President's Science Advisor Speaks on R&D Cuts

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

IEEE-USA ELECTRONIC INFORMATION BULLETIN


No. 95-19, April 18, 1995




PRESIDENT'S SCIENCE ADVISOR LAMBASTES
CONGRESS ON R&D CUTS AT AAAS COLLOQUIUM


Presidential science advisor John Gibbons gave a strong
statement in support of the President Clinton's science and
technology policies and critical of Congressional budget-
cutters in a keynote address at the annual Policy Colloquium
held by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science on April 12, 1995 here in Washington, DC.  The
following highlights are quotes on selected subjects
excerpted from Dr. Gibbons' prepared address.  The complete
text of Dr. Gibbons' speech is available via e-mail from the
IEEE Washington office.  Send your e-mail request to
(c.brantley () ieee org).


ON CONGRESSIONAL R&D BUDGET RESCISSIONS


"The bad news for R&D reads like a litany of the lost.
Congress already has agreed to cut half-a-billion dollars
from this year's budget for science and technology in the
military supplemental, and they're about to take another
half-billion whack in civilian rescissions supplemental.  Most
of the cuts so far have been in technology programs, but
science has taken a substantial hit, too -- $100 million from
the Department of Defense programs in computer science,
mathematics research, and engineering education at
universities; upwards of $80 million from the National
Institutes of Health; and $45 million from DOE research on
materials, climate change, and the human genome."


"The cuts we've seen already are nothing compared to what
they are thinking about doing:  The Chairman of the House
Budget Committee, Rep. Kasich, recently released an
"illustrative list" of cuts for next year's budget, in which
the toll for science and technology was a whopping $2.5
billion.  Over the next five years, it's targeting $13 billion.
More than half-a-billion of these "illustrative" figures for
FY96 come from NIH -- $2.5 billion over five years.
Agricultural research declines by $1.3 billion over five
years."


"And while NSF hasn't appeared on a public hit list yet,
Director Neal Lane has been told to expect at least a 20
percent cut.  That's more than $600 million -- nearly all of
it from the research bench, since 95 percent of NSF money
goes out in grants."


ON BUDGET REALITIES


"One of the things that will stand out about 1995 is that it is
the first year that we have really felt the pain of living with
true public fiscal austerity -- the escalating budgets of
the spendthrift '80s are over. I think this is where I'm
supposed to say, "I feel your pain."


"Now, I don't want to raise the false expectation that we in
the Administration will be able to completely insulate
science and technology from the real fiscal pressures that
will drive the next decade of budget policy.  The reality is
grim for science and technology funding.  There will be cuts;
R&D will have to take some of them.  But the cuts should be
judicious and managed, not across-the-board salvos that
wreak havoc throughout the research enterprise."


ASSESSING CONGRESS' EFFORT TO REDEFINE NATIONAL S&T
PRIORITIES


"This kind of priority-setting -- difficult as it is --
represents the actions of deliberate and dedicated
government, husbanding and making careful, multiple use of
the resources for the future for our children and our
grandchildren. It reflects the vision of the Clinton
Administration -- science and technology in the service of
society, an engine of growth for
the economy and the creator of knowledge that is the key to
a new world condition. It is a vision that draws people into
science and brings many of us here today.  Crafting such a
vision requires great care.  It cannot be done by a Congress
motivated solely by the desire to move dollar signs from one
side of the ledger to another.  It cannot be done in 100 days,
or 200 days, for that matter. It cannot be done by simple fiat
or decree. It cannot be done by a Congress so weary it can't
see straight; so driven that it doesn't even have time to
read the material on which it is about to vote.  It must not be
done with a meat ax when the precision of a scalpel is
necessary.  Yet the spectre of finishing the first session of
the 104th Congress with S&T resources slashed by a meat ax
is a real one.  In their rush to cut government, (Dan
Greenberg, I think, recently labeled it "demolition politics")
some Members have launched a wholesale attack on anything
that isn't nailed to the table -- including R&D, and especially
the "D" in R&D.  But don't be lulled into thinking that basic
research is sacrosanct."


"My hope is that wise heads in Congress will intervene, that
history will record that they saved the nation from
permanently damaging our research and development base by
moderating the hasty, ill-informed or ideology-driven
decisions -- penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions we have
seen in attacks on technology partnerships and
environmental protection, and in irresponsible regulatory
reform. But my fear is that history will record that
extremists in Congress prevailed as prevailing in an
atmosphere of budget chaos driven by a fundamental
disregard for reinvestment in science and technology."


