Gibbons Repudiates Republican Policies; Department of Science
The partisan controversy over setting science and technology policy in tight fiscal times welled up at the April 12-14 Colloquium on Science and Technology, sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Presidential Science Advisor John Gibbons, the keynote speaker, abandoned his usual equable demeanor to vigorously defend the Administration’s science policies and blast Republican plans to cut science and technology programs. Excerpts from his speech are highlighted below. "//" indicates that paragraphs have been combined for brevity.
“As I stand here today,...I can’t help but think a year ahead to what next year’s keynote speaker will be saying about the 1995 year-in-science. Will that speaker be able to say that 1995 was the year America ceded leadership in science and technology to foreign competitors, or that America retained and bolstered its lead?...// These are not idle questions. What has played out over the past 100 days in Congress for those who follow science policy is a clear dichotomy between some in Congress who desire to cut government at any cost, versus the Administration’s commitment to cutting the deficit while boosting overall productivity and investing in the future.”
”...despite [proposed] deep cuts in virtually every other domestic discretionary account, research funding actually has risen modestly -- a signal of the Administration’s commitment to science and technology as the engine of growth in jobs, the economy, and our quality of life. And basic research received the greatest percentage increase....// In this middle of the fiscal pain, the Administration has held fast to the principle of wise investment in science and technology - not because it’s a good thing politically,...but because it’s important and the President and Vice President believe in it.
“This kind of priority-setting - difficult as it is - represents the actions of deliberate and dedicated government, husbanding and making careful, multiple use of the resources for the future of our children and our grandchildren....// Crafting such a vision requires great care. It cannot be done by a Congress motivated solely by the desire to move dollar signs from one side of the ledger to another. It cannot be done in 100 days, or in 200 days, for that matter. It cannot be done by simple fiat or decree. It cannot be done by a Congress so weary it can’t see straight; so driven that it doesn’t even have time to read the material on which it is about to vote.
“It must not be done with a meat ax when the precision of a scalpel is necessary.// Yet the spectre of finishing the first session of the 104th Congress with S&T resources slashed by a meat ax is a real one. In their rush to cut government,...some Members have launched a wholesale attack on anything that isn’t nailed to the table -- including R&D, and especially the `D’ in R&D.// The cuts we’ve seen already are nothing compared to what they are thinking about doing: The Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Rep. [John] Kasich [R-Ohio], recently released an `illustrative list’ of cuts for next year’s budget, in which the toll for science and technology was a whopping $2.5 billion. Over the next five years, it’s targeting $13 billion.”
“Now, I don’t want to raise the false expectation that we in the Administration will be able to completely insulate science and technology from the real fiscal pressures that will drive the next decade of budget policy.... There will be cuts; R&D will have to take some of them. But the cuts should be judicious and managed, not across-the-board salvos that wreak havoc throughout the research enterprise.// My hope is that wise heads in Congress will intervene.... But my fear is that history will record that extremists in Congress prevailed.”
“One of their preeminent proposals is the creation of a Department of Science....// Let me be very clear about one thing -- this Administration unequivocally opposes the creation of a Department of Science of the kind now being discussed in Congress....// ...the genius of U.S. science policy to date has been its recognition that pluralism of support and diversity of performers allows the crucial freedom of enquiry that unleashes the creative spirit of our world-class researchers and their students. The proposal to create a Department of Science flies in the face of this pluralism by instituting a command-and-control model of rigid bureaucracy.
“We are all in favor of making science more responsive to the needs of the Nation. But we believe the worst possible thing you can do to policy and associated missions is to divorce them from a science base.... Federal agencies depend on the feedback from research that is inextricably linked to their mission. There is no productive way to unhitch science and policy. Nor should we. The result will be poor science conducted in a vacuum and even poorer policy.”
“There is a good way to go about reform, and there is a bad way. I venture to say that each of you has been trained in the good way -- experiment, observe, and test your observations before implementing innovation across the system.// Is this the process that we’ve seen at work in the Congress over the past 100 days? It is not. Rather, we have seen dog-tired Members marching lockstep ahead with their eyes fixed only on the end of the 100 Days. Many of the changes wrought by the House were passed without the benefit of a single hearing, or at best with a minimal legislative record....// There is no hard evidence and there are no compelling data to support abandoning our historic commitment to science and technology. Rather, at times this Congress seems to run screaming from anything that looks like research or credible data...even opting to eliminate their only bipartisan and bicameral resource for S&T analysis, the Office of Technology Assessment.”
“Science and technology programs in the 104th Congress are the legislative equivalents of endangered species. In Congress’ rush to slash government and lower taxes, we are in danger of losing the very excellence in technology that has made our country the envy of the world.”
