Debate Over Technology Programs Continues Into August Recess
The science-policy community remains active during what is usually a quiet period of August, discussing the ramifications for science and technology of recent actions by Congress. Representatives from industry, professional associations, and academia gathered together on August 16 to share concerns over the fate of the Administration’s technology partnership programs and hear from government officials. The joint meeting of two science-policy groups, the Science and Technology Working Group and the Coalition for Technology Partnerships, was motivated by the congressional majority’s intent to eliminate programs in which the federal government collaborates with industry to encourage development of new technologies.
The Administration’s main technology partnership programs are NIST’s Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which leverages technology development where the benefits would spread across an entire industry; the Technology Reinvestment Project, run by the Department of Defense to encourage the development of dual-use technologies; and the Department of Energy’s Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs). Much of the discussion focused on defending these programs against charges of being “corporate welfare.” According to Kathleen Kingscott, Science and Technology Policy Director for IBM, the partnerships are competitively awarded, require cost-sharing from industry, and do not induce dependence on federal funding. Alexander MacLachlan, DOE’s Deputy Under Secretary for Technology Partnerships, called the characterization of the partnerships as subsidies or corporate welfare “childish” and “insulting.” He argued that both the companies and the federal agency involved gain enormously from the collaborations, which help further the agency’s mission in a way that makes the best use of the resources and know-how of both partners. Dick Thornburgh reported that his experience as former Governor of Pennsylvania made him a “true believer” in the ability of government-industry partnerships, such as his state’s Ben Franklin program, to improve economic growth.
Arati Prabhakar, Director of NIST, said the debate was not over whether the programs delivered value, but whether partnering was an appropriate role for the government. She reported that she has talked to many Republican Members of Congress who are “eager to see the partnerships work.” She called it “a very valuable development” that the Senate Commerce Committee, chaired by Larry Pressler (R-SD), has reauthorized all of NIST’s programs, including ATP (see FYI #116.) According to Prabhakar, Pressler intends to express his support for the agency’s programs in a letter to Phil Gramm (R-TX), chairman of the appropriations subcommittee for NIST and the rest of the Department of Commerce.
MacLachlan warned of the “urgency” of supporting the technology programs. The Commerce Appropriations bill will be taken up by the Senate when it returns in September, and the Energy and Water Development bill, which funds DOE, is ready to go to conference, to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions.
