In this area, at least, I doubt that the demands from radical scholars exceed the possibilities for financing them.

Although I do not find evidence of the distorting effects of our sources of finance and hence cannot verify the radicals skepticism. I do not think that necessarily disposes of it. I feel strongly that almost any promising line of investigation should be "supportable" somewhere at Harvard, and that the Center for International Affairs should take some responsibility for the general area in which it works. This implies a willingness to encourage a variety of approaches to problems, including some that senior members may be doubtful about.

At a more fundamental level, the Center (and similar institutions) might consciously seek more diversity of views on its staff members to a greater degree than it has-although if anything is currently lacking in the economic development staff. it is strong supporters of present U.S. policies toward developing countries.

To Consult or Not to Consult

At the university, the professor who makes periodic trips to Washington is regarded as a supporter of the establishment, a man who puts the pursuit of money or power above pure research, or even-in Hyland's fantasies-the personification of all that is evil in the existing power structure. In Washington, however, his image is that of a theoretical, even radical, critic. His advice is sought on new techniques and research findings, but even if he has just left government service, his policy recommendations are suspect. In short, he provides a link between two worlds that are interdependent but tend to be highly suspicious of each other.

In general, this is as it should be and if one finds the dual role uncomfortable. he can choose one or the other.

The issues of government involvement are raised in heightened form by the Center's Development Advisory Service, whose primary mission is advice and secondary function is research. The DAS goes to considerable lengths to avoid both the substance and the appearance of U.S. government influence by refusing U.S. government support for its advisory groups and recruiting half its advisors abroad. Whatever the limitations to its advice, they do not stem from particular dogmas nor from solicitude for U.S. interests. In fact, the services of the Harvard Advisory Service are in demand from a variety of governments largely because it is known to be unaffected by special interests or viewpoints.

The problem of devising alternative frameworks for development policy goes much deeper than avoiding political influence from one quarter or another. It is an intellectual challenge that can be met by bringing together a variety of practical and theoretical talents and experience. The Center for International Affairs would be losing a unique opportunity to do this if it refrained from involvement in practical affairs for fear of becoming tainted. While the radical critics have warned us of the dangers involved. my answer is that we don't have to be so inept as to let it work out that way.

Conclusions

In conclusion, I would like to suggest a somewhat different set of propositions. It seems to me that the main thrust of radical criticism should be directed toward making social science more responsive to a variety of social needs. The academic system works with a greater lag in teaching than in research. since the curriculum tends to be modified only after research findings have been sifted and evaluated by the profession. The research group is therefore both the key to change and the vehicle by which its results are propagated. The persuasiveness of the conclusions to other scientists provide the means of change, not the assertion of one dogma over another.

As for the Center for International Affairs. it should be able to stand scrutiny from the left as well as the right and from scholars as well as policy makers. None should try to make it over in his own image, since that would diminish its value for all. Even more than in the past, the Center should be a place where conservatives argue with radicals, economists with political scientists, and scholars with policy makers. We should nourish and protect it because such places are hard to come by.