Interesting People mailing list archives
CRA Bulletin 3.1 -- science policy in the new Congress
From: David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 17:03:36 -0500
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= COMPUTING RESEARCH ASSOCIATION BULLETIN =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume 3 Number 1 January 6, 1995 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- About CRA: Computing Research Association is a non-profit association of computer science and computer engineering departments, industrial research institutions and affiliated technical societies in the U.S. and Canada. To Subscribe: Send the following mail message to listproc () cra org: subscribe cra_b firstname lastname Archives: Located at http://cra.org/cra_b/. Copyright (C) 1995 by Computing Research Association. All rights reserved. CRA Bulletin may be redistributed as long as it is done entirely with all attributions to organizations and authors. Commercial distribution is strictly prohibited. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= NEW HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE HOLDS FIRST HEARING OF 104TH CONGRESS ============================================================================ By Rick Weingarten This piece is a set of personal and somewhat opinionated comments based on the science policy hearings held this morning by Rep Walker in his new role as Chair of the House Committee on Science. An impressive list of administration officials testified: Secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown; NASA Administrator, Daniel Goldin; EPA Director Carol Browner, NSF Director, Neal Lane; and Presidential Science Advisor, Jack Gibbons. Missing at the table, because they are not in the Committee's jurisdiction, were NIH and Defense. An unfortunate gap since so they are such a big portion of the R&D picture. As might be expected, some talked about issues that he or she considered most threatening to their agency. Brown defended the Advanced Technology Program, Browner discussed EPA Risk Assessment work, Goldin spoke about how imaginatively NASA was absorbing double-digit budget cuts, and so on. Neal Lane took a somewhat broader perspective in discussing NSF, and Gibbons presented the overall administration perspective. Lane's testimony will be posted in CRA's "Computing Researcher's Guide to Congress" page (see below.) Some observations. 1. To an old congressional hand, it was amazing to see how little the change in Congress is reflected in the science policy debate--how much it sounded the same. Sure, there is a temporary "glow" of bipartisanship that will probably fade. There are strong differences of opinion on details--for instance, the space station, the Advanced Technology Program of NIST, EPA's Risk Assessment program. The rhetoric will change somewhat. (Industrial policy is "out," for instance.) But, underlying those long standing differences is an equally long standing, clear and bipartisan consensus in the Congress that (1) research funding is a legitimate role for the Federal government and, (2) in light of the severe budget pressures, research had better make some darn good arguments why it ought to get a piece of the pie (and forget asking for any bigger piece, by the way.) 2. Related to the last sentence above, the trends are scary. (1) A likely balanced budget amendment, (2) increased defense funding (not necessarily for research), (3) a tax cut almost certain. It's not a rosy outlook for any discretionary part of the budget. The presenters were reminded of these realities time and again in questioning by the committee members, Republicans and Democrats alike. 3. To retain any semblance of support, research is going to have to demonstrate benefits. This attitude is true on the part of Republicans and Democrats alike; and, I think, always has been the general sense in Congress. I wager that few members ever thought they were engaging in philanthropy when they voted for NSF appropriations; but some who voted against probably thought that was precisely what they were opposing. Thus, any who thought that we were returning to the world of fundamental physical science research and leaving all this strategic business behind, may have been celebrating a little too early. 4. The lines between basic and applied, directed, strategic, "use driven" (the latest term) research are dead, dead, and dead. Neal Lane said so. Jack Gibbons said so. If a third member of the panel had said so, it would have been true, anyway, according to Lewis Carroll. But, it is also true in the sense that few in Congress ever understood or believed those lines existed. (See 3. above.) And, no one challenged either Lane's or Gibbons' assertions. 5. Based on the tepid reaction to a series of articles that recently appeared in the Washington Post on the sad state of U.S. science, we can also conclude that entitlement arguments are still political non-starters. It's a shame that a three page series of front page articles in a national newspaper could so miss moving the debate along. (I warned readers this was an opinion piece!) Bottom line: It's going to be exceptionally tough, folks, both to keep the overall level of research funding from taking a massive hit and to see that computing research programs are maintained. That said: Both research, in general, and computing research specifically, still have lots of potential friends and powerful political allies on both sides of the aisle. These allies need much help. There are many new members who need educating about research and computing, and who say they are willing to learn. We will follow these developments in CRA bulletin and CRA News. We have also created a "Computing Researcher's Guide to Congress," mentioned above, accessible through our home page (HTTP://cra.org/). (Putting it together has been slowed enormously by the confusion and delay in making committee assignments and getting biographical information--but it is gradually coming together. Comments and suggestions about what you would like to see on it are most welcome.) -- Editorial Staff: Juan Antonio Osuna, CRA Bulletin Editor josuna () cra org Rick Weingarten, CRA Executive Director rick () cra org Computing Research Association 1875 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 718 Washington, DC 20009 phone: (202) 234-2111 fax: (202) 667-1066
Current thread:
- CRA Bulletin 3.1 -- science policy in the new Congress David Farber (Jan 18)