House Science Subcommittee Examines Role of NSF
“NSF’s primary obligation is to maintain the excellence and health of curiosity-driven research.” -NSB Chairman James Duderstadt
On March 3, the House Subcommittee on Science continued its examination of scientific research with the second in a series of hearings on “Renewing US Science Policy.” The subcommittee chairman, Rick Boucher (D-Virginia), in cooperation with full science committee chairman George Brown (D-California), plans further hearings throughout the year to look at the way science is funded, how it contributes to national needs, and whether a better method of priority-setting is necessary.
Wednesday’s hearing focused on the report by the National Science Board’s (NSB) Commission on the Future of the NSF, released last November. The issues raised by Boucher included: What is the appropriate balance between NSF’s support of curiosity-driven (basic) research and needs-driven (strategic or applied) research, and who should establish priorities? Does the NSF have effective partnerships with other government and private sectors? What level of funding is appropriate for individual investigator grants and facilities funding?
Witnesses included William Danforth, co-chairman of the NSB Commission, and James Duderstadt, NSB chairman, as well as members of other groups producing recent reports on US science policy. Boucher informed them that the committee would consider their testimony when it begins drafting NSF reauthorization legislation this year.
The NSB Commission, according to Duderstadt, “strongly reaffirms [NSF’s support of] curiosity-driven, peer-reviewed science.” The witnesses unanimously concurred with the Commission’s finding that, in general, the NSF’s traditional mission is appropriate, and the Foundation is performing it well. They recommended no major changes to the mission.
On the question of the balance between basic and applied research, it was argued that any priority-setting would only be useful within the context of a coherent national science policy. Duderstadt, along with Daniel Nathans, a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and John Wiley, a member of the National Academy of Sciences’ Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable, noted that separation of research into basic and applied categories was an arbitrary distinction. Wiley added, “the balance [in NSF programs] is a dynamic one that is remarkably responsive to national needs.” He cautioned that, “if calls for the NSF to support more applied research are asking the Foundation to pull in its time-horizon and tilt its research portfolio, . . . then I submit that the Foundation is being advised to make the same mistakes that have caused many of our industries to lose their competitive edge.”
Both Danforth and Wiley emphasized a passage from the NSB report that states: “Failures in the market place have not been the result of slow transfer of academic science to industry.” Several witnesses agreed that the production of well-trained scientists and engineers was the best way to transfer NSF-funded research into the private sector. Wiley stated that “whatever may be our second most important mode of technology transfer is so much less important than producing high-quality graduates that it is lost in the noise.” Brian Rushton, president of the Industrial Research Institute (IRI), reported that many of the 260 IRI member companies believed that the most important thing NSF and the academic community could do was to educate students. “Transferring knowledge to industry,” he said, “was considered of secondary importance.”
While most witnesses thought that the NSB could make a useful contribution to the development of a national science policy, they advocated a broad effort involving all federal R&D agencies and representatives from the private sector. It was suggested that the task be led by the President’s Science Advisor, with cooperation from agency heads in a process along the lines of the Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET) now in place.
There was general agreement that increased funding is desperately needed for academic facilities around the country, but the subcommittee was cautioned against shifting funds from NSF’s research budget to make up the shortfall in facilities funding. Nathans outlined the PCAST recommendation of a three-year catch-up program of university-matched, merit-based awards to improve facilities. Almost all of the witnesses remarked that if NSF was expected to take on new or greater responsibilities, it would need greater resources. It was also agreed that the average NSF grant size of $50,000 was probably not adequate, but there were few suggestions for where to get additional funds.
The discussion also touched on the recommendation by PCAST that universities eliminate weak departments or programs and focus on their strongest areas. Wiley and Carnegie Commission Task Force chairman Guyford Stever felt that universities were already tending to do this, and warned that downsizing should not be carried to extremes. Wiley pointed out that “a large number of disciplines intermingling on a daily basis” was necessary to promote interdisciplinary research.
This hearing, as did the NSB report, seems to pull back from the intention of outgoing NSF Director Walter Massey to take on more responsibility for applied research, and the recommendation of the Senate appropriations VA/HUD subcommittee that NSF make technology transfer a larger part of its mission. While acknowledging that NSF might benefit from better linkages with the private sector, the experts testifying on Wednesday generally agreed that the production and transfer of useful research will flow more naturally from NSF’s continuation of its traditional role: funding the best academic research, as determined by the scientific community.
