There has been considerable discussion about how the federal government
should best allocate funding for the conduct of scientific research.
Over the years, various federal and non- federal committees have issued
reports on making this process more methodical. The National Science
Board recently convened a symposium to discuss its draft report,
"The Scientific Allocation of Scientific Resources," which makes
five major recommendations to improve this process.
At this symposium, National Science Board Chairman Eamon Kelly spoke
of demands for better accountability for federal investment, as well
as greater coherence in making decisions regarding the adequacy and
balance of investments in various sectors. He described the allocation
process as "difficult and controversial." The issuance of the twenty-page
draft report followed two years of literature review and discussion,
and was, Kelly said, "only a framework for discussion." Kelly is the
Chair of the NSB Committee on Strategic Science and Engineering Policy
Issues that wrote the report.
"Today's environment demands more effective management of the Federal
portfolio for research, including a sustained advisory process that
incorporates systematic participation by the science and engineering
communities," the report states in its introduction. This is particularly
true for investments in long-term, high-risk research. The introduction
also states a point made repeatedly during the symposium (see
FYI #68): "Critics and supporters alike note the need for a clearly
articulated and compelling rationale for Federal investments in science
and technology equivalent in persuasive powers to the rationale of the
Cold War."
"Ultimately, the Federal budget for research rests on aggregated
political decisions in thirteen congressional appropriations subcommittees,"
the report states. Following an overview of the executive and legislative
branch allocation process, the authors conclude, "To enhance the
effectiveness of Federal investments in achieving long-term goals for
research, a regular, credible process that relies in part on expert
input from the science and engineering communities is essential for
priority setting among competing investment choices." Crucial to
such priority setting are "more and credible data and analyses," although
the report cautions that such data and analyses may be difficult to
achieve
The report makes a series of well-considered recommendations to improve
the allocation of federal funding for science and technology. The Keystone
Recommendation is as follows:
"The Federal government, including the White House, Federal departments
and agencies, and the Congress should cooperate in developing and
supporting a more productive process for allocating and coordinating
Federal research funding. The process must place a priority on investments
in areas that advance important national goals, identify areas ready
to benefit from greater investment, address long-term needs and opportunities
for Federal missions and responsibilities, and ensure world class
fundamental science and engineering capabilities across the frontiers
of knowledge."
The draft report may be viewed here.
Richard M. Jones
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org
(301) 209-3095
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl