Previous Article
Next Article
Table of Contents

Science in the National Interest (1Mar94)
(from the Director's Office, NOAO Newsletter No. 37, 1 March 1994)

At the end of January, the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy hosted a forum on "Science in the National Interest." The goal
of the meeting, which was attended by about 300 scientists and research
administrators, was to provide an opportunity for an exchange of views
prior to the preparation of a document describing the research policy
of the Clinton administration.  A statement concerning technology
policy was released last year.  Several people who play a key role in
shaping research policy spoke at the conference, and I would like to
share with you some of the ideas that they presented.

The strongest statement in support of basic research was made by
Vice-President Gore.  He said that science has to be a top priority -
that without it, civilizations stagnate.  It is the policy of the
Clinton administration to achieve sustained world leadership in basic
science, mathematics, and engineering.  The reasons offered by Gore for
pursuing fundamental science include the fact that it is the source of
medical and technical breakthroughs, that it is essential to the
education process in universities, and that humanity has a need to
define itself through better understanding of the natural world.  Gore
stressed that, in shaping its overall policy, the administration would
not take a narrow view and emphasize only immediate results and short
term goals.

All of the other speakers also stressed the importance of basic
research, but they emphasized the need to develop an overall policy
that would, as Congressman George Brown put it, marshall basic science
to support societal goals.  Brown is not comfortable with the phrase
"strategic research," because to him that phrase implies
micro-management of basic research.  He does believe, however, that we
should define strategic goals and should invest in the research needed
to achieve those goals.

Investment was a common theme of the speakers.  John Gibbons, the
President's science advisor, said that a major objective of this
administration is deficit reduction combined with selective
investment.  Senator Barbara Mikulski believes that we must set
national goals and develop a plan to get there.  Her definition of
strategic research is research focused around important national
goals.  In many ways, Senator Tom Harkin was bluntest of all - if you
want to get funding, he said, you had better be in an investment
program.

But what constitutes an investment program? In order to translate the
goal of making strategic investments in research into specific
programs, it is necessary first to examine some very large questions.
Congressman Brown indicated some of those big picture questions.  What
is the future of work in our society? Will there be enough high wage
jobs to sustain the middle class? What will be the impact of redesign
of the health care system, which will surely rely more heavily on
preventive care? How will we deal with environmental protection? How
will the education system change in the information age? How will the
development of the information superhighway impact geography-based
higher education? How will we manage the social stresses of the
information highway? How can we marshall innovation for the service
sector? What is the role of the social sciences in understanding the
roots of violence and in revitalizing family?

Implicit in these questions is a point stressed by Senator
Rockefeller.  There is in this country an exploding demand for better
lives.  That demand was masked by the cold war but must now be
addressed.  What is needed is a better relationship between the
research that is authorized and the national goals that we seek; this
better relationship requires new organizing principles for determining
national directions, which must have the goal of achieving a more
productive and humane society.

The US has up until now, according Rockefeller, lacked clear policies
for using university-based basic research either to improve the quality
of life or to help industry, which must be a partner in the effort.
This lack is in clear contrast with the situation in defense and
health, where such policies have existed.  In particular, NSF has had
in the past neither the mandate nor the incentive to assist industry.
The constituency of the NSF has been the performers of research, not
the users of research.  NSF has filled its traditional role very well,
Rockefeller believes, but Congress now wants to use NSF to do more.
The NSF is expected to focus more on research of strategic interest to
the nation.  Simply relying on spinoffs and a few science and
engineering centers will not be enough.  It was also suggested by
Rockefeller that consideration should be given to enabling industry to
have a more direct voice in setting priorities, in determining the
allocation of funds, and in designing research program.  Perhaps funds
should even be made available to industry to invest in universities.
Rockefeller also stressed the importance of geographical equity.
Universities impact the economies of their regions, and there is a
moral obligation, he believes, to see to it that all parts of the
country share in the benefits of university research.

Emphasizing the investment theme, Senator Mikulski described
congressional appropriators as investment bankers, selecting those
programs that will serve the needs, including the long range needs, of
society.  In this new era, she said, rather than smart bombs we need
smart science and technology to win wars in the economic arena.  We
need a new paradigm - one in which science, new ideas, and new
technologies lead to jobs in manufacturing.  The Clinton administration
believes, however, that it is essential to limit the risk of government
failure in its investment program.  Possible strategies include cost
sharing and coordination with industry, broad-based competition for
funding, and rigorous program reviews.

Senator Mikulski also suggested that some reorganization of the NSF
might be in order.  She pointed out that NIH does not have an institute
of molecular biology but rather has a cancer institute, which includes
as part of its program research in molecular biology.  She asked
whether the NSF should also be organized around themes that touch
everyday life, such as global change and high performance computing.

Finally, Mikulski expressed her feeling that many scientists have
developed a sense of entitlement - that every scientist with a PhD
should be funded to pursue his or her curiosity.  She would rather that
we think of ourselves as all one country working together toward common
goals.

In discussion sessions, participants examined a variety of issues in
more detail.  Of particular interest was the analysis of problems
facing universities in this changing climate.  Considerable time was
spent on the issue of human resources and the education and training of
both scientists and non-scientists.  Several participants argued that
there was no policy for development of human resources and that
training was on auto-pilot, with support for graduate students simply
being tied to grants.  In many cases, graduate training is too narrow,
and there was a strong feeling that the PhD should broaden not narrow
options.  Some people thought that the balance in training should
change, with more emphasis on the ability to integrate knowledge as
opposed to deep specialization.  There was a general feeling that the
importance of teaching should be emphasized and that grants should not
disconnect teaching and research.  Exchange of personnel between
industry and universities was thought to be desirable, as were
internships in industry.

At the undergraduate level, introductory science courses were
characterized as needing major change, and there was strong support for
research experiences for undergraduates.

Mark Wrighton of MIT discussed several issues facing universities.  He
argued for federal support that enables rather than merely aids
research, for stable and predictable overhead policies, and for an
investment by the federal government in instrumentation.  He also
believes that there must be a major effort by universities to hold down
costs of both research and administration; that there will have to be
greater sharing of facilities; that higher priority should be given to
undergraduate education, including providing appropriate incentives for
professors; that universities will have to be right-sized (the
preferred phrase for those at the conference with an aversion to the
term "down-sizing").  The issues of deferred maintenance are
formidable ~ so formidable that it appears unlikely than any single
funding source can resolve them.  Wrighton feels strongly that
scientists must pay attention to issues relating to ethics and
integrity.

Newspapers and television news programs are filled with stories of
change.  Reorganization and restructuring are making industry more
competitive and fundamentally changing the ways business is done and
the rate at which new products are introduced.  Gore has presented a
plan for re-engineering government.  The changes in health and defense
policy will ripple through the economy.  The universities are
undergoing major change.  Astronomy is not immune to these changes.
The good news for science is that virtually the only budgets that will
be increasing in the next few years are the ones relating to science
and technology.  It is an open question, however, about the extent to
which astronomy will benefit from increasing budgets given the changing
priorities of the federal government.  It will be a challenge for us as
a community to devise effective arguments for support of the programs
that we believe are most important during the next decade.

Sidney C. Wolff

Previous Article
Next Article
Table of Contents