Federal Role in Research Funding is “Irreplaceable”
“The very role that the federal government is most needed and best positioned to fill is perhaps the hardest to explain to the American people.” -- Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI)
Continuing to solicit input for his National Science Policy Study, Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) chaired an April 22 House Science Committee hearing on “The Irreplaceable Federal Role in Funding Basic Research.” All the participants agreed that R&D has contributed in a major way to the nation’s economic growth and standard of living, and that the federal government is the most important supporter of fundamental research. No one believed that if the federal government reduced its support, private industry would be able to pick up the slack. The absence of a federal role “would be a disaster for the economy...and the well-being of the country,” said George Conrades, President of GTE Internetworking.
According to Claude Barfield of the American Enterprise Institute, the contemporary federal role in R&D funding was articulated by Vannevar Bush in his famous 1945 report, “Science: The Endless Frontier.” It has provided guidance for federal support of science and technology ever since. However, Barfield explained, portions of Bush’s vision are flawed or obsolete. Bush’s linear description of the R&D process ignores its complexities, Barfield said, and basic research is viewed as driven purely by curiosity, not by real-world problems. The Bush policy was also designed for growing R&D budgets, but Michael Doyle of the Research Corporation warned that in the current era of fiscal constraints, researchers stick to projects that are “a sure thing,” and avoid risky but innovative research.
Georgia Research Alliance President William Todd, representing a collaboration among industry, academia, and state government in Georgia, emphasized how dependent the entire framework was on the federal role. It was “one of the great strengths of the system,” Barfield added, that federal funding of early-stage research enabled states to focus their efforts closer to the market. Conrades noted that it is the wide dissemination of publicly-funded research results across disciplines that often leads to unforseen practical applications that create industries, provide jobs, and fuel the economy. Several witnesses raised concerns about programs (such as ATP and CRADAs) that encourage licensing the results of federally-funded research.
Conrades is a member of the Committee for Economic Development, a group of business and academic leaders. The group has prepared a report, “America’s Basic Research: Prosperity through Discovery,” which will be released in June. Many of its findings and recommendations for federal R&D funding echo a 1995 National Academy of Sciences report (see FYIs #171, 172, 1995), with emphasis on supporting merit-based peer review, maintaining diverse funding mechanisms, broadening graduate education, and continuing participation in large-scale projects (including international collaborations). Direct federal funding of commercialization activities is discouraged unless the federal government is the main customer or the only source of funding for a technology with broad societal benefits.
Federal funding for basic research, Conrades concluded, is “an extremely productive use of taxpayer money,” and can be thought of as “low-cost insurance” for the nation.
