National Science Policy Report
On September 24, the much-anticipated study by Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) on federal science policy was released on Capitol Hill before a standing-room-only crowd. The report, “Toward a New National Science Policy,” will serve, in the committee’s words, “as a guide in long-term development of America’s science policy.”
The report is more of a guide pointing to major goals, rather than directions on how to get there. This would be expected in a document of 74-pages on a topic as ambitious as science policy. Information was gathered from seven hearings, two round table discussions, 350 letters, and meetings attended by 10,000 scientists. Two or three staffers assisted Ehlers during this approximately one-year process that was given a budget of $150,000.
Ehlers described the unveiling ceremony as a commencement, since much work is yet to be done. In fact, the document is called an “interim report.” In describing his vision of a report outlining how science could enrich the lives of people, he touched on three themes: the shift of national needs from military to economic, the contribution of science to policy making, and the importance of strengthening and sustaining science in the United States.
House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) called the report a “document for visionaries,” and said it would be used as a basis for future oversight legislation. Rep. George Brown (D-CA) was more measured in his remarks, saying that the report “does not go as far or really as deep as I would have liked.” Brown called for a “much closer relationship between scientists and the political structure.”
Also attending this ceremony was House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA. He called the report “a very good start,” later saying that it only scratched the surface of a national dialogue that should be conducted over the next few years. Gingrich cited the importance of physics to biology, and, in turn, how findings could be related to social science issues. The Speaker was critical of math and science education, saying science was about discovery and not a memorization of fact. Coming under even greater attack was NASA, as Gingrich criticized the cost of space flight, the “absolute disaster” of Russian involvement in the space station, and saying the agency made “space as boring as possible.”
Following these and remarks by other speakers, Ehlers took questions. He hopes that the House will pass a resolution in support of the study, adding that he will be talking to senators. (The Senate Science and Technology Caucus sent a letter stating “we look forward to working with you toward shaping and implementing a bipartisan and bicameral national science policy - including a new funding strategy - for American’s R&D enterprise....”) Ehlers said the report “will serve as a basis for funding decisions to be made,” and when asked what he meant in calling for substantial funding, said science “needs more funding -- that’s what we mean by substantial.”
FYI #138 will provide the six and one-half page “Summary of Recommendations” from the report. The entire report can be accessed at http://www.house.gov/science/science_policy_report.htm
