Changing Rationales for Science Funding Discussed
How have the circumstances for science funding changed in recent years, and what does the future hold? These questions have been the focus of two science policy reports in recent months: one by the National Academies (see FYIs #171, 172, 1995) and a new one by the Council on Competitiveness, which will be reviewed in the following FYI. On April 18, members of the science policy community gathered to contemplate these questions as part of a three-day colloquium on science and technology held annually by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
In a panel discussion entitled “Changing Rationales for Public Sector Support of R&D,” speakers cited a convergence of factors producing a fundamental change in R&D funding: the end of the Cold War and its associated national security justifications; the rise of global competition; and the prospect of continued budget constraints into the next century. The 1945 Vannevar Bush science policy document, “Science - The Endless Frontier,” has “run its course” said panelist Richard Nelson of Columbia University; a new paradigm is needed.
Nelson asserted that the Bush report had several shortcomings which were stifling current debate on science policy: the notions that the government should have no role in advanced civilian technologies, and that government-supported basic research should not be broadly targeted toward areas of human need. The speakers also agreed that Bush’s vision of a linear progression from government-sponsored basic research through applied research to private-sector commercial development had failings. It did not appropriately account for underinvestment by industry in areas - such as information - where there was a large “spillover” of societal benefit. While this is often considered a case of “market failure” and used as a justification for government involvement, economist Paul Romer of UC Berkeley pointed out that in times of tight budgets, the government could not intercede in every case. “Market failure alone is not a good guide to making choices,” he stated. Claude Barfield of the American Enterprise Institute worried that with “no clearly-defined set of guidelines” for federal investment, the government had no way of distinguishing among interest groups competing for funds.
The speakers predicted that R&D budgets would remain constrained for the foreseeable future. They concurred with Barfield that, until the growth of entitlement programs was brought under control, there would be “steady pressure on the discretionary part of the budget.” While not advocating complete elimination of government-industry cooperative programs, Barfield said that other government policies on taxes, antitrust, regulations, and intellectual property rights were important in encouraging a business climate conducive to industry investment in R&D. As yet, the panelists agreed, there is no clear answer to when the government should get involved and what programs are most effective.
The Council of Competitiveness report, “Endless Frontier, Limited Resources: U.S. R&D Policy for Competitiveness,” represents an attempt to develop a national consensus within the science policy community on the appropriate roles for the three major players in R&D: government, industry, and academia. A summary of the report will be provided in FYI #74.
