized than its converse: education without meaningful scientific content is also inadequate. Neglect of the humanities in the education of a scientist comparable to the neglect of sciences in the education of a non-scientist is very rare. But this is another subject; I am not concerned this evening with the problems of training scientists. It is clear that science holds no monopoly on careful analytic thought, even though, at its best, it can be a happy example of it. I am not arguing for the displacement of anything in particular by the study of science, although some rearrangements will clearly be necessary. In the broad sweep of the 17 years from kindergarten to baccalaureate most of us could carve out a substantial amount of time in the form of our favorite irrelevancies. What I should like to see is not less of anything but, rather, more effective science study. There are many reasons why science gets such short shrift in traditional education. The usual sort of argument is that any deep study of the physical sciences is simply too time-consuming to work into the studies of non-scientists. There is some foundation for this in the sense that the study of science is unusually sequential in its structure. You have to begin at the beginning and proceed step by step. The SG. Hardin, Science, 162, 1243 (1968).