House Science Committee Examines Academy R&D Report
“If used well by policy makers in both the legislative and executive branches, the Press report will be a good tool for evaluating science policy. I want this report used as a starting point for the discussions we will have over the coming months.” --Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker
In November 1995, a National Academies panel chaired by Frank Press issued a report on “Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology” (see FYI #171, 172, 1995.) The subject, how to maximize the effectiveness of science funding in a time of budget constraints, is an important issue for Congress. On February 28, the House Science Committee invited Press and two of the report’s co-authors to testify on their recommendations. Science Committee Chair Robert Walker (R-PA) supported the report’s recommendation that the U.S. “achieve preeminence is a select number of fields and...perform at a world-class level in the other major fields,” but he added that “there will be no more blank checks...it is time for the science community to provide us with guidance and priorities.”
Press described as “the heart of our report” the proposal for a budget process that allows for both a unified view of the science budget, and its separation into department and agency budgets. “In this way,” he said, “Congress will be able to gauge the overall health of the enterprise, the accuracy of the overall funding, the manner in which it meets the nation’s needs, and understand the interrelationships and complexities among governmental programs.” He admitted that the report “has been both praised and criticized,” and attempted to clarify some of its recommendations.
Much discussion revolved around the report’s suggestion to separate the R&D funds that go to new science and technology from those funds (particularly in DOD and NASA) that support product demonstration and testing. Of the more than $70 billion annually considered as R&D spending, the report would define the $35-40 billion spent on new knowledge and enabling technologies as the Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) budget. While critics such as Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) complained that this separation would make S&T funding a political target for budget-cutters, Press explained that it was the only way to accurately compare U.S. spending with its major competitors. “To claim the country spends $70 billion on R&D is false,” he said, and “not adequate to describe how well we do compared to other countries.” Press also cast doubt on the accuracy of using percentage of Gross Domestic Product for comparison.
Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA) and others questioned the report’s recommendations that the national labs remain tightly focused on agency missions and that science funding should “generally favor” academic institutions over other performers. Rep. Steven Schiff (R-NM), whose state contains two national laboratories, said, “I don’t want it to become a contest” between labs and universities. Press responded that the report was not intended to be critical of national labs and that they were “an essential component” of the nation’s science enterprise, with strengths that were complementary to universities’. However, the Academy panel had believed it important to emphasize the importance of universities’ flexibility and their role in linking education and research.
Brown also expressed disappointment in the report’s skepticism of a federal role in technology development. The report finds that a federal role is appropriate when a government mission is involved or the government is the only available supporter of broadly important technologies, Press explained, noting that this recommendation was “hardly restrictive.” He called for the effectiveness of such programs to be compared to that of other federal R&D investments.
Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) asked whether the goal of achieving preeminence or world-class status in all major fields of science could be accomplished with a one-third decrease in R&D funding over the next seven years, which the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has projected to be the result of Congress’s 1996 budget resolution. “The answer is no,” Press replied unequivocally. To the frustration of many Members, he refused to name an appropriate level of funding, but said the report “outlined a process to estimate...better than before” what that amount should be. While he admitted that “the outyear projections of both parties don’t look overly optimistic,” Press added that in light of the actual appropriations bills passed since, “AAAS may be backing off of that projection.” Walker, a strong backer of the budget resolution, replied, “I’m delighted to hear” that news.
FYI #36 will contain testimony on the Academy report provided to the House Science Committee by the American Physical Society.
