Up to the present, science staffs at U.S. universities have been required to turn out science graduates not so much to replace losses from deaths, retirements, and transfers as to provide the new scientists required by a rapidly growing scientific establishment. However, science as a component of society cannot long continue to grow at a rate exceeding the growth rate of society. The dollar resources devoted to science cannot continue to grow faster than the GNP, and the number of persons engaged in science cannot continue to grow faster than the population. Eventually science must come into equilibrium with society, and its growth rate must slow down to match the growth rate of society. When this happens, science staffs in U.S. universities will find that they are required to turn out a much smaller number of graduates, most of whom will replace losses rather than fill new posts opened by growth. The science staffs of U.S. universities are already larger than the staffs which would be required in 1975 if science came into equilibrium with society in 1968. The transition to equilibrium will have many impacts on science in addition to its impact on university faculties. Some of the more obvious are mentioned above. Others may not be so obvious. In any case, the nonequilibrium growth of science over future generations has become an unquestioned assumption underlying many of the practices, customs, and habits of science as an institution, and of individual scientists. Many of these practices, customs, and habits may have to be modified considerably in the transition to equilibrium. Many of the modifications may be as drastic as that calculated above for universities. Because of the deep-rooted nature of the assumption of nonequilibrium growth, the nature of some of these modifications may not even be apparent until the situation has reached the crisis stage. At this point it may be asked, How credible is the projection made above? Does it reflect a reality which we may well see by 1975? The projection was not, in fact, intended to be credible. On the contrary, a deliberate effort was made to project the worst possible case. The situation in 1975 cannot help but be better than the foregoing computations show if any forethought at all is used in developing U.S. science policy. The primary purpose of this article is to indicate that science has reached the point where science policy makers must start considering the transition to equilibrium and, in particular, must start thinking about how to cushion the shocks which will accompany this transition. The projections made were intended to indicate how serious the problems could become if the proper preparations are not made. Without adequate planning to make the transition to equilibrium as smooth as possible, however, the situation could well become as bad as that indicated above.
