NAS Report Provides Advice on Federal Science Policy
As most followers of science policy are aware, the principles by which the federal government has supported science and technology for the last 50 years have recently been called into question. In the light of changes in the world, such as the fall of the Soviet Empire, the rise of global economic competition, and the looming budget deficit, the linear model of pouring money into basic research and subsequently reaping technological advances no longer seems adequate.
Various entities in both government and the private sector have begun to revisit the federal government’s role in supporting science and technology, and the most recent effort is from a joint committee of the National Academy of Science (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine. Their 54-page report is entitled, “Science, Technology and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era.” The report was the subject of a June 22 hearing by the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space, at which outgoing NAS President Frank Press, and Phillip Griffiths, chairman of the joint committee that produced the report, presented their recommendations to subcommittee chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia.) Press, speaking on the last day of his 12-year tenure as president of the academy, said the report “may be one of the most important things we’ve done over the years.”
The report looks at both scientific research and technology development, and proposes goals to help define the appropriate federal role in each area. For science, a mechanism is suggested for assessing the adequacy of funding levels in each discipline. For technology development, however, the report treads more hesitantly. “We do not attempt, in this document,” the committee states, “to provide a detailed prescription for executing a federal technology policy.” Many of the committee’s recommendations are actions that the federal government has already initiated, beginning in the previous administration.
In basic science, two goals are advocated. The first “is that the United States should be AMONG the world leaders in all major areas of science” (emphasis added.) According to Griffiths, this would position the US to “take advantage of breakthroughs” no matter where they were discovered, without requiring the fiscal commitment necessary to lead in each field. In fact, the committee “believes that these goals can be met within the existing overall federal R&D budget.”
The comparative position of the US in a discipline would supposedly be determined by an expert panel made up of U.S. and foreign researchers in the field, individuals in closely related fields, and users of the research. Measures would be both quantitative-- citation counts, capabilities of facilities and equipment-- and qualitative. The committee envisions that this comparative ranking would show which areas need an injection of funds, and which are healthy enough to survive some funding reductions. Thus, funds could be reallocated from a highly successful field to one less successful. Within a field, projects deserving funding would still be determined by peer review.
In some fields, such as health care and environmental technologies, it may be to the nation’s advantage to progress as rapidly as possible. In such fields, the committee recommends as its second goal, “the United States should maintain clear leadership in some major areas of science . . . based on national objectives and other criteria external to the field of research.”
Using the space station program as an example, Rockefeller pointed out the difficulties inherent in reaching a consensus on national objectives. But he admitted, “That’s not your job; that’s my job.”
While the committee sees a strong federal role in the support of basic science, Press noted that “technology is another matter.” The report states that “technological leadership in the commercial marketplace is the responsibility of the private sector.” It maintains that the government should primarily limit its role to creating “an environment in which technology can flourish” through its policies affecting such areas as investment, taxes, trade, and health and environmental regulations.
However, in commercially promising areas where R&D “may be too costly, lengthy, or risky for an individual company,” the report says, “a role for the federal government can make good sense,” and the government “should not allow technological backwardness to be the decisive factor in the loss or failure of important industries.” In these cases, the federal role should be determined by the following goal: “maintaining a leadership position in those technologies that promise to have a major and continuing impact on broad areas of industrial and economic performance.”
The report offers guidelines for identifying important technologies and suggests some actions the government can take to foster them, such as easing antitrust restrictions to allow cooperation on pre-competitive research; catalyzing consortia with government funds; or using procurement policies to “boost fledgling technologies.” The report also cites existing federal programs designed to “directly support commercially important research and technology development in universities or in industry:" NIST’s Advanced Technology Program, the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), and NSF’s Science and Technology Centers and Engineering Research Centers. Not addressed, however, is a mechanism for determining appropriate levels of federal funding.
The report is available from the NAS Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) at 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418; (202) 334-2424.
