We're reading Vannevar Bush's Endless Frontier, the foundational 1945 document that basically sold the US government on funding basic science. The premise: a lot of how we justify science funding today traces back to his argument. So we want to dig into whether that reasoning still holds up, or if we need to rethink how we're making the case for science.

It's genuinely open-ended — we're not here to argue that everything Bush said is wrong, or that it's all still right. More like: what was the logic then, what's the logic now, and are they the same thing?

Link for the paper: https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/2023-04/EndlessFrontier75th_w.pdf