PCAST Reviews Accomplishments, Looks to Future
The President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) met on October 23-24 to take stock of their activities in light of the current budget situation and its implications for science and technology. The committee reviewed its progress on a number of fronts, and considered issues to focus on for its remaining tenure.
In the past year, PCAST panels have studied a number of issues; current efforts include the effects of a changing health care system on biomedical research, international efforts on sustainable development, the use of educational technologies, and the role of the scientific community in preventing deadly conflict. Communicating science to the public was considered as another possible topic, but it was decided that the effort was too vast for limited PCAST resources. The committee agreed instead to support existing programs, such as those of AAAS, to enhance the understanding of science.
Another PCAST task force examined state-federal technology partnerships. Gary Bachula of the Commerce Department reported that 49 states have technology partnership programs, and recognize their value to the economy, jobs, and productivity, without the ideological debates raging on Capitol Hill. He noted that while Congress has taken aim at NIST’s Advanced Technology Program, a companion program, the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships, fared better because it had “a built-in constituency in the states.”
The committee received an overview of the recent report on Human Radiation Experiments (see FYI #148), and the resulting establishment of a National Bioethics Advisory Commission. PCAST members were also apprised of a review of the major federal laboratory complexes, and the Administration’s renewed commitment to the DOE weapons labs and science-based stewardship of the nuclear weapons stockpile (see FYI #133). Budget Director Alice Rivlin gave the committee a summary “from the budget wars.” She stressed the Administration’s theme that one of the differences between the congressional and executive budget-balancing plans is the amount of investment maintained in science, technology and education. Rivlin expressed hope that some money could be shifted from DOD funding (for which Congress provided $7 billion more than the Administration requested) to other priorities.
Committee members inquired about the “reinventing government” initiative, and remarked that while some agencies were moving rapidly to streamline management (NASA was specifically commended), others continued to resist change or prolong studies of the issue. Rivlin pointed out that NASA Administrator Dan Goldin “had a lot of room to be a star” because he was working with a very redundant system. The next most likely place for management improvements, she said, was the national labs. She reported that plans were currently underway to consolidate, reduce redundancies, and privatize some labs “where appropriate.” Committee members cited NSF as an example of minimal bureaucracy, where most of the funds flowed directly to individual investigators.
Rivlin also reported that Congress would probably send its reconciliation bill to the President within two weeks, and that he would veto it if not dramatically changed. Lionel Johns of OSTP mentioned that the House-passed Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act, H.R. 2405 (see FYI #150), might be incorporated into the reconciliation package. It was noted that in the White House’s response to the bill (see FYI #144), the portion relating to U.S. participation in Europe’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) had been interpreted by some within the physics community as Administration opposition to the project. Gerry Garvey of OSTP assured the committee that the Administration supported participation in the LHC, but opposed the bill language dictating negotiating terms.
The discussion then turned to the health of the U.S. academic research enterprise, and the question of how PCAST might address this issue. Committee members Charles Vest (president of MIT) and Judith Rodin (president of the University of Pennsylvania) raised a number of topical factors affecting research universities, including new fields competing for research dollars; erosion of federal funding; the appropriate number of research institutions; the costs of R&D and measures of accountability; the numbers of graduates produced, foreign students supported, and underrepresented groups participating; the appropriateness of core curricula and graduate training for the job market; and renewal of infrastructure and major research facilities.
The committee discussed how higher education will look in the future, when technologies will enable greater emphasis on long-distance education and lifelong learning. Rodin foresaw more long-distance, networked collaborations among universities as tight budgets forced cuts in departments and courses. “If our role is to advise the President on science and technology,” Norman Augustine of Lockheed Martin asserted, “I can hardly think of a more important issue than the health of universities.” The committee decided that, before their next meeting, a subgroup led by Rodin and Vest would review the 1992 PCAST report on research universities (see FYI #7, 1993), and plan to update it based on more recent studies and current budget realities.
The next PCAST meeting is scheduled for the end of March, 1996.
