(source)

Fiorello La Guardia (11 Dec 1882 - 20 Sep 1947) American politician and lawyer who was a three-term Mayor of New York City (1933-45). He had previously served in the U.S. House of Representatives during and after WW I.

Congressman Fiorello La Guardia on Scientific Research

Quotes from his speech as a Congressman (1932)

Fiorello La Guardia
detail from a photo taken reading from a paper to the radio audience of WNYC (23 Mar 1940) (source)

The Great Depression in the United States began with the Wall Street Crash in Oct 1929. The previous month the American Stock Market had a Dow Jones Industrial Average peaking at 381.17. Three years later, it bottomed out at 41.22.

In the elections of Nov 1932, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to be the next President, and the maladroit politicians of the Republican party lost 100 seats in Congress. Also losing his re-election bid was the unpopular Republican President Herbert Hoover whose inept economic policies had worsened the depression, as he was resoundingly rejected by angry, disillusioned voters.

Amid this turbulance, Republican Congressman Fiorello La Guardia had been voted to become the Mayor-elect for New York City (a position he would hold for three terms, before choosing not to run for a fourth time).

As the sun was setting on Republicans in Congress at the end of 1932, some of their House members were still espousing a business-oriented, small government with budget-conscious cost-cutting. It was against this backdrop that Fiorello LaGuardia showed his support of scientific research, when it was endangered by insensitive cost-cutting. On 28 Dec 1932, he spoke in strong support of expenditures for science, and against the elimination of even an item of approximately $39,000 from the agricultural appropriation bill. In part, he had this to say:

28 December 1932

“Mr. Chairman: Science knows no politics. Are we in this frenzy of economy, brought about by those who control the wealth of this country, seeking to put a barrier on science and research for the paltry sum of $39,113 out of an appropriation of $100,000,000? Science will go on when existing political parties will long have been forgotten.

I am sorry that the distinguished leader of the Republican Party in the House states that he is not versed in botany and publicly admits that he does not know anything of these terms or what it is all about; but, Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a sad day for the people of this country when we must close the doors of the laboratories doing research work for the people of the United States. The gentleman from New York says it is all foolish.

Yes; it was foolish when Burbank was experimenting with wild cactus. It was foolish when the Wright boys went down to Kitty Hawk and had a contraption there that they were going to fly like birds. It was foolish when Robert Fulton tried to put a boiler into a sail boat and steam it up the Hudson. It was foolish when one of my ancestors thought the world was round and discovered this country so that the gentleman from New York* could become a Congressman. (Laughter.) ... Do not seek to stop progress; do not seek to put the hand of politics on these scientific men who are doing a great work. As the gentleman from Texas points out, it is not the discharge of these particular employees that is at stake, it is all the work of investigation, of research, of experimentation that has been going on for years that will be stopped and lost.”

The following day, as arguments continued to be raised that the present overabundance of crops indicated there should be cost-savings made by cutting agricultural research, LaGuardia staunchly promoted continued support for scientific research as a necessary investment:

29 December 1932

“I want to say to my colleague, the gentleman from New York, that I believe he is confusing the purpose of experimentation and research work of this kind with the immediate question of production. Surely we can not delay scientific research until the time comes when this country will need greater production. That indeed would be lack of vision. The very purpose of this kind of investigation and study is to have the information complete and ready when it is wanted, for it can not be developed overnight. ...

Momentary overproduction is not the important question. The important question is the continuing of study to correct the defects of nature. The most fascinating part of human activity is its constant combat with nature in fighting the elements and in correcting the defects of nature. This has engaged the attention of mankind from the earliest times of which we have record. Assuming, if you please, that we now have overproduction and production of more commodities than the people of the country have ability to purchase, that is no justification for closing the doors of these laboratories, closing the doors to scientific research and stopping it. We must continue it. The population is constantly increasing. Some day the legislative branch of government will keep abreast of science. Why, Mr. Chairman, the most humble research scientist in the Department of Agriculture is at this time contributing more to his country than the most useful Member of Congress. The most humble engineer in the General Electric Laboratory or the Radio Corporation of America Laboratory is more useful to humanity than the most brilliant orator of this House. The trouble is that the legislative branch of government has not kept abreast with science. Government has lagged, science has advanced. We have permitted an unbalanced system of distribution to continue while science has increased production. We are living in the paradoxical state where there is great overproduction on the one hand and want and misery on the other. This is not the fault of science. This is the fault of government. This is the fault of men who have control of the governmental affairs of the country.

I want to plead with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Taber), in his eagerness—and he is sincere and works hard on these bills—not to be too hasty in cutting down these appropriations to continue this scientific work, so that when the time does come we will have the information available. I repeat, if the science of government had only advanced along with the progress made in electricity, chemistry, mechanics, transportation and agriculture, we should not to-day find ourselves in the midst of a ruinous financial crisis. While science and the arts and mechanics were progressing, government was struggling along with laws and economics founded on principles accepted centuries ago. Today we are still endeavoring to struggle along under construction and limitations of a constitution drafted and accepted at a time when steam had not yet been applied, before the railroads, before the telegraph, when electricity was entirely unknown, and in the days of hand production. Yes, gentlemen, science has forged ahead, and nothing that ignorance, petty politics, lack of vision, or hope to continue the old system may try to do can stop the onward march of science. So let not Congress seek to mitigate its shortcomings by attempting to adjust the universe with its own snail-like pace.”

Nature bears long with those who wrong her. She is patient under abuse. But when abuse has gone too far, when the time of reckoning finally comes, she is equally slow to be appeased and to turn away her wrath. (1882) -- Nathaniel Egleston, who was writing then about deforestation, but speaks equally well about the danger of climate change today.

Carl Sagan: In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. (1987) ...(more by Sagan)

Albert Einstein: I used to wonder how it comes about that the electron is negative. Negative-positive—these are perfectly symmetric in physics. There is no reason whatever to prefer one to the other. Then why is the electron negative? I thought about this for a long time and at last all I could think was “It won the fight!” ...(more by Einstein)

Richard Feynman: It is the facts that matter, not the proofs. Physics can progress without the proofs, but we can't go on without the facts ... if the facts are right, then the proofs are a matter of playing around with the algebra correctly. ...(more by Feynman)

Quotations by: • Albert Einstein • Isaac Newton • Lord Kelvin • Charles Darwin • Srinivasa Ramanujan • Carl Sagan • Florence Nightingale • Thomas Edison • Aristotle • Marie Curie • Benjamin Franklin • Winston Churchill • Galileo Galilei • Sigmund Freud • Robert Bunsen • Louis Pasteur • Theodore Roosevelt • Abraham Lincoln • Ronald Reagan • Leonardo DaVinci • Michio Kaku • Karl Popper • Johann Goethe • Robert Oppenheimer • Charles Kettering  ... (more people)

Quotations about: • Atomic  Bomb • Biology • Chemistry • Deforestation • Engineering • Anatomy • Astronomy • Bacteria • Biochemistry • Botany • Conservation • Dinosaur • Environment • Fractal • Genetics • Geology • History of Science • Invention • Jupiter • Knowledge • Love • Mathematics • Measurement • Medicine • Natural Resource • Organic Chemistry • Physics • Physician • Quantum Theory • Research • Science and Art • Teacher • Technology • Universe • Volcano • Virus • Wind Power • Women Scientists • X-Rays • Youth • Zoology  ... (more topics)