Re the Senate action and reearch. [ ntee Bill i Chair of the NRC CSTB

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

Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 08:07:30 EDT
From: wulf () obelix cs virginia edu
To: farber () central cis upenn edu


Dave,


First, let's recall that the message in the Senate 
Appropriation Report is not new news. Traditional 
friends of science like George Brown in the House have 
been sending the message for several years that its time 
to tie more of the Nation's research expenditure to 
national goals. In large measure I think the strident 
tone of the Senate report is the research community's 
own fault; some among us have chosen to polarize the 
discussion -- or even to refuse to engage in a 
discussion.


In my humble view this is not be a battle that needs to 
be fought. The very rational view of the NSF Commission 
is "right on"; basic research and applied research CAN 
coexist -- indeed in many fields, applied research can 
be the source of rich and intellectually stimulating 
problems. The knee-jerk "basic good, applied bad" is 
just dumb -- worse, in the present climate, its 
counterproductive. It's damaging basic research funding!


That said, the report language is exceptionally 
offensive on a number of fronts.


First, it simply underscores the increasing polarization 
of the (non)discussion. I fault NSF and the Science 
Board for dawdling on acting on the Commission report; 
as the Senate report says, the Commission raised 
expectations -- and expectations unfulfilled are a 
dangerous thing. We (the community) need leadership from 
the Foundation and Board, and we're not getting it.


Second, it is ironic that agencies like NASA and NIST 
are held up as models of "entrepreneurial vigor". 
Without detracting from them one iota, and with a firm 
conviction that making them vigorous is a wonderful 
goal, that description doesn't match what I see today. 
There are bright spots and dim ones in all agencies, but 
clearly the NSF story isn't being told well -- and maybe 
the story for these other agencies is being a bit over-
told.


Third, it is incredibly ironic -- even tragic -- that 
the HPCC budget is the one singled out to be held 
hostage. The HPCC program is among the most 
strategically, commercially and socially relevant at the 
Foundation -- just what Congress says they want. 
Moreover, another long-standing goal of Congress has 
been increased inter-agency cooperation; HPCC has been a 
model of that -- perhaps the most successful of the 
FCCSET initiatives in that regard. The hard part of 
these interagency cooperation's is getting one agency to 
predicate success of its mission on the performance of 
another agency. By cutting the NSF HPCC budget, the 
Senate has undermined the confidence on which the 
cooperation is based. If NSF cannot hold up its end, the 
other agencies will have to 'go it alone'. 


I sincerely hope that the cuts in the Senate 
appropriation are reversed in the House-Senate 
conference. But even more, I hope that this is finally 
the event that triggers the research community to engage 
in the dialog, and *constructively* shape a new relation 
with society. For those of you that see this as a black-
and-white, basic science vs the troglodytes, you are 
wrong, and by taking that position, you are making the 
situation worse. Much worse.


In fact, there is a lot of understanding of, and respect 
for science on the Hill; Mike Nelson likes to say that 
it is everyone's second priority. That is not 
incompatible with a desire to have some of the country's 
best and brightest minds focused on strategic problems 
-- including the problem of determining what are the 
strategic priorities. 


As in most things, this is a question of balance, and we 
need to participate in finding the balance point. If we 
choose not to participate, the balance point will still 
be selected, but its likely to be further from where it 
should be.


NSB, are you listening?


Bill Wulf