National Science Policy Report: Summary of Recommendations

The following selection is the “Summary of Recommendations” from the House Science Committee study entitled, “Toward a New National Science Policy.” The 74-page study, issued on September 24, 1998, is intended to serve, according to the committee, “as a guide in long-term development of America’s science policy.” The summary is 3,000 words. The entire document can be found at http://www.house.gov/science/science_policy_report.htm ; The summary weaves together the 40 recommendations found throughout the report. These recommendations are marked, for purposes of this FYI, with < >. The entire summary appears below: “Summary of Recommendations “New ideas form the foundation of the research enterprise. It is in our interests for the Nation’s scientists to continue pursuing fundamental, ground-breaking research. Our experience with 50 years of government investment in basic research has demonstrated the economic benefits of this investment. <To maintain our Nation’s economic strength and international competitiveness, Congress should make stable and substantial federal funding for fundamental scientific research a high priority.> “Notwithstanding the short-term projections of budget surpluses, the resources of the federal government are limited. This reality requires setting priorities for spending on science and engineering. <Because the federal government has an irreplaceable role in funding basic research, priority for federal funding should be placed on fundamental research.> “The primary channel by which the government stimulates knowledge-driven basic research is through research grants made to individual scientists and engineers. Direct funding of the individual researcher must continue to be a major component of the federal government’s research investment. <The federal government should continue to administer research grants that include funds for indirect costs and use a peer-reviewed selection process, to individual investigators.> However, if limited funding and intense competition for grants causes researchers to seek funding only for “safe” research, the R&D enterprise as a whole will suffer. <Because innovation and creativity are essential to basic research, the federal government should consider allocating a certain fraction of these grant monies specifically for creative, ground breaking research.> “The practice of science is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, and scientific progress in one discipline is often propelled by advances in other, seemingly unrelated, fields. <It is important that the federal government fund basic research in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines, mathematics, and engineering, and resist concentrating funds in a particular area.> “Much of the research funded by the federal government is related to the mission of the agency or department that sponsors it. Although this research is typically basic in nature, it is nevertheless performed with overriding agency goals in mind. <In general, research and development in federal agencies, departments, and the national laboratories should be highly relevant to, and tightly focused on, agency or department missions.> “The national laboratories are a unique national resource within the research enterprise, but there are concerns that they are neither effective nor efficient in pursuing their missions. A new type of management structure for the federal labs may provide one solution and deserves exploration. <To that end, a national laboratory not involved in defense missions should be selected to participate in a corporatization demonstration program in which a private contractor takes over day-to-day operations of the lab.> “We also have the obligation to ensure that the money spent on basic research is invested well and that those who spend the taxpayers’ money are accountable. The Government Performance and Results Act was designed to provide such accountability. <Government agencies or laboratories pursuing mission-oriented research should employ the Results Act as a tool for setting priorities and getting the most out of their research programs. Moreover, in implementing the Results Act, grant-awarding agencies should define success in the aggregate, perhaps by using a research portfolio concept.> “Partnerships in the research enterprise can be a valuable means of getting the most out of the federal government’s investment. Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs) are an effective form of partnership that leverages federal research funding and allows rapid commercialization of federal research. <When the research effort involved in a CRADA fulfills a legitimate mission requirement or research need of the federal agency or national Jab, these partnerships should be encouraged and facilitated.> Partnerships between university researchers and industries also have become more prevalent as a way for universities to leverage federal money and industries to capture research results without building up in-house expertise. <University-industry partnerships should, therefore, be encouraged so Jong as the independence of the institutions and their different missions are respected.> “International scientific collaborations form another important aspect of the research enterprise. While most international collaborations occur between individuals or laboratories, the U.S. participates in a number of large-scale collaborations where the costs of large scale science projects can be shared among the participants. <In general, U.S. participation in international science projects should be in the national interest. The U.S. should enter into international projects when it reduces the cost of science projects we would likely pursue unilaterally or would not pursue otherwise.> Our experience with international collaborations has not been uniformly successful, as our participation in Mir and the International Space Station demonstrate. <Therefore, a clear set of criteria for U.S. entry into, participation in, and exit from an international scientific project should be developed.> “Large-scale international projects often take place over many years, requiring stable funding over Jong periods. The annual appropriations cycle in Congress can lead to instability in the funding stream for these projects, affecting our ability to participate. <The importance of stability of funding for large-scale, well-defined international science projects should be stressed in the budget resolution and appropriations processes.> “It is also important that international science projects not appear to be simply foreign aid in the guise of research. <To that end, when the U.S. is a major contributor of funds to projects with international participation, funding priority must be placed on the U.S.-based components.> “America’s pre-eminent position in the world suggests new roles for U.S. science policy in the international arena. To take advantage of these opportunities, the State Department must broaden its scientific staff expertise to help formulate scientific agreements that are in America’s interest. The evidence suggests that the State Department is not fulfilling this role. <Mechanisms that promote coordination between various Executive branch Departments for international scientific projects must be developed. The State Department should strengthen its contingent of science advisors within its Bureau of Oceans and International, Environmental, and Scientific Affairs and draw on expertise in other agencies.