When I was a student, some thirty or more years ago, all intelligent, right-minded people believed in scientific progress, and public debate was centred on whether capitalism or socialism best promoted it. In other words, should scientists simply be allowed to organize themselves by whatever means they wish or should they be given some explicit political guidance to ensure that everyone reaps the benefits of research? Back in what may turn out to have been the halcyon days of the Cold War, science was presumed to be the engine of social progress. This made it easy to conjure up utopian images of the future towards which we are all heading, one way or another. It was equally easy to conjure up dystopian images of diverted paths and perverted journeys that might result as we continued to make progress. All in all, it was a golden age full of thoughts of cybernetics and science fiction.

Back then it was also common to speak of a “linear” model of science policy, whereby one invests in pure science, which produces new ideas that lead to new products and technologies, which in turn generally raise society's standard of living and productivity. Indeed, agreement on this narrative enabled capitalists and socialists to define their differences so strongly. Capitalists believed that it was in the nature of science itself to benefit everyone in the long term, no matter how its production is organized.