American Physical Society Comments on Academy R&D Report
FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 37: March 5, 1996
As reported in FYI #35, Robert Walker's (R-PA) House Science
Committee held a February 28 hearing on the National Academies
report entitled, "Allocating Federal Funds for Science and
Technology." For the hearing, two top officials of the American
Physical Society submitted a written statement to the Science
Committee with their views on the report's findings. (See FYI
#172, 1995 for the report's 13 specific recommendations.) This FYI
quotes excerpts from the statement, signed by APS President J.
Robert Schrieffer and President-Elect D. Allan Bromley
(Presidential Science Advisor for President Bush.)
After praising the National Academies committee and its chairman,
Frank Press (Presidential Science Advisor for President Carter),
for the report and the Science Committee for "holding a hearing on
this important subject," the APS statement continues:
* * *
Dr. Press and his panel members organized their collected wisdom
into 13 recommendations. We concur with most of them, but find
substantial difficulty with several. We will summarize our
judgments and expand slightly on the few areas where we disagree
with the report. For ease of reading, we highlight these
disagreements with [an asterisk.]
RECOMMENDATIONS 1-3. THE UNITED STATES MUST DEVELOP A MORE
COHERENT BUDGET PROCESS FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: We strongly
concur.
RECOMMENDATIONS 4&5. THE UNITED STATES SHOULD STRIVE TO CONTINUE
AS THE WORLD LEADER IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: We endorse these
recommendations. We agree the U.S. should vigorously pursue
international cooperation.
However, we note in connection with Recommendation 5 that our
nation's credibility on international cooperation has been severely
compromised in recent years by our inability to follow through on
several major commitments.
RECOMMENDATIONS 6-9. MAINTAINING U.S. WORLD LEADERSHIP IN SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY DESPITE BUDGET CONSTRAINTS WILL REQUIRE DISCIPLINE
IN THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES FOR FEDERAL INVESTMENTS: We agree
with Recommendation 6, which deals with the missions of federal
laboratories, and with Recommendation 8, which addresses the
restricted role of the federal government in supporting technology.
*However, we strongly disagree with Recommendation 7, which states
that "FS&T funding should generally favor academic institutions
because of their flexibility and inherent quality control, and
because they directly link research to education and training in
science and engineering." We believe that this recommendation is
based on the specious assumptions that universities and national
laboratories have similar capabilities and address similar
problems. In truth, the two sets of institutions are
complementary. Universities unquestionably perform excellent
research as they carry out their education and training missions,
but they are ill equipped to pursue large, complex projects for
which the national laboratories, with their many outstanding and
costly users facilities, are ideally suited. Rather than pitting
universities against national laboratories, as Recommendation 7
would imply, we believe that the federal government should
reinforce cooperation between the two sets of institutions.*
RECOMMENDATIONS 10&11. WITHIN THE GENERAL CONSTRAINTS DETERMINED
BY NATIONAL PRIORITIES, THE SELECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS MUST
REFLECT THE STANDARDS OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COMMUNITY:
We agree with the recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS 12&13. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST IMPLEMENT A
STRUCTURE CAPABLE OF FOSTERING, NOT HINDERING, THE MANAGEMENT OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: We agree most strongly with these two
recommendations.
Micro-management, often mandated by Congress in its attempt to
maintain constitutional oversight, in many cases has resulted in
inefficiencies and squandered financial resources. Efforts must be
made to avoid this pitfall, while still maintaining accountability,
as Recommendation 12 notes. Recommendation 13 argues for keeping
R&D within the mission agencies and maintaining our pluralistic
system of support. These features are central to the strength of
our science and technology enterprise. Abandoning them would move
our nation into uncharted waters with consequences that cannot be
predicted.
In the section, "Defining a Federal Science and Technology Budget,"
which appears in Part I of the report, the panel recommends that
"in the future, government support for basic and applied science
and technology be presented, analyzed, and considered in terms of
an FS&T budget," rather than an R&D budget as is currently the
case.
*We take strong issue with this proposal. While it may have
intrinsic intellectual merit, it creates unwise, unnecessary, and
potentially damaging restrictions on policy makers. As the needs
of the nation change, it is essential that planners,
administrators, and Congress have maximum flexibility in changing
the mix of activities that constitute the federal R&D program. By
creating the distinction of a science and technology (S&T) budget,
the report's proposal would erect an artificial barrier between
sets of activities that are closely related. It would also prevent
the practical reallocation of resources from one set of activities
to the other as defense and civilian requirements vary. We thus
urge the retention and use of the now traditional R&D budget
(currently totaling $73 billion) within which appropriate changes
in emphasis between military and civilian programs can continue to
be made.*
In closing, we wish to note that a periodic review of the way the
federal government allocates funds for science and technology is as
important as the annual review of budgets and programs. We urge
the Science Committee to consider the issues in depth, particularly
at this time of budgetary stringency, one which demands maximum
efficiency in all federal endeavors.
* * *
For more information on the APS testimony, contact Michael Lubell
at the APS Office of Public Affairs, 202-662-8700; opa@aps.org
###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Audrey T. Leath
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3094
##END##########
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
