The Other Shoe Drops: Senate Appropriations Report Language on NSF
“Not less than 60 percent of the agency’s annual program research activities should be strategic in nature.” -- Senate Report 103-137
An important component of the annual appropriations process is the committee report accompanying a bill. Last week, Senator Barbara Mikulski’s (D-Maryland) Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies submitted a report outlining its recommendations for the National Science Foundation. If implemented, the recommendations set forth in this report would have a very important bearing on the future of the NSF.
Following Senate floor passage of H.R. 2491, the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, a conference will be held between members of the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees. At that time, final conference report language will be adopted for NSF. This language, while not having the force of law, is “the next best thing,” and is ignored only at peril.
Below, in total, is the section entitled “The Future of the NSF,” taken from Senate Report 103-137, pp. 166-169.
THE FUTURE OF THE NSF
The Committee believes that the National Science Foundation is at a crossroads in its future. Either the Foundation will evolve as envisioned by the Commission on the Future of the NSF, commonly known as the Massey Commission, or it will drift in a direction that moves it further and further from broad national interests in science and technology. In short, the Foundation can be at the heart of helping to shape the administration’s science and technology policy in pursuit of specific national goals, or it can diminish into becoming nothing more than a national endowment for science.
The conference report accompanying last year’s NSF appropriations (H. Rept. 102-902) made clear the Committee’s concern about the future direction of the Nation’s science and technology policy. Its concern was based upon a report of the National Science Board titled, “The Competitive Strength of U.S. Industrial Science and Technology: Strategic Issues.” This report outlined a sober assessment of the condition of the U.S. competitive position. It found that our Nation spends too few dollars on research and development in industrial science and technology; does not allocate R&D expenditures well; and does not utilize the R&D investments that are made well.
The Massey Commission raised the Committee’s hopes that the Foundation and the Nation’s scientific community had made the strategic turn that is needed to engage our country’s basic research enterprise to focus more clearly on the transfer of knowledge and technology for broader national goals and objectives. During the Presidential transition, however, with the departure of the Director , the Foundation and the Science Board have given mixed signals whether the bold vision forward to which the Massey Commission sought to pull science will continue. Even the recent National Academy report, “Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era,” seems to suggest that performance milestones, greater accountability, and an ability to provide a strategic focus on basic research must occur if science is to be a full partner in helping the United States regain its competitive edge. As the Academy stated: “Despite the increasing internationalization of science and technology, the linkages between a nation’s internal scientific and technological capabilities and its well-being will continue to be strong. The countries that best integrate the generation of new knowledge with the use of that knowledge will be positioned to be the leaders of the 21st century.” The National Science Foundation, by virtue of its strong links to our university research base and State governments, is uniquely situated to help the United States pursue the goals highlighted by the Academy.
It is time for the Foundation to move beyond rhetorical statements about the value of strategic research or the importance of using science for the transfer of knowledge and technology. That, in the Committee’s view, is a fact of life and political reality. Instead, it is now the time for the Foundation to move to identify that which is specific, immediate, and realizable in pursuit of this broader mission. The agency must spell out how much of its mission should clearly be strategic and applied in nature, and then to implement these parameters through its budget process. Just as the Committee is insisting that the Office of Science and Technology Policy set specific performance milestones for Federal critical technology programs, so too must the NSF. This must be done directorate by directorate. If the NSF and its constituent members choose not to do this, future Federal R&D budgets should instead be allocated more generously to agencies such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NASA, the national energy labs, or the National Institutes of Health, all of whom seem poised to pursue critical technologies with entrepreneurial vigor and enthusiasm.
Such a transition, as painful and as difficult as it might prove for some in the scientific community, is as necessary and vital for the future of the Nation as was Vannevar Bush’s revolutionary vision for this community more than 40 years ago. Rather than seeing this challenge as a threat to the status quo, the academic research community should see it as perhaps the last, best chance to seize the opportunity to be an integral part of the solution to the scientific and technological problems our country and its economy now confront. Science is fundamentally about pursuing new ideas and new ways of thinking. This era of change is in that spirit, and is about the renewal of science rather than its diminution.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Foundation to revise its strategic plan, for submission by the time the President’s fiscal year 1995 budget is submitted to the Congress, in the following manner:
-To specify, with particularity, in each NSF program directorate and in each initiative that is part of the FCCSET interagency process, annual, quantifiable performance milestones. These milestones should include a vigorous evaluation component that guarantees that programs which begin can be terminated if they lose their effectiveness or are displaced by higher priority initiatives. These milestones should also specify the degree of industrial participation in each of the NSF components of these initiatives and the justification for whatever threshold is proposed. They should also provide the basis for a vigorous evaluation that will ensure an increased ability to determine overall program effectiveness and assist in determining relative priorities in times of funding constraints. As a prelude to this revised strategic plan, the 1994 operating plan should employ this process.
-To outline the balance between strategic research objectives and other, more generic research, in the budget process. Not less than 60 percent of the agency’s annual program research activities should be strategic in nature. The Foundation should make clear how it specifically defines each area so as not to shroud curiosity driven activities under the rubric of strategic activities. The multiyear budget submission should outline how this balance will be effected, again with particularity. In addition, the NSF and the Science Board should outline a plan for increasing the scientific community’s understanding of the vital need for this balance to exist.
-To establish a new and bold program that addresses lingering problems with the academic research infrastructure in the United States. Research facility and instrumentation backlogs at the Nation’s colleges and universities are staggering. Refurbishing these facilities will bolster the research enterprise, while creating jobs in the construction and manufacturing sectors. This infrastructure program should constitute a large proportion of the Foundation’s annual budget.
-To create new initiatives that systematically link State-based and State-operated science and technology programs in a formal partnership with the Foundation. Such activities exist throughout the agency now. This new step would strengthen these relationships, expecting cost sharing from State governments and even the private sector where appropriate.
-To review the status and funding of all existing NSF supported research centers to determine what level of industry involvement is viable, and then to establish private sector participation thresholds for each category of NSF center. The Committee believes that by not dictating a floor for such participation, it has given the agency sufficient flexibility to develop an initial proposal for the Committee’s review and comment. This review should be inclusive of all categories of NSF research centers. The Committee has included a review by the National Academy of Public Administration as part of this effort.
-To evaluate the structure, composition, and role of the National Science Board, including future mandatory industrial memberships, given the changes in the new world order. This action is taken without prejudice for the current or past members of the Board, to whom the Committee is grateful for their public service. Nor is it a desire for some sort of dismissal for the existing Board. Instead, it is done with the recognition that the forces shaping the science and technology enterprise have changed, and changed dramatically, and that the composition of the Board may have to shift as well. Therefore, broadening the Board’s membership and responsibilities should be considered.
-To outline in the annual budget justification submission, the particular, incremental milestones for individual programs and activities.
-Finally, to outline clear and detailed working relationships with other Federal agencies like NIST, NIH, NASA, EPA, the Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Departments of Education and Energy. These plans should be more than descriptive documents that outline broad principles that are the basis for a memorandum of understanding. Instead, they should articulate clear role differentiation and collaboration on strategic research and education activities, with expectations for multiyear goals and outcomes included therein on as specific a program level as is possible. For example, the Foundation should provide a detailed action agenda for math and science education teacher retraining which shows how all NSF and Department of Education programs compliment each other, and working toward measurable, annual milestones.
