Members of Congress React to Joint Statement on Scientific Research

At this week’s press conference on the Joint Statement on Scientific Research (see FYI #34), Representative George Brown (D-CA), Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) and Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) released their own statements. Excerpts follow; please note that in the interest of space, references to their own current or future bills are not included:

REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE E. BROWN, JR:

“I am very pleased to see that the Nation’s science community is speaking out against efforts to balance the Federal budget on the backs of research and development investments. I hope that today’s press conference and joint statement will be the first of many actions taken by these prestigious organizations.

“Investments in research and development programs are among the most important expenditures the Federal government can make. Economists estimate that as much as half of our Nation’s economic growth in the last hundred years is due to technological innovations. If we continue to under invest in science and technology, our efforts to balance the budget will leave our children a less prosperous future.

“Federal R&D has, as in the joint statement of these science organizations points out, declined in real terms over the last five years. Further, every balanced budget plan offered by any Republican or from the Administration calls for further reductions in these investments over the next five years. While there are some on both sides of the aisle that have called for either spending increases in particular areas of research (such as health research) or across the board in science, none of those proposals identifies how such increases will be accommodated in a balanced budget scenario. Until you take that step you are just playing with monopoly money....[References to his legislation follow; to be the subject of a future FYI.]

“Just as we have a generational obligation to balance the budget and not make the next generation pay for our consumption, we also have an obligation to continue to invest in those programs that will leave the next generation in a position to enjoy a robust, growing economy. I believe that my budget proposal does that, and I hope that the science community can work to educate others in Washington about the importance of these investments.”

SENATOR PHIL GRAMM:

“I want to thank the leaders of the American Chemical Society, the American Physical Society, the American Astronomical Society, the American Mathematical Society, and the other societies here today for their support for increasing federal investment in science. This is exactly the goal of my legislation, which would double the amount of federal investment in basic science and medical research over ten years.... [References to S. 124 follow; see FYIs #11, 12, 13.]

“If we as a country do not restore the high priority once afforded science and technology in the federal budget and increase federal investment in research, it will be impossible to maintain the United States’ position as the technological leader of the world.

“Since 1970, Japan and Germany have spent a larger share of their GDP on research and development relative to the U.S. We can no longer afford to fall behind. Expanding the nation’s commitment to research in basic science and medicine is a critically important investment in the future of our nation.”

SENATOR JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN:

“Several months ago during the heat of the summer of 1996, President Clinton and every member of Congress received a letter signed by 60 Nobel Laureates which contained a simple message: America’s investment in research over the last fifty years has been a vital source of our economic and political strength around the world, as well as the quality of life Americans enjoy at home.’ It has only been through the Federal Government’s patient investment in science, argued the Nobelists, that Americans have benefitted in so many extraordinary ways from advances in the understanding of our world.

“I am...optimistic that the stage is set to move forward on policy decisions that will guarantee increased economic growth and national security, and represent a very important investment in America’s future.

“My optimism is a product of two recent events. The first was introduction of S. 124 by three Senators Gramm, Mack and Hutchison entitled the National Research Investment Act, calling for a doubling of federal investment in basic science, technology and medical research over the next ten years. Second, in last month’s release of President Clinton’s budget, science and technology programs were increased almost across the board about three percent on average, which is significant given the considerable fiscal constraints and the intense scrutiny to which every program and agency is subject.....

“I believe the optimism of the present moment comes primarily because of some troubling facts which have convinced members of both parties that something more must be done to stimulate good research and development.... If you believe as I do, that our current prosperity, intellectual leadership in science and medicine and the growth of entire new industries are directly linked to investments made thirty years ago, then you have got to ask where will this country be thirty years from now? It is likely that several countries, particularly in Asia, will exceed on a per capita basis, the US expenditure in science. Japan is already spending more than we are in absolute dollars on non-defense research and development. These facts led Erich Bloch,the former head of the National Science Foundation, to write that the whole U.S. R&D system is in the midst of a crucial transition. Its rate of growth has leveled off and could decline. We cannot assume that we will stay at the forefront of science and technology as we have for fifty years.’

“Although difficult, the partisan conflicts and rifts of the past several years may have performed a useful service in clarifying the debate over when public funding on research is justified. I believe it is a mistake to separate research into two warring camps, one flying the flag of basic science and the other applied science. Rather the research enterprise represents a broad spectrum of human activity with basic and applied science at either end but not in opposition. Every component along the spectrum produces returns - economic, social and intellectual gains for the society as a whole. If we can put this division behind us, we can examine regions within the spectrum which need federal support, those best developed through the encouragement of the market, and finally, those which require a mixed approach. This is a process in which pragmatism should be encouraged.

“The challenge that faces us is to take the remarkably broad consensus for federal research and build a similar consensus as to what actions can help us to achieve our shared goals. Participants in the complicated dance of science include the federal government, private industry, national laboratories, large and small universities, professional societies and entrepreneurs willing to risk their wealth on the commercial success of a new idea. If we are to maintain and build on our world leadership, the Federal government must continue to play a pivotal role.”