AAAS Colloquium: The National R&D Enterprise
How does the compact for R&D funding between the federal government and the scientific community need to change to meet the requirements of the post-Cold War era? This topic was discussed at the annual American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) R&D Colloquium, held in Washington, D.C. on April 6-8. Recently, two influential Members of Congress have been at the forefront of this debate; Rep. George Brown (D-California) has initiated a reevaluation of the premises upon which federal R&D support is based, and Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) has challenged the funding priorities of the National Science Foundation.
Speakers on the AAAS panel argued that the model by which the federal government funds R&D is flawed, the vocabulary used in the debate is too limited, and Congress is poorly-equipped to handle issues of national priorities for R&D. Donald Stokes, of Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, claimed that the linear model of basic research leading through applied research to development and commercialization of a technology, which underlies post-World War II science policies, is an incomplete account of the actual relationship between scientific research and technological innovation. It ignores feedback from technology to scientific research, and does not recognize the critical role of “use-inspired basic science,” which, while expanding fundamental knowledge, is targeted toward practical ends. While strongly commending the role of purely curiosity-driven basic research, Stokes cited Pasteur, Faraday, Kelvin and Langmuir as examples of how important discoveries resulted from research inspired by practical ends.
John Armstrong, retired Vice President of IBM for Science and Technology, agreed that the current debate is too one-dimensional. He pointed out that strategic research, targeted toward solving national challenges, could be either basic or applied. Concurring with Stokes, he argued for continued support of “understanding-only-driven,” or purely basic, research. Armstrong said that, if a country has the necessary skills and investments, then the country’s world leadership in basic research will confer a competitive advantage. He called it “the height of folly” to withdraw from federal support of basic research, noting that it is not always possible to predict what areas of science will be relevant to national objectives. This claim was supported by Philip Griffiths, Director of Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study and Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences’ Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy (COSEPUP). Griffiths agreed that it is to a country’s advantage to be at least “among the world leaders” in all areas of science, in order to be positioned to take advantage of scientific breakthroughs in any field.
David Robinson, Executive Director of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government, explained why Congress has difficulty dealing with broad national priorities in science funding: The congressional committee structure and budget process are “not well-suited to handle” long-term investments and coherent policies that cut across federal agencies. The recommendations he gave included reforming the committee structure and appropriations subcommittee jurisdictions, establishing a two-year budget cycle, and enforcing the separate responsibilities of authorizing and appropriating committees.
