APS Opposes Proposed Name Change for National Science Foundation

Note: In order to increase the level of awareness in the physics community about the public policy activities of the ten Member Societies of the American Institute of Physics, FYI will expand its coverage to include societies’ resolutions and other actions.

An indication of some of the thinking on Capitol Hill about the nature of federal support for science and technology is reflected in a recent letter from House science committee chairman George Brown (D-California) and subcommittee chairman Rick Boucher (D-Virginia) to The American Physical Society. In their August 9 letter, Brown and Boucher request comments on changing the name of the National Science Foundation.

Portions of the Brown and Boucher letter, as well as portions of the August 31 response from Donald L. Langenberg, President of the APS, follow (using abbreviations):

BROWN AND BOUCHER LETTER:

“The authorization of appropriations for the NSF expires at the close of Fiscal Year 1993, and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is now drafting reauthorizing legislation for the next fiscal years. On May 20, the Science Subcommittee held hearings on the reauthorization of the Foundation. At those hearings the American Association of Engineering Societies recommended that the name of the NSF be changed to the National Science and Engineering Foundation and the name of the National Science Board be changed to the National Science and Engineering Board.

“We understand that there is not a clear consensus regarding this recommendation. As you know, in 1985 the Committee on Science and Technology proposed that the NSF Organic Act be amended to clarify that the Foundation is authorized and directed to “initiate and support research fundamental to the engineering process and programs to strengthen engineering research potential and engineering education programs at all levels in the various fields of engineering”. P.L. [public law] 99-159 incorporated this statement of policy and, in addition, inserted the word `engineering’ in the body of the Act each time the word `science’ was used.

“In light of the current policy expressed in P.L. 99-159, we would appreciate receiving the viewpoint of your organization regarding a name change for the Foundation and the Board, as well as the rationale for the positions which you support.”

LANGENBERG LETTER:

"...The American Physical Society is unequivocally opposed to the proposal to change the name for the National Science Foundation, or of the National Science Board.

“The Society’s Executive Board, speaking on behalf of its 43,000 members, is unanimously opposed to the proposed name change, and I have no doubt that the full Council also would overwhelming oppose such a change, were there time to consult its members.

“The proposed change would inevitably lead to confusion. The NSF is widely identified with the support of long-range fundamental research. Any change in its name at this time would be interpreted as a major modification in that mission.

“ARPA and NIST have recently undergone name changes to reflect a redirection of their efforts. Both have undertaken major new engineering initiatives in support of American manufacturing. Such initiatives by the NSF would be duplicative and inappropriate.

“Indeed, the need for NSF support of long-term fundamental research has never been greater. The end of the Cold War, coupled with a world-wide economic slump, has wrought a profound change in the nation’s research institutions: basic research at the great industrial laboratories, including IBM Watson and AT&T Bell Labs, has sharply declined; the DOE’s national laboratories have shifted toward interaction with manufacturers; there have been severe cuts in basic research at DOD Laboratories; the National Bureau of Standards, which was a major contributor to the dominance of basic science in the U.S. has been given a new mission--and a new name.

“Unless some balance is maintained between fundamental and applied research, the U.S. risks its long-term prospects in science and technology. In the physical sciences, the NSF is the only agency of the federal government with a clear responsibility for the health of long-term basic research.

“We recognize that there is a significant amount of engineering research currently funded by the NSF. The NSF also funds major programs in education. But a foundation uniquely responsible for the support of fundamental science should be named the National Science Foundation.”