Top Senate Aide Offers Views on Science Policy; NSF and NASA Funding Bill
Kevin F. Kelly, Clerk of the Senate VA, HUD Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, addressed last month’s AAAS Colloquium on Science and Technology Policy. Kelly is the top assistant to Chairman Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland). Prefacing his remarks that the views expressed were his own, his speech offered some insights on a subcommittee whose activities are largely conducted in private. Some of his comments follow:
Kelly began by describing a number of factors contributing to the “ferment” in science policy. Economic worries have replaced Cold War fears as the motivating force for science spending. He said that the Clinton Administration has a “love of science,” with technology viewed as the alchemy for our economy. Kelly cautioned that the large structural deficit drives many of the subcommittee’s decisions. Also cited was the “Perot phenomenon": the growing distrust of government and its programs, including questions about university indirect cost reimbursement.
Kelly discussed the balance between basic and applied research, saying that the government cannot abandon either. “Congress needs your input,” he continued, on the best model or strategy for future scientific and technology investments by the federal government. The government needs to do a better job of investing for the future, he said. Kelly spoke favorably of government-industry collaboration, and views the report produced by the Commission on the Future of the NSF as a watershed event. Kelly outlined a number of key elements in future science policy funding decisions. The first element is a strategic focus, including the proper balance between basic and “strategic research.” Kelly commended the FCCSET process, and said that it was here to stay. The second element is industry-university collaborations. When discussing this element, Kelly advocated taking a “tough, frank look” at the NSF centers. He wants to know how much money is being spent, and said that programs should have beginnings and ends. Third on Kelly’s list were performance standards, accountability, and evaluation. Congress, he said, needs a way to evaluate performance, citing the $600 million spent thus far on the High Performance Computing and Communications Program. He cautioned that without milestones to measure progress it will be “very tough to sustain funding” for such programs. The last element mentioned was interagency collaborations, something which is talked about but infrequently practiced.
Looking ahead to immediate concerns, Kelly said that “it’s going to be a very tough year,” continuing that NSF is “a very tough sell this year.” Commenting on Space Station Freedom, he said that any money saved from terminating the program would not go to other science and technology programs, but rather to VA hospitals, housing programs for the poor, and wastewater and drinking water programs. It is, Kelly noted, a “completely open question” whether Congress will support a redesigned space station.
