IP: FYI #122 - Basic Research Report

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 122: August 27, 1998


CED Report: Prosperity Through Basic Research


The world has changed in the more than 50 years since America's
science policy was articulated by Vannevar Bush.  Policymakers
and the science community continue to struggle with the impacts
of a diminished defense rationale for research, the squeeze of
entitlements on science funding, questions on the proper role of
the federal government, and calls for more accountability.  While
there is a legitimate difference of opinion on the federal role
in technology development, there is near-unanimous consensus that
the federal government is the first, foremost, and absolutely
essential supporter of basic research.


In June, the Committee for Economic Development (CED), a group of
business and academic leaders, contributed to the science policy
dialogue with a report reiterating the importance of federally-supported 
basic research to the nation, and recommendations on
how the nation's research enterprise can remain strong into the
next millennium.


The 97-page report, entitled "America's Basic Research:
Prosperity Through Discovery," provides a series of case studies
demonstrating the impact of basic research.  It offers the
following recommendations:


1.  Policymakers "should set broad national priorities for basic
research that reflect the needs of society at large."  Within
these national goals, the committee calls for diversity and
balance across research disciplines.  It warns that while
research must be prioritized, "neglect of less popular areas of
research is foolhardy."


2.  "Federal support for basic research should continue to be
diverse in its sources and objectives."  In addition to diversity
of missions, the committee finds a diversity of funding sources,
rather than a centralized Department of Science, "is best-suited
for the unpredictable nature of basic research outcomes."


3.  Within national priorities, "the primary mechanisms for
allocating federal basic research funds...should be based on
scientific merit determined through peer review," and should
generally be directed towards individuals rather than
institutions.  Recognizing the difficulties in measuring the
success of basic research, the report finds peer-reviewed merit
competition the best way to "efficiently allocat[e] resources."


4.  A "long-term federal budget outlook is critical" and "basic
research should be a high priority" in future federal budgets. 
The report warns that growth trends in entitlements "have the
potential to squeeze the level of resources for basic research in
the future."


5.  "The most productive recipients of federal basic research
funds are the nation's research universities."  According to the
committee, "the university environment fosters a spirit of
independence and creativity among scientists that is hard to find
in other organizations."


6.  Granting agencies should provide longer-term grants and
"administrative burdens [of proposal submission] should be
reduced."  The committee recognizes "concerns...that the
competitive grant structure has become overly-burdensome for the
individual researcher and has deterred young scientists from
pursuing careers in academic research."


7.  Mechanisms for determining and sharing indirect costs should
be reformed "to ensure simplicity, fairness, and reductions in
the costs of compliance."  According to the report, "universities
have argued forcefully that cost-shifting has escalated...with
federal agencies increasingly unwilling to adequately cover
overhead costs."


8.  "The activities of the [Department of Energy's] national labs
must be justified on the basis of strong missions, peer-reviewed
determinations of scientific merit, and efficient structures for
management and oversight."  Although industry-laboratory
partnerships "may serve the competitive interests of specific
industries," the report says, "they do not always serve the
interests of the nation and its taxpayers."


9.  "With few exceptions, government should not be in the
business of directly funding the development and
commercialization of technologies."  The committee believes that
"subsidizing civilian technology for national competitiveness
purposes is not a justifiable federal mission and it should not
be allowed to displace federal investments in basic research."


10.  "The federal government should continue to play a major role
in funding large-scale infrastructure projects that are used
extensively by many researchers."  The report claims that "it is
the responsibility of policymakers to ensure that necessary
investments in big science and institutional grants proceed on
the basis of scientific merit...and in the larger context of
national needs and priorities."


11.  "The United States must raise academic achievement in math
and science in grades K-12."  The committee warns that "there are
signs along the length of the  pipeline'...to suggest that the
future quality of the human infrastructure for basic research is
not assured."


12.  "The federal government should make graduate student
training a higher priority and increase its funding of
scholarships and training grants."  The report notes that "the
education function of the university--that is, the training of
future scientists--is as important to the future of basic
research as the research function itself."


13.  "Industry-university relations and university patenting and
licensing should be directed towards maximizing benefits for the
society at large."  While the committee finds that
entrepreneurial activity by a university and industry sponsorship
of university research can be beneficial, it cautions that "the
primary benefit of university research to society stems from the
free and open dissemination of new knowledge."


14.  "The United States should expand its efforts to benefit from
international collaboration and the globalization of basic
research."  As long as free flow of information is preserved, the
report states that "in sum, more basic research activity around
the globe will present tremendous opportunities for scientific
progress, with large payoffs for all nations."


At an April 22 House Science Committee hearing (see FYI #77), CED
member George Conrades spoke about the report.  He remarked that
federally-funded basic research can be viewed as "low-cost
insurance" for the nation's economy and quality of life.    


The report can be purchased from the Committee on Economic
Development at (212) 688-2063 for $18.00 plush shipping and
handling.


###############
Audrey T. Leath
Public Information Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi () aip org
(301) 209-3094
http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/
##END##########