Science Committee Examines International Science Collaborations
On March 25, the House Science Committee took a second look at scientific collaborations. A March 11 hearing (see FYI #45 ) had examined research partnerships to provide input for the National Science Policy Study being chaired by Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI). Ehlers returned to the topic in a March 25 hearing reviewing the benefits to the U.S. from international scientific cooperation. The witnesses agreed that because of constrained science funding in the U.S. and the increasing quality of research done in other countries, in many cases the U.S. can effectively leverage its resources by partnering. This, said Ehlers, enables American researchers to “reap the full benefits of that research at a fraction of the cost of performing the research ourselves.” Caroline Wagner of the Critical Technologies Institute at RAND noted that international partnerships were becoming a necessity in fields where the cost of facilities was more than one nation could support, and in research of a global nature. National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts added that international research collaborations helped forge bonds between nations, and called the science and technology community “a great force for rationality and democracy in the world.” He thought that the U.S., as world leader in many fields of science, could use that to much greater advantage in foreign relations than it currently does.
However, the witnesses echoed Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA) when he called the U.S. approach to international collaborations “disjointed, to say the least.” They agreed that research does not have a sufficiently high profile within the State Department. Former Energy Secretary James Watkins, now President of the Consortium for Oceanographic Research and Education, said the State Department has “little concern for international science and technology.” During his tenure as Energy Secretary, he recalled being unable to get sufficient support from the White House and the State Department when seeking contributions for the SSC from the Japanese government. “I was embarrassed,” he admitted.
Thomas Ratchford, Director of the Center for Science, Trade and Technology Policy at George Mason University, said the federal government needs to do a better job of incorporating science into foreign policy decisions and developing policies to guide international scientific cooperation. Thus far, he thought, efforts to strengthen the role of science within the State Department “have failed.” While Homer Neal of the University of Michigan Physics Department said that federal involvement in small-science collaborations was unnecessary, he agreed with Watkins that for large projects, the Administration, the State Department, federal agencies, and congressional committees need to be involved from the outset. Alberts reported that the State Department has asked the Academy to study how science and technology fit into the Department’s mission.
Noting that “policymakers are increasingly being asked to justify the benefits of R&D,” Wagner urged that such measures be built into collaborations from the start. She described a RAND effort to assess some of the concerns commonly raised about such partnerships, using the field of seismology and earthquake science as a case study. The RAND study found that: because most collaborations focused on basic science, the U.S. was not giving away critical technologies; on average, the U.S. was leveraging its resources dollar for dollar; the collaborations supported high quality science; and U.S. researchers gained knowledge and experience to enable them to stay at the forefront of the field.
Space Station foe Rep. Tim Roemer (D-IN) questioned the station’s value as an international science project. Alberts replied that several Academy reports have found the cost of the station not warranted from a strictly scientific viewpoint, but added that proponents have argued for its worth as “a great human adventure.” “More like Pee Wee’s big adventure,” Roemer quipped.
Ehlers raised the danger of “getting locked into agreements that should not go forward,” but Watkins said that early in the process, all partners should agree on milestones at which they would reassess their willingness to proceed. But, he added, the U.S. system has trouble remaining committed to projects that “may end up very big.” He cited ITER as a case in which, he said, “we’re not going to fund it sufficiently.”
In closing, Ehlers said he hoped his policy study would develop a more effective process for bringing all the players on board at the beginning of a large international collaboration. He added that while many see risks of failure in committing to large projects, such as ITER, current policies and technologies are not always sufficient for the future. “We can fail by not going forward, too,” he declared.
