Senate Committee Considers National Science Foundation Reauthorization
How should the National Science Foundation change to meet a changing world? That question was discussed at a March 23 hearing on the reauthorization of NSF by the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. The hearing was unusual in that Labor Committee chairman Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) shared chairing duties with Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), head of the Senate appropriations subcommittee for NSF. Mikulski remarked that it represented “a new era” of authorizers and appropriators working together.
In the wake of the Cold War, NSF has been caught up in a debate over the role of federally-funded research and its contribution to global economic competitiveness. Mikulski’s has been one of the most prominent voices calling for change, in particular with language in last year’s appropriations report requiring that 60 percent of NSF research be “strategic in nature” (see FYI #116, 1993). This hearing gave Mikulski an opportunity to clarify her views: She said that while many had interpreted the report language as a push for applied research, her intention was to encourage NSF to support more industrially-oriented basic research on strategic goals. She stressed that she did not want to “hamstring” NSF, and that any reauthorizing legislation had to allow NSF the flexibility and nimbleness to adapt to new times. Mikulski also repeated her suggestion (see FYI #20) to reorganize NSF more along the lines of the National Institutes of Health, divided into entities based on broad goals rather than disciplines.
NSF Director Neal Lane replied that he was expecting a report on the structure of NSF and planned discussions with the National Science Board this summer. He did add, however, that while he expected NSF to become more multi-dimensional, there was a rationale for organizing NSF around scientific disciplines. Although the reauthorizing legislation will be under discussion for several months, Mikulski cautioned him that “this train’s going to leave,” either with or without input by the Board.
To Mikulski’s approval, Lane reported that approximately three-fourths of the NSF budget increase requested for fiscal year 1995 would go toward research and education in strategic areas such as global change, high-performance computing, advanced materials, advanced manufacturing, biotechnology, and science/math education. When Kennedy asked how this fit with NSF’s mission to support basic research, Lane answered that all the areas of strategic national importance require an underpinning of basic research, and NSF would emphasize producing new knowledge in these areas. Lane said this was “fully consistent with the mission of NSF.”
This point of view was supported by Roland Schmitt, President emeritus of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, a National Science Board member, and a retired Senior Vice President of General Electric. Schmitt argued that there was a false dichotomy between basic research to produce new knowledge, and targeting research toward strategic goals. His written testimony states that “there is no conflict” if the scientific community recognizes that practical issues are “just as rich a source of inspiration for pioneering research as is the untrammeled curiosity of scientists.” Both Schmitt and John Bush, Vice President for R&D at Gillette, warned that with the downsizing of corporate research labs and tight university budgets, federally-funded research would become even more vital to U.S. competitiveness. Bush provided numerous examples of the importance of federally-funded basic research to the development of commercial products, and proposed incorporating the support of science itself as one of NSF’s strategic goals.
The reauthorizing legislation is an opportunity for Congress to redefine the mission of NSF, but in itself does not provide the necessary funds. That is the task of the appropriators. Mikulski, an appropriator, has strong views on the purpose and organization of NSF, and her committee holds the purse strings. Kennedy’s interests lie more in the area of NSF’s education programs, particularly the Statewide Systemic Initiative program to reform school systems. These competitively-awarded statewide grants have recently been complemented by funding for both urban and rural initiatives.
In the House, the corresponding legislation (H.R.3254) was marked up by the House science committee on March 23, and has been reported out of committee to the full House.
