Interesting People mailing list archives
Two notes on "republicans and the future of academic science
From: Dave Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 1995 11:39:52 -0500
To: seas-faculty () home seas upenn edu From: farringt () ENIAC SEAS UPENN EDU Subject: Republicans and Our Future Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 07:53:27 -0500 Colleagues: I just returned from a 2 day Engineering Deans Council meeting in Washington. The principal topics discussed, naturally, had to do with the changes in Congress and the outlook for research funding. Below are brief summaries of two key talks, one from Robert Walker, Chair of the House Science Committee, and the other by John Deutch, Dep Sec of Defense and new nominee for head of CIA (also former provost at MIT). It turns out that I have known Deutch for some time, having served on a national security and arms control panel with him a decade ago. The summary is simple: Everything is changing. Everyone is saying that the budget document that will be produced by the Republicans in a month or two will propose the most radical changes since the New Deal. The old compact by which Washington supported university research in return for Cold War technological strength is gone and has not yet been replaced by an alternative - the most reasonable of which would be justification based on economic competitiveness. The Republicans are definitely on a course to balance the budget, at great cost to every program except Social Security. Major change has just begun and the spring should be very interesting (in the Chinese sense) indeed. I have been asked and agreed to join the Public Policy Committee of the ASEE (deans of MIT, Duke, Illinois, Carnegie-Mellon, Texas, etc.) to work to educate the new Congress on the critical importance of university-based technical research - in Engineering in particular. It will be a difficult challenge but one that we must win. Here are summaries prepared by Ann Speicher of ASEE: The Public Policy Colloquium of the Engineering Deans Council, held in Washington D.C. on March 9-10, provided a cogent view of both the new political landscape in Washington and the changing nature of the research enterprise. The title of the program was "Partnerships for the New Century: Universities, Industry and Government." While differing on the details, the speakers agreed that the research enterprise would change significantly, that justifications for research spending would have to be more compelling and that partnerships would be key. Below is a brief summary of the statements of some of the speakers, aimed at giving you a sense of some of the day-and-a-half discussion. THE NEW D.C. POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT: Rep. Robert Walker (R-Penn.), chairman of the House Science Committee and vice-chair of the House Budget Committee, told the deans he strongly supported basic research, but was concerned at the Clinton administration's proposed increase in civilian development funding (by which he meant such programs as ATP and TRP), which he felt was inappropriate. He said these technology programs lent themselves to "political prioritization" rather than "scientific prioritization." He added that the federal government would not be able to make up for reduced R&D spending in industry, but said new industry tax incentives could help. Specifically, he put forward the idea of an expanded R&D tax credit to encourage businesses to invest in university research facilities and instrumentation. In light of the effort to balance the budget in seven years, it was not surprising that he said the budget resolution that would be proposed by the House Budget Committee in early May would be "the single most radical budget document this town has seen in 50 years." DoD Deputy Secretary John Deutch. Deutch said the issue of revitalizing the research compact developed by Vannevar Bush after World War II was a remarkably important subject, but one for which he had an answer. He felt the compact truly had broken down: there was no longer an implicit understanding that basic research performed at universities, awarded on technical merit, was in the national interest. He said he had great concerns about the long-run health of the nation's system of research and education. Deutch said there were several reasons for this break-down, including the fact that Congress no longer places science in a special category above politics and that the scientific community is not organized to deliver a clear and effective message on what should be the post-Cold War rationale for supporting research. He suggested the new paradigm should focus on technology's value to jobs and economic growth. While there would be great resistance within the academic community to that proposition, any rebuilding of the compact would require tough choices. He added that the president's new National Economic Council could be an ally in this effort. ______________________ To: seas-faculty () home seas upenn edu,farringt () ENIAC SEAS UPENN EDU From: Dave Farber Subject: Re: Republicans and Our Future To be somewhat fair to the Republicans it should be pointed out that the breakdown in the University/Government pact started almost two years ago. Some attribute the Super-collider failure to that breakdown. As I and others have pointed out, the community has been less than effective for many years in placing in front of the public a good case for the benefits to be gained from continuation of the agreement. Most of the noise out of the ccommunity to date has sounded like an entitlement argument. Maybe standing on the edge of the canyon will cause the science and engineering community to work together rather than fighting for a few crumbs. Dave
Current thread:
- Two notes on "republicans and the future of academic science Dave Farber (Mar 14)