"There is a good way to go about reform, and there is a bad
way.  I venture to say that each of you has been trained in
the good way -- experiment, observe, and test your
observations before implementing innovation across the
system.  Is this the process that we've seen at work in the
Congress over the past 100 days?  It is not.  Rather, we have
seen dog-tired Members marching lockstep ahead with their
eyes fixed only on the end of the 100 Days.  Many of the
changes wrought by the House were passed without the
benefit of a single hearing, or at best with a minimal
legislative record. Is this what Jefferson and Madison had in
mind?"


"Science and technology programs in the 104th Congress are
the legislative equivalents of endangered species.  In
Congress' rush to slash government and lower taxes -- taxes
that already are among the lowest in the industrial world, I
might add -- we are in danger of losing the very excellence in
technology that has made our country the envy of the world."


ON THE PROPOSAL FOR A CONSOLIDATED DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE


"Let me be very clear about one thing -- this Administration
unequivocally opposes the creation of a Department of
Science of the kind now being discussed in Congress.  We are
not against change; under the leadership of the Vice
President, we have been remaking the very structure of
federal agencies -- not just shuffling programs around and
renaming them.  But we are against change for change's sake
-- or for the sake of as-yet-undocumented savings in
federal resources."


"Congressional supporters of the Department of Science idea
argue that it's important to have all the science programs
centrally located -- except, of course, for health ... and
defense ... and agriculture. They say this, by the way, as
though it were a given and without a shred of evidence about
its effectiveness.  But the genius of U.S. science policy to
date has been its recognition that pluralism of support and
diversity of performers allows the crucial freedom of
enquiry that unleashes the creative spirit of our
world-class researchers and their students.  The proposal
to create a Department of Science flies in the face of this
pluralism by instituting a command-and-control model of
rigid bureaucracy."


"We are all in favor of making science more responsive to the
needs of the Nation. But we believe the worst possible thing
you can do to policy and associated missions is to divorce
them from a science base. To say that food safety will be
greater because someone, somewhere in that science agency
across town is doing some kind of pesticide research is
ludicrous -- Just as in industry, Federal agencies depend on
the feedback from research that is inextricably linked to
their mission. There is no productive way to unhitch science
and policy. Nor should we. The result will be poor science
conducted in a vacuum and even poorer policy."


"This Administration has a mechanism to encourage
cooperation where advantageous, consolidation where
necessary, and coordination overall.  It's the National
Science and Technology Council -- the first time in history
that the United States has had a comprehensive coordinated
Cabinet-level body devoted to reviewing the Federal R&D
enterprise.  The principal purpose of the NSTC is to
establish clear national goals for federal science and
technology investments, and to ensure that policies and
programs are implemented that contribute to those goals.
The NSTC provides a structure through which we can
prioritize the many legitimate demands on the public's R&D
dollar.  It assures a forum where critical national needs
cannot be pushed aside by urgent and parochial agency needs.
It sensitizes agencies to the advantages of symbiosis over
isolated pursuit of objectives.  Isn't this what the
promoters of a Department of Science say they want?"


GIBBONS' CALL TO ACTION


"Surviving with our national R&D portfolio even relatively
intact will require aggressive action.  We must engage the
R&D community, the industrial community, the education
community, Congress -- ultimately, we must engage the
American people, if they mean to remain their own governors.
Congress must be part of this dialogue.  I respect the
leaders of the new Congress as hard-working agents of
change, and I truly believe they think they are doing what's
right for America.  I admire their conviction, and their
tenacity.  But I want to work with the Congress to make sure
every Member understands the enormity of the change being
proposed, and its impact on the ecosystem we call the
Federal R&D enterprise."


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


This electronic bulletin is provided as part of an on-going
effort by IEEE's United States Activities Board to apprise
IEEE members of important developments related to U.S.
technology and career-related policy issues.  Please feel
free to post this message and/or forward it to other
individuals who you believe would be interested.


Contact:
Chris J. Brantley
Manager, Government Activities
Institute of Electrical and Electronics
  Engineers - United States Activities
1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1202
Washington, DC 20036-5104
E-mail:  c.brantley () ieee org
Phone: 202-785-0017


====END OF ITEM====