Interesting People mailing list archives
Re the Senate action and reearch. [ ntee Bill i Chair of the NRC CSTB
From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 08:22:21 -0500
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 08:07:30 EDT From: wulf () obelix cs virginia edu To: farber () central cis upenn edu Dave, First, let's recall that the message in the Senate Appropriation Report is not new news. Traditional friends of science like George Brown in the House have been sending the message for several years that its time to tie more of the Nation's research expenditure to national goals. In large measure I think the strident tone of the Senate report is the research community's own fault; some among us have chosen to polarize the discussion -- or even to refuse to engage in a discussion. In my humble view this is not be a battle that needs to be fought. The very rational view of the NSF Commission is "right on"; basic research and applied research CAN coexist -- indeed in many fields, applied research can be the source of rich and intellectually stimulating problems. The knee-jerk "basic good, applied bad" is just dumb -- worse, in the present climate, its counterproductive. It's damaging basic research funding! That said, the report language is exceptionally offensive on a number of fronts. First, it simply underscores the increasing polarization of the (non)discussion. I fault NSF and the Science Board for dawdling on acting on the Commission report; as the Senate report says, the Commission raised expectations -- and expectations unfulfilled are a dangerous thing. We (the community) need leadership from the Foundation and Board, and we're not getting it. Second, it is ironic that agencies like NASA and NIST are held up as models of "entrepreneurial vigor". Without detracting from them one iota, and with a firm conviction that making them vigorous is a wonderful goal, that description doesn't match what I see today. There are bright spots and dim ones in all agencies, but clearly the NSF story isn't being told well -- and maybe the story for these other agencies is being a bit over- told. Third, it is incredibly ironic -- even tragic -- that the HPCC budget is the one singled out to be held hostage. The HPCC program is among the most strategically, commercially and socially relevant at the Foundation -- just what Congress says they want. Moreover, another long-standing goal of Congress has been increased inter-agency cooperation; HPCC has been a model of that -- perhaps the most successful of the FCCSET initiatives in that regard. The hard part of these interagency cooperation's is getting one agency to predicate success of its mission on the performance of another agency. By cutting the NSF HPCC budget, the Senate has undermined the confidence on which the cooperation is based. If NSF cannot hold up its end, the other agencies will have to 'go it alone'. I sincerely hope that the cuts in the Senate appropriation are reversed in the House-Senate conference. But even more, I hope that this is finally the event that triggers the research community to engage in the dialog, and *constructively* shape a new relation with society. For those of you that see this as a black- and-white, basic science vs the troglodytes, you are wrong, and by taking that position, you are making the situation worse. Much worse. In fact, there is a lot of understanding of, and respect for science on the Hill; Mike Nelson likes to say that it is everyone's second priority. That is not incompatible with a desire to have some of the country's best and brightest minds focused on strategic problems -- including the problem of determining what are the strategic priorities. As in most things, this is a question of balance, and we need to participate in finding the balance point. If we choose not to participate, the balance point will still be selected, but its likely to be further from where it should be. NSB, are you listening? Bill Wulf
Current thread:
- Re the Senate action and reearch. [ ntee Bill i Chair of the NRC CSTB David Farber (Sep 16)