> “A private sector capable of translating scientific discoveries into products, advances and other developments must be an active participant in the overall science enterprise. However, there is concern that companies are focusing their research efforts on technologies that are closest to market instead of on mid-level research requiring a more substantial investment. <Capitalization of new technology based companies, especially those that are focused on more long-term, basic research, should be encouraged. In addition, the R&D tax credit should be extended permanently, and needlessly onerous regulations that inhibit corporate research should be eliminated.> “Partnerships meant to bring about technology development also are important. Well-structured university-industry partnerships can create symbiotic relationships rewarding to both parties. <These interactions and collaborations, which may or may not involve formal partnerships, are a critical element in the technology transfer process and should be encouraged.> “Partnerships that tie together the efforts of State governments, industries, and academia also show great promise in stimulating research and economic development. Indeed, States appear far better suited than the federal government to foster economic development through technology-based industry. <As the principal beneficiaries, the States should be encouraged to play a greater role in promoting the development of high-tech industries, both through their support of colleges and research universities and through interactions between these institutions and the private sector.> “The university community, too, has a role in improving research capabilities throughout its ranks, especially in states or regions trying to attract more federal R&D funding and high-tech industries. <Major research universities should cultivate working relationships with less well-established research universities and technical colleges in research areas where there is mutual interest and expertise and consider submitting, where appropriate, joint grant proposals. Less research-intensive colleges and universities should consider developing scientific or technological expertise in niche areas that complement local expertise and contribute to local economic development strategies.> “To exploit the advances made in government laboratories and universities, companies must keep abreast of these developments. The RAND Corporation’s RaDiUS database and the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database serve useful purposes in disseminating information. <Consider expanding RaDiUS and PubMed databases to make them both comprehensive and as widely available as possible.> “Intellectual property protections are critical to stimulating the private sector to develop scientific and engineering discoveries for the market. The Bayh-Dole Act of I 980, which granted the licensing rights of new technologies to the researchers who discover them, has served both the university and commercial sectors reasonably well. <A review of intellectual property issues may be necessary to ensure that an acceptable balance is struck between stimulating the development of scientific research into marketable technologies and maintaining effective dissemination of research results.> “While the federal government may, in certain circumstances, fund applied research, there is a risk that using federal funds to bridge the mid-level research gap could lead to unwarranted market interventions and less funding for basic research. It is important, therefore, for companies to realize the contribution investments in mid-level research can make to their competitiveness. <The private sector must recognize and take responsibility for the performance of research. The federal government may consider supplementary funding for private-sector research projects when the research is in the national interest. Congress should develop clear criteria. including peer review, to be used in determining which projects warrant federal funding.> “Science and engineering also provide the basis for making decisions as a society, as corporations and as individuals. Science can inform policy issues, but it cannot decide them. In many cases science simply does not have the answer, or provides answers with varying degrees of uncertainty. If science is to inform policy, we must commit sufficient resources to get the answers regulators need to make good decisions. <At the earliest possible stages of the regulatory process, Congress and the Executive branch must work together to identify future issues that will require scientific analysis. Sufficient funding to carry out these research agendas must be provided and should not be overly concentrated in regulatory agencies.> “For science to play any real role in legal and policy decisions, the scientists performing the research need to be seen as honest brokers. One simple but important step in facilitating an atmosphere of trust between the scientific and the legal and regulatory communities is for scientists and engineers to engage in open disclosure regarding their professional background, affiliations and their means of support. <Scientists and engineers should be required to divulge their credentials, provide a resume, and indicate their funding sources and affiliations when formally offering expert advice to decision-makers.> The scientific opinions these experts offer also should stand up to challenges from the scientific community. <To ensure that decision-makers are getting sound analysis, all federal government agencies pursuing scientific research, particularly regulatory agencies, should develop and use standardized peer review procedures.> “Peer review constitutes the beginning, not the end, of the scientific process, as disagreement over peer-reviewed conclusions and data stimulate debates that are an integral part of the process of science. Eventually, scientists generate enough new data to bring light to previously uncertain findings. <Decision-makers must recognize that uncertainty is a fundamental aspect of the scientific process. Regulatory decisions made in the context of rapidly changing areas of inquiry should be re-evaluated at appropriate times.> “Aside from being based on a sound scientific foundation, regulatory decisions must also make practical sense. The importance of risk assessment has too often been overlooked in making policy. We must accept that we cannot reduce every risk in our lives to zero and must learn to deploy limited resources to the greatest effect. <Comprehensive risk analysis should be standard practice in regulatory agencies. Moreover, a greater effort should be made to communicate various risks to the public in understandable terms, perhaps by using comparisons that place risks in the context of other, more recognizable ones.> “The judicial branch of government increasingly requires access to sound scientific advice. Scientific discourse in a trial is usually highly contentious, but federal judges have recently been given the authority to act as gatekeepers to exclude unreliable science from the courtroom. More and more judges will seek out qualified scientists to assist them in addressing complex scientific questions. How these experts are selected promises to be an important step in the judicial process. <Efforts designed to identify highly qualified, impartial experts to provide advice to the courts for scientific and technical decisions must be encouraged.> “In Congress, science policy and funding remain scattered piecemeal over a broad range of committees and subcommittees. Similarly, in the Executive branch, science is spread out over numerous agencies and departments. These diffusive arrangements make effective oversight and timely decision making extremely difficult. <Wherever possible, Congressional committees considering scientific issues should consider holding joint hearings and perhaps even writing joint authorization bills.> “No factor is more important in maintaining a sound R&D enterprise than education. Yet, student performance on the recent Third International Math and Science Study highlights the shortcomings of current K-12 science and math education in the U.S. We must expect more from our Nation’s educators and students if we are to build on the accomplishments of previous generations. New modes of teaching math and science are required. <Curricula for all elementary and secondary years that are rigorous in content, emphasize the mastery of fundamental scientific and mathematical concepts as well as the modes of scientific inquiry, and encourage the natural curiosity of children must be developed.> “Perhaps as important, it is necessary that a sufficient quantity of teachers well-versed in math and science be available. <Programs that encourage recruitment of qualified math and science teachers, such as flexible credential programs, must be encouraged. In general, future math and science teachers should be expected to have had at least one college course in the type of science or math they teach, and, preferably, a minor. Ongoing professional development for existing teachers also is important.> Another disincentive to entry into the teaching profession for those with a technical degree is the relatively low salaries K-12 teaching jobs offer compared to alternative opportunities. <to attract qualified science and math teachers, salaries that make the profession competitive may need to be offered. School districts should consider merit pay or other incentives as a way to reward and retain good K-12 science and math teachers.> “The revolution in information technology has brought with it exciting opportunities for innovative advances in education and learning. As promising as these new technologies are, however, their haphazard application has the potential to adversely affect learning. <A greater fraction of the federal government’s spending on education should be spent on research programs aimed at improving curricula and increasing the effectiveness of science and math teaching.> “Graduate education in the sciences and engineering must strike a careful balance between continuing to produce the world’s premier scientists and engineers and offering enough flexibility so that students with other ambitions are not discouraged from embarking on further education in math, science, or engineering. <While continuing to train scientists and engineers of unsurpassed quality, higher education should also prepare students who plan to seek careers outside of academia by increasing flexibility in graduate training programs. Specifically, Ph.D. programs should allow students to pursue course work and gain relevant experience outside their specific area of research.> “The training of scientists and engineers in the U.S. occurs largely through an apprenticeship model in which a student learns how to perfom research through hands-on experience under the guidance of the student’s thesis advisor. A result of this link between education and research is that students and post-doctoral researchers are responsible for actually performing much of the federally-funded research done in universities. <Mechanisms for direct federal funding of post-docs are already relatively common. Expansion of these progran1s to include greater numbers of graduate students in math, science and engineering should be explored.> “Increased support for Masters programs would allow students to pursue an interest in science without making the long commitment to obtaining a Ph.D., and thus attract greater numbers of students to careers in science and technology. <More university science programs should institute specially-designed Masters of Science degree programs as an option for allowing graduate study that does not entail a commitment to the Ph.D.> “The length of time involved and the commensurate forfeiture of income and benefits in graduate training in the sciences and engineering is a clear disincentive to students deciding between graduate training in the sciences and other options. <Universities should be encouraged to put controls on the length of time spent in graduate school and post-doctoral study, and to recognize that they cannot attract talented young people without providing adequate compensation and benefits.> “Educating the general public about the benefits and grandeur of science is also needed to promote an informed citizenry and maintain support for science. Both journalists and scientists have responsibilities in communicating the achievements of science. However, the evidence suggests that the gap between scientists and journalists is wide and may be getting wider. Closing it will require that scientists and journalists gain a greater appreciation for how the other operates. <Universities should consider offering scientists, as part of their graduate training, the opportunity to take at least one course in journalism or communication. Journalism schools should also encourage journalists to take at least one course in scientific writing.> “As important as bridging the gap between scientists and the media is, there is no substitute for scientists speaking directly to people about their work. In part because science must compete for discretionary funding with disparate interests, engaging the public’s interest in science through direct interaction is crucial. All too often, however, scientists or engineers who decide to spend time talking to the media or the public pay a high price professionally, as such activities take precious time away from their work, and may thus imperil their ability to compete for grants or tenure. <Scientists and engineers should be encouraged to take time away from their research to educate the public about the nature and importance of their work. Those who do so, including tenure-track university researchers, should not be penalized by their employers or peers.> “The results of research sponsored by the Federal government also needs to be more readily available to the general public, both to inform them and to demonstrate that they are getting value for the money the government spends on research. <Government agencies have a responsibility to make the results of federally-funded research widely available. Plain English summaries of research describing its results and implications should be prepared and widely distributed, including posting on the Internet.>"