The Senate action on the NSF Budget

[David Farber <farber () central cis upenn edu>]

The following came to me via round about sources. I have removed names and
routes but will be happy to supply them on request.


Dave


___________________________________________________________________________


The Mikulsky Committee voted on the NSF budget last Thursday.  There budget
recommendations are the usual - barely 2% increase, etc.  The disastorous
thing is the text which went with the bill.  I have copied it below.  It
mandates that 60% of the funds be used for 'strategic' spending and has
specific language safeguarding against the shrouding of 'curiosity driven'
research as being strategic.




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is a transcription of the part of the text of the Senate
Appropriations Committee Report on the NSF.  It is buried in the middle of
the report.  If you are interested in trying to be helpful in addressing
this problem, you should let your senator know that the wording is a
serious problem for basic scientific research and that you strongly
encourage that this section be deleted from the Bill when the Senate votes on
it next Monday.  Time is of the essence; a telegram is the best way.  The
section on mandating 60% and 'curiosity driven' efforts is many paragraphs
down in what follows.


Note that there is also the call for making an investment in improving the
scientific infrastructure (equipment and facilities).  This would be fine
if additional funds were found to do this.  The wording below suggests that
the NSF will be asked to make infrastructure a priority, but it is not
clear whether or not additional funds are envisioned.


I suggest you read what follows carefully and then make the case as you may
for ensuring the strength of the funding of basic research.  It would
appear that the reaction of the academic community to the Massey Commission
and the resulting changes in emphasis of the report have touched a nerve
with some important powers that be in Washington.


the transcription:


THE FUTURE OF THE NSF


   The Committee believes that the National Science foundation is
at a crossroads in its future. Either the Foundation will evolve as
envisioned by the Commission on the Future of the NSF, commonly
known as the Massey Commission, or it will drift in a direction
that moves it further and further from broad national interests in
science and technology. In short the Foundation can be at the
heart of helping to shape the administration's science and tech-
nology policy in pursuit of specific national goals, or it can diminish
into becoming nothing more than a national endowment for science.


   The Conference report accompanying last years NSF appropria-
tions (H. Rept. 102-902) made clear the Committee's concern about
the future direction of the Nation's science and technology policy.
Its concern was based upon a report of the National Science Board
titled, "The Competitive Strength of U.S. Industrial Science and
Technology: Strategic Issues." this report outlined a sober assess-
ment of the condition of the U.S. competitive position. It found that
our Nation spends too few dollars on research and development in
Industrial Science and Technology; does not allocate R&D expendi-
tures well and does not utilize the R&D investments that are
made well.


   The Massey Commission raised the Committee's hopes that the
Foundation and the Nation's scientific community had made the
strategic turn that is needed to engage our country's basic research
enterprise to focus more clearly on the transfer of knowledge and
technology for broader national goals and objectives. During the
Presidential transition, however, with the departure of the Direc-
tor, the Foundation and the Science Board have given mixed sig.-
nals whether the bold vision forward to which the Massy Commis-
sion sought to pull science will continue.  Even the recent National-
Academy report  "Science, Technology, and the Federal Govern-
ment: National goals for a New Era," seems to suggest that per-
formance milestones, greater accountability, and an ability to pro-
vide a strategic focus on basic research must occur if science is to
be a full partner in helping the United States regain its competi-
tive edge. As the Academy stated: "Despite the increasing inter-
nationalization of science and technology, the linkages between a
nation's internal scientific and technological capabilities and its
well-being will continue to be strong. The countries that best inte-
grate the generation of new knowledge with the use of that knowl-
edge will be positioned to be the leaders of ,the 21st century." The
National Science Foundation, by virtue of its strong links to our
university research base and State governments, is uniquely situ-
ated to help the United States pursue the goals highlighted by the
Academy.


   It is time for the Foundation to move beyond rhetorical state-
ments about the value of strategic research or the importance of
using science for the transfer of knowledge and technology. That,
in the Committee's view, is a fact of life and political reality. In-
stead, it is now the time for the Foundation to move to identify
that which is specific, immediate, and realizable in pursuit of this
broader mission. The agency must spell out how much of its mis-
sion should clearly be strategic and applied in nature, and then to
implement these parameters through its budget process.  Just
the Committee is insisting that the Office of Science and Tech-
nology Policy set specific performance milestones for Federal criti-
al technology programs. So too must the NSF. This must be done
directorate by directorate. If the NSF and its constituent members
choose not to do this, future Federal R&D budgets should instead
be allocated more generously to agencies such as the National In-
stitute of Standards and Technology, NASA, the national energy
labs or the National Institutes of Health, a11 of whom seem poised
to pursue critical technologies with entrepreneurial vigor and en-
thusiasm.


