IP: Science Policy Efforts

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

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 15: January 30, 1998


Efforts to Reexamine Federal Science Policy and Funding


There has been much discussion about the need for a new federal
science policy.  Two recent efforts to examine this question are
summarized below:


CONGRESSIONAL SCIENCE POLICY STUDY


With Congress back in session this week, activity surrounding a
House Science Committee "Science Policy Study" will intensify. 
This effort, headed by Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), vice chairman
of the committee, is to "conduct a comprehensive review of our
national science policy and develop a new, sensible, coherent
long-range science and technology policy."


In remarks last fall, Ehlers laid out the rationale for this
study: "The basis for our economic engine in this nation is
science and technology.  The discoveries that we make today are
going to fuel the economy 30 to 50 years hence, just as today our
economy is fueled by the discoveries of three to five decades
ago. Thus it is very important for us to have a national science
policy that reflects that change in atmosphere between the U.S.
and the rest of the world, that reflects the change in science,
that reflects the change in foreign relations, and that, in
particular, reflects the change in economic structures in the
world today."


This effort started with a meeting of 35 prominent scientists and
policy makers, and a similar meeting with "early career"
scientists.  In each meeting, Ehlers posed a series of policy
questions to formulate an overall "vision."  These same questions
are posted on a science committee web site where Ehlers invites
citizen participation.


The questions are: "1. On what broad national goals should
federal science policy be based? 2. (a) What is the government's
role in supporting basic and applied research?  (b) How can the
government best encourage an effective level of industry
investment in pre-competitive research?  3.  How can the nation
enhance and make the most effective use of
government/university/industry research partnerships?  4. What is
the most effective role for the states in supporting university
research, and how can the federal government best support that
role?  5. (a) Given the increasingly international nature of
science, how can the nation best benefit from and contribute to
international cooperation in research?  (b) What types of
multilateral science agreements are needed to facilitate
international collaboration?  6.  How can the federal government
best help meet national needs for science and math education at
all levels?  7.  How can the nation most effectively leverage
federally funded R&D in the face of increasingly constrained
resources?"


Congressional staff suggests that the resulting study will be
around 40 pages long.  Ehlers, who wants this to be an accessible
document for his colleagues, describes it as being "concise,
coherent, and comprehensive."  The target date for the study's
completion is the middle of this year.  A longer term goal is
possible legislation.  


Ehlers, a physicist, has made many appearances discussing this


study.  He is friendly and down to earth, and is making this a
bipartisan effort.    Ehlers will hold between five and seven
hearings relating to this study over the next few months.  


It is notable that Ehlers is soliciting citizen participation in
the formulation of this report.  The address for the House
Science Committee web site for the Science Policy Study is


http://www.house.gov/science/science_policy_study.htm   This site
contains the questions  listed above, background materials, and
other items of interest.  Readers interested in responding to the
questions should bear the following in mind: the committee staff
handling this study is limited.  Responses should be concise --
preferably a few pages at most. 


In a recent editorial in Science magazine, Ehlers concluded:
"Science has changed since 1945, and so has the world.  It is
time to address these changes and chart our course
correspondingly."


NSB WORKING PAPER: "GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH"


In an 11-page working paper dated December 4, 1997, the National
Science Board (NSB) "offers its perspective...concerning the
funding of scientific research by the Federal government."  The
paper (at http://www.nsf.gov/home/nsb/pubs/nsb97186/nsb97186.htm
on the Web) contributes to the discussion of a national policy to
coordinate and prioritize Federal research investments. 
"Presently," the Board says, "there is no widely accepted way for
the Federal government in conjunction with the scientific
community to make priority decisions about the allocation of
resources in and across scientific disciplines."


Intended to address only funding for research, the report first
discusses the distinction between research and development, while
"recognizing that there are instances where the boundaries blur." 
It then reviews the post-World War II rationale for justifying
federal support of science, and concludes that, although time has
brought changes, "we believe that none would invalidate the
justification for wise government support of research."  The
Board adds, "Changes in national priorities do not negate the
potential of research benefits which are long term and uncertain
in detail but have proved over time to be substantial."


To improve the effectiveness of the government's investment, the
Board urges greater coordination of the Federal portfolio across
all disciplines, as recommended in a 1995 National Academy of
Sciences report (see FYI #171, 1995.)  That document called for
the Administration to present annually a comprehensive science
and technology budget to be considered as a whole before being
referred to different congressional committees.  The Board says
this "could lead to a better alignment of expenditures with
respect to national priorities."  On the issue of setting
priorities, the NSB finds that "no agreed upon method exists for
carrying out this task."  It recalls suggestions of an earlier
Academy report (see FYI #90, 1993), which recommended allocating
research resources so the U.S. remains "among the leaders in all
major fields of science and the leader in selected major fields." 
Although the Board endorses these guidelines, it "believes that


they may not go far enough" to determine the optimal level of
investment, and urges "further study...before a particular
methodology for setting priorities is adopted."  The paper
concludes by warning that "although many scientists consider the
task [of priority-setting across disciplines] both undesirable
and undoable, the National Science Board believes that this
difficult task will become increasingly important and must be
faced over the next few years."  The Board "offers its assistance
on this critical task in any way that the President and the
Congress would find helpful." 


###############
Richard M. Jones
Audrey T. Leath
Public Information Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi () aip org
(301) 209-3095/3094
##END##########