Recent Developments: National Science Foundation, B-Factory Selection
Besides the completion of the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations conference report this week, there have been several other significant developments in Washington. They include:
NEAL LANE NOMINATION APPROVED: Earlier this week, the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee unanimously approved the nomination of Neal Lane as the new director of the National Science Foundation. Lane did not appear at the hearing. Last night, the full Senate approved the nomination. Lane is expected to be sworn in next week at NSF headquarters.
SLAC RECEIVES B-FACTORY: On October 4, President Clinton announced the selection of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center for the construction of a “B-factory.” DOE Secretary Hazel O’Leary stated, “I have selected Stanford because the Department of Energy has a much higher margin of confidence in the ability of the Stanford proposal to meet the project’s extremely high performance requirements, as well as to meet its proposed cost and schedule.” The facility will cost $170 million, and could become operational in 1998. A future issue of FYI will provide further information on this selection.
AGU OPPOSES CHANGE IN NSF NAME TO INCLUDE “ENGINEERING": On October 6, A.F. Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union, wrote a letter to House science committee chairman George Brown and subcommittee chairman Rick Boucher. In his letter, Spilhaus stated, “Changing the name of the National Science Foundation violates the spirit of the support of basic research that is still NSF’s primary mandate.” Spilhaus continued that on May 27, 1993, the Council of the AGU adopted the following statement: “The National Science Foundation currently is authorized and directed to initiate and support basic scientific research and programs to strengthen scientific research potential and science education at all levels. All technical progress is built upon basic scientific research. Development of technology resulting from that basic science and transfer of that technology to industry are also vitally important to the United States but are the role of other agencies and the private sector rather than the NSF. The role of NSF in technology development and transfer should not be broadened, even if funds are added to NSF’s budget. Such an expansion could erode NSF’s vital mission of initiating and supporting basic research.”
SCIENCE SUBCOMMITTEE DRAFTS NSF REAUTHORIZATION BILL: On October 6, the House Subcommittee on Science completed work on an NSF reauthorization bill. During the brief hearing emphasis was given to academic infrastructure, a more sharply defined mission for NSF, and international scientific cooperation. Although this is important legislation for the NSF, it is being considered too late in the year to affect the appropriations process. The bill covers fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996, and authorizes funding at the administration’s request. This bill does not change the name of the NSF.