   Such a transition, as painful and as difficult as it might prove
for some in the scientific community, is as necessary and vital for
the future of the Nation as was Vannevar Bush's revolutionary vi-
sion for this community more than 40 years ago.   Rather than see-
ing this challenge as a threat to the status quo, the academic re-
search community should see it as perhaps the last, best chance to
seize the opportunity to be an integral part of the solution to the
scientific and technological problems our country and its economy
now confront. Science is fundamentally about pursuing new ideas
and new ways of thinking.  This era of change is in that spirit, and
is about the renewal of science rather than its diminution.


     Therefore, the Committee direct the Foundation to revise its
strategic plan, for submission by the time the President's fiscal
year 1995 budget is submitted to the Congress, in the following
manner:


To specify, with particularity, in each NSF program directorate
and in each initiative that is part of the FCCSET interagency
process, annual, quantifiable performance milestones.  These
milestones should include a vigorous evaluation component
that guarantees that programs which begin can be terminated
if they lose their effectiveness or are displaced by higher prior-
ity initiatives.  These milestones should also specify the degree
of industrial participation in each of the NSF components of
these initiatives and the justification for whatever threshold is
proposed.  They should also provide the basis for a vigorous
evaluation that will ensure an increased ability to determine
overall program effectiveness and assist in determining rel-
ative priorities in times of funding constraints.  As a prelude to
this revised strategic plan, the 1994 operating plan should em-
ploy this process.


    To outline the balance between strategic research objectives
and other, more generic research, in the budget process. Not
less than 60 percent of the agencies annual program research
activities should be strategic in nature. The Foundatlon should
make clear how it specifically defines each area so as not to
shroud curiosity driven activities under the rubric of strategic
activities. The multiyear budget submission should outline how
this balance will be effected, again with particularity. In addi-
tion, the NSF and the Science Board should outllne a plan for
increasing the scientific community's understanding of the
vital need for this balance to exist.


To establish a new and bold program that addresses lingering
problems with the academic research infrastructure in the
United Sates.  Research facility and instrumentation backlogs
at the Nation's colleges and universities are staggering.  Refur-
bishing these facilities will bolster the research enterprise,
while creating jobs in the construction and manufacturing sec-
tors.  This infrastructure program should constitute a large pro-
portion of the Foundation's annual budget.


To create new initiatives that systematically link State-based
and State-operated science and technology programs in a for-
mal partnership with the Foundation.  Such activities exist
throughout the agency now.  This new step would strengthen
these relationships, expecting cost sharing from State govern-
ments and even the private sector where appropriate.


To review the status and funding of all existing NSF supported
research centers to determine what level of industry involve-
ment is viable, and then to establish private sector participa-
tion thresholds for each category of NSF center.  The Commit-
tee believes that by not dictating a floor for such participation,
it has given the agency sufficient flexibility to develop an ini-
tial proposal for the Committee's review and comment.  This re-
view should be inclusive of all categories of NSF research cen-
ters.  The Committee has included a review by the National
Academy of Public Administration as part of this effort.


To evaluate the structure, composition, and role of the Na-
tional Science Board, including future mandatory industrial
memberships, given the changes in the new world order.  This
action is taken without prejudice for the current or past mem-
bers of the Board, to whom the Committee is grateful for their
public service.  Nor is it a desire for some sort of dismissal for
the existing Board.  Instead, it is done with the recognition that
the forces shaping the science and technology enterprise have
changed, and changed dramatically, and that the composition
of the Board may have to shift as well.  Therefore, broadening
the Board's membership and responsibilities should be consid-
ered.


To outline in the annual budget justification submission, the
particular, incremental milestones for individual programs and
activities.


Finally, to outline clear and detailed working relationships
with other Federal agencies like NIST, NIH, NASA, EPA, the
Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the Departments of
Education and Energy.  These plans should be more than de-
scriptive documents that outline broad principles that are the
basis for a memorandum of understanding.  Instead, they
should articulate clear role differentiation and collaboration on
strategic research and education activities, with expectations
for multiyear goal and outcomes included therein on as Ps-
civic a program level as is possible.  For example, the Found-
ion should provide a detailed action agenda for math and
science education teacher retraining which shows how all NSF
and Department of Education programs compliment each
other, and working toward measurable, annual milestones.