House Approves Ehlers’ Report -- With Some Reservations

Before adjourning this month, the House of Representatives endorsed the “National Science Policy Study.” For 40 minutes, Members considered House Resolution 578, stating that the report “should serve as a framework for future deliberations on congressional science policy and funding.” There was some dissent, notably that of Rep. George Brown (D-CA).

In the aftermath of the report’s September release there seems, among many, general agreement that while it touched on many important ideas, it did not go into specifics. The report’s author, Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) acknowledged this in his House floor comments, saying the report “does not explore any particular issue in great depth. It is instead a broad-brush view of the entire science and engineering enterprise.” “The work of addressing specific science policy issues will have to come later.... It is my hope that we will do so in the next Congress.”

Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) did not comment on the report’s approach. He did say, importantly, that “the clear message of this report is that, while not exactly broke, America’s science policy is nonetheless in need of some pretty significant maintenance.” “In my view what makes this report different from other science policy reports published by various groups over the years, some of them very good, is the Committee on Science’s intention to act on its recommendations in future oversight hearings [and] in legislation. Indeed this report should not be seen as the end, but rather the beginning of a long process that will involve Congress, the Executive Branch, the States, universities and industry all working together.”

Sensenbrenner included, for the record, full statements from OSTP Director Neal Lane and NSF Director Rita Colwell. Lane said, “In general, I find the Committee’s report to be harmonious with the President’s established science policy goals,” while Rita Colwell commented, “I am particularly pleased that the report emphasizes the critical role of federal support for fundamental research, and especially for merit based investments in university research.”

There was not universal approval of the report. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) speaking for herself and three colleagues, said the report “lacks significant input on issues of major concern.” Their greatest concern was “the role of under represented populations in the fields of science and technology....” Ehlers said he appreciated and agreed with many of her comments, saying that S&T education is “extremely important to this country.”

Brown was far more critical. He charged that the report “still satisfies mainly the needs of the status quo,” although he later added, “I like the report as far as it goes.” Continuing, Brown said the report “is very acceptable to the research universities of this country and to those who benefit from the present establishment of science. They like the idea of the Congress committing itself to provide more money for what they are already doing, and they will be glad to spend that. That is not the problem. The question now is what social purpose are we serving through the expenditure of that money?” “We need to look for new ways of answering the question, for what purpose are we supporting this very large scientific establishment that we have created.”

So how should this report, and the resolution the House passed endorsing it, be viewed? Perhaps the most optimistic statement is that of Chairman Sensenbrenner: “the Nation’s scientific enterprise is too important to our future to be left on auto pilot. In adopting House Resolution 578 and endorsing the National Science Policy Study the House will be sending an unmistakable signal that America’s scientific enterprise will no longer be taken for granted in the Halls of Congress, and the real work will begin of turning the ideas in this report into sound policy that is good for science and good for the nation.”