It's election season and the biggest schism in American culture come November voting won't be abortion or global warming, it will be the size and role of the U.S. government in the last two years.

But increased government involvement is not new in American cultural debates - nor is it even new in science.   

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned about science and innovation in the early days of America  and addressed patent rights in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution but they were also cautious about the usual bureaucracy of government holding innovation back so during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the idea of a 'national' federally funded university was voted down, to keep research pure from government interference, and for the first 150 years of America the culture generally resisted Federal patronage of science.

Throughout the 19th century, American science was funded almost entirely by private parties and world class science was still done.   In the 20th century that gradually began to change as the government began to guide applied science in ways that met national interests and finally, in World War II with the development of atom bombs and radar by government-funded scientists, the scales were permanently tipped in favor of taxpayer funding of research.

And scientists seem to prefer it that way; a persistent belief is that only taxpayer-funded science allows for researchers to remain 'pure' and free of pressure but that is not the case now any more than it has been in the past, argues James T. Bennett, George Mason University professor in his new book The Doomsday Lobby – Hype and Panic from Sputniks, Martians, and Marauding Meteors, noting that government has done plenty of manipulation of basic science research in order to achieve goals.   And to do it, groups have created a series of crises to mobilize public support, he says.

"The Doomsday Lobby" claims to explore how expansive government funding of science is influenced by media-savvy campaigns to convince both legislators and taxpayers that science funding is necessary to meet emergencies or perform Herculean tasks - some of dubious usefulness, claims Bennett.

Bennett comments, “Maybe it’s time we dusted off the U.S. Constitution and listened once more to those who argued against entrusting the federal government with the direction of American science…Maybe it is time for another look at the virtues of private science.”

Bennett's book looks at political influence on scientific research by analyzing various scientific debates and episodes in American history, including the 1950s Sputnik scare which led to the race to space, meteor impact scares and, of course to stay topical, the current global warming debate.

Without question most scientists aren't going to be fans of the idea that for profit and not-for-profit corporations or segments within government are manipulating their work, but the implications for a democratic society merit some thought.