Rarely has a 25-page report offered so many important findings and
recommendations about the conduct of federally-supported science. The
just-released final draft report of a task force of the Secretary of
Energy Advisory Board is must reading for those interested in the importance
of the DOE Office of Science and the physical science research it supports.
While brief in length, the report provides a clear diagnosis of stagnant
funding and management deficiencies and why it is necessary that these
problems be corrected. The Advisory Board is now seeking public input
on the report.
The October 13 "Final Report of the Secretary of Energy Advisory
Board's Task Force on the Future of Science Programs at the Department
of Energy" was produced by a fourteen member panel chaired
by MIT President Charles Vest. The Task Force included university officials,
industry and association CEOs, the former president of the Nasdaq Stock
Market, and senior policy analysts. Established in May 2002, the entire
Task Force met five times, complemented by the meetings of various subgroups.
Confidential interviews were also held with individuals in the Administration,
Federal agencies, Congress, and the scientific user community.
The report, identified as a final draft, can be divided into four
parts. The first, a one-page summary, begins by stating, "The
Department of Energy has a paramount responsibility for keeping
American science preeminent in the 21st century." The summary
briefly outlines the Task Force's six major recommendations, ranging
from the appointment of an Under Secretary for Science to the
establishment of "critically important and inspirational new
scientific programs" in energy, advanced computation, and frontier
research facilities.
One of the report's strengths is the clear and convincing case it
makes for the importance of physical science research and the Office
of Science. Describing the importance of secure, sustainable, clean
and affordable energy to the United States, the Task Force declares,
"America can be free, secure and economically strong in the 21st
century only if we continue to excel in science and advanced
technology." The report then states, "America can meet its
energy
needs if and only if we make a strong and sustained investment in
research in physical science, engineering, and applicable areas of
life science, and if we translate advancing scientific knowledge into
practice."
In the report's second section, the Task Force identified important
shortcomings. While concluding that DOE has "an excellent record
of
scientific accomplishment," it found that "The importance
of DOE
science and facilities to our national, economic and energy security
are not well understood by the American public, Congress, or the
Executive Branch." The Task Force did not pull any punches in
describing some of its findings about deficiences in process,
communication, and interaction in this area. It was unambiguous in
describing the "stagnant" federal investment in physical sciences
and
engineering over 30 years, concluding, "the U.S. is no longer the
clear leader in some important areas of science" such as high-energy
physics and neutron sources for materials science and biology. "The
budgets of DOE science suffer from the Department's historically poor
reputation as badly managed, excessively fragmented, and politically
unresponsive. DOE science budgets have not received the priority
merited by their importance to our Nation's future energy, security,
and economy." "Whether this reputation is deserved, this perception
exists and need to be addressed."
The third section of the report outlines a series of recommendations.
The first is the need for an Under Secretary of Science. This new
position would elevate and better organize the conduct of science at
DOE. A high-level Science Advisory Board, similar to the National
Science Board or the Defense Science Board, should be established.
Better communication and interaction with the public, Congress, other
federal agencies, and the Executive Office of the President is
essential. Strategic planning for the next twenty years should be
incorporated into DOE's R&D initiatives. Merit-based competition
should be increased, and the optimium balance of national laboratory,
university, and industrial performers sought. A significantly better
financed plan to renew laboratories, facilities and infrastructure
must be instituted. To promote and meet DOE's "mission of leadership
in energy, security, and science," three "major, highly visible
research initiatives" should be started. Regarding future funding,
the Task Force stated, "The Department should strengthen the federal
investment in the physical sciences and advanced engineering
research." DOE should also "dramatically enhance its role
in
educating and training future scientists and engineers."
The Task Force report, with instructions on how to offer public comments,
can be accessed at: http://www.seab.energy.gov/news.htm
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl