Rep. George Brown Speaks At AAAS Colloquium
The following remarks are excerpted from “Past and Prologue: Why I am Optimistic About the Future,” a speech given by Rep. George Brown (D-CA) on April 29. Brown was the William D. Carey lecturer at the AAAS Colloquium on Science and Technology. Note: "//" indicates that two or more paragraphs have been combined.
“I will be very frank with you in my remarks. First, because I am getting too old and cranky to allow politeness to obscure the message...but also because we are facing a set of very tough policy issues that demand our attention as fully as any issues in recent history.”
"...we are on the cusp of a number of changes in the way that we conduct our research and education activities.// As exciting and challenging as it is to be in the midst of all of this change, however, our research and academic enterprise is anticipating little of it, provides little leadership in setting goals for change, and thus may even project a public attitude of being resistant to it.// We shy away from the difficult work of developing qualitative measures for our efforts.... An individual researcher is measured by numbers of publications or citations, research dollars obtained, or numbers of graduate students. Universities are similarly ranked by quantity.... All of this leaves us with a clumsy and unsophisticated set of tools for evaluating the best of human innovation and thinking.// I doubt that any of you would sign on to a research project as poorly designed as our current national experiment in science and technology policy.”
“But even if we were to solve these shortcomings...we would still be left without a clear set of societal goals against which these activities would be measured.... [W]e are morally compelled to answer the question, What is the end that we seek?’”
“And in this consideration we must truly take a global view.... [E]merging international conditions are not being adequately accounted for in our national science and technology policy.// Domestic transformations are occurring as well.... But our economic well-being masks an old set of problems that are made worse in a technology-based society.// People who are simply standing still will be left farther behind as the pace of scientific discovery continues to accelerate.// This knowledge gap leads to grave divisions in the distribution of the benefits generated by a knowledge-based society.... As we right-size and replace permanent jobs with temporary positions, we increasingly resemble a feudal state with a serf class of part-time and contract workers employed by a class of owners.”
" ...[A]ll of what I say is driven by my optimism. If I did not think this system could realize its great potential, I would not have come here to speak with you today. Most of the change taking place in the world is positive, even though it may be disruptive of the status quo that the United States finds so rewarding.// But the challenge is how do we address the issues I detailed earlier using the options presented to us by the positive changes taking place. Let me throw out a few suggestions...”
“First, on the international front.... We should systematically review outstanding science needs, plans, and opportunities around the globe.... From this list we should plan a comprehensive series of collaborative agreements wherein we could work with international partners on the development of these projects.... As we enter an international age of science, it makes no sense to continue our ad hoc, item-by-item approach to international collaboration.// On the domestic front...I think that the science and engineering community should work toward the development of an entity to perform broad forecasting and technology assessment work. The biggest mistake that the Republican majority in Congress has made was eliminating of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Without it, we have no place to integrate technology with social impact and are left blind on a host of complicated issues.”
“If GPRA [the Government Performance and Results Act] and performance-based funding are not appropriate measures of quality in research and academia, and I have my doubts, what is?... The science and engineering community should take the lead in developing qualitative standards, with strong participation from the broader society.// We also need to be conducting outcomes assessments for our science and engineering activities and we need to collect the data needed to make these assessments. For example, we have no idea how much of the roughly $12 billion we spend on academic research goes to support graduate education because grantees are not required to report whether they in fact hire the research assistants that they proposed to hire in their grant applications. The question of whether we are spending enough, too much, or too little to support graduate education cannot be answered at present because we lack the data.”
“Next, I ask that AAAS or NAS or some respected multidisciplinary group develop a normative science budget.... Congress does have a rational priority-setting system. Unfortunately it is largely zip code-based: anything close to my district or state is better than something farther away.// But if the science, engineering, and academic community is serious about having a different priority-setting process, the political system will need guidance from it.... I went through the process of developing an investment-based budget last year and learned a great deal about budget priorities and politics. The fact that this process was so painfully informative leads me to call upon the research community to finish the work that it started in its reports on priority-setting for science funding and develop its own value-based budget.”
“One final point of action. The scientific community should review the present reward and incentive system.... It is pointless for any of us to speak of reforms that emphasize a stronger role for education if a faculty member is judged mainly by the research that he or she performs. It is meaningless to speak of cooperative or interdisciplinary research if the rewards system discourages this behavior.”
“I offer these remarks out of pride and optimism.// ...[H]aving risen to a new level of accomplishment, we are hindered in our progress by the system we have outgrown.... And so we gradually realize that the methods of inquiry we have employed for the last 50 years are transformed by the understanding that they have generated. Given the transcendent nature of the knowledge that has emerged, we can ill afford to let ego or convenience cloud our vision on what we need to do next.”
“These are the simple challenges I lay before you this afternoon. And, don’t blame me for raising these issues, blame your genius whose excellence raised the standards for success.”
