Two notes on "republicans and the future of academic science

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

To: seas-faculty () home seas upenn edu
From: farringt () ENIAC SEAS UPENN EDU
Subject: Republicans and Our Future
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 1995 07:53:27 -0500


Colleagues:


I just returned from a 2 day Engineering Deans Council meeting in
Washington.  The principal topics discussed, naturally, had to do with the
changes in Congress and the outlook for research funding.


Below are brief summaries of two key talks, one from Robert Walker, Chair
of the House Science Committee, and the other by John Deutch, Dep Sec of
Defense and new nominee for head of CIA (also former provost at MIT).  It
turns out that I have known Deutch for some time, having served on a
national security and arms control panel with him a decade ago.


The summary is simple:  Everything is changing. Everyone is saying that the
budget document that will be produced by the Republicans in a month or two
will propose the most radical changes since the New Deal.  The old compact
by which Washington supported university research in return for Cold War
technological strength is gone and has not yet been replaced by an
alternative - the most reasonable of which would be justification based on
economic competitiveness. The Republicans are definitely on a course to
balance the budget, at great cost to every program except Social Security. 
Major change has just begun and the spring should be very interesting (in
the Chinese sense) indeed. 


I have been asked and agreed to join the Public Policy Committee of the
ASEE (deans of MIT, Duke, Illinois, Carnegie-Mellon, Texas, etc.) to work
to educate the new Congress on the critical importance of university-based
technical research - in Engineering in particular.  It will be a difficult
challenge but one that we must win.


Here are summaries prepared by Ann Speicher of ASEE:


The Public Policy Colloquium of the Engineering Deans Council, held
in Washington D.C. on March 9-10, provided a cogent view of both the
new political landscape in Washington and the changing nature of the
research enterprise.  The title of the program was "Partnerships for
the New Century:  Universities, Industry and Government."  While
differing on the details, the speakers agreed that the research
enterprise would change significantly, that justifications for
research spending would have to be more compelling and that
partnerships would be key. 


Below is a brief summary of the statements of some of the speakers,
aimed at giving you a sense of some of the day-and-a-half discussion.






THE NEW D.C. POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT:


Rep. Robert Walker (R-Penn.), chairman of the House Science Committee
and vice-chair of the House Budget Committee, told the deans he
strongly supported basic research, but was concerned at the Clinton
administration's proposed increase in civilian development funding
(by which he meant such programs as ATP and TRP), which he felt was
inappropriate.  He said these technology programs lent themselves to
"political prioritization" rather than "scientific prioritization." 
He added that the federal government would not be able to make up for
reduced R&D spending in industry, but said new industry tax
incentives could help.  Specifically, he put forward the idea of an
expanded R&D tax credit to encourage businesses to invest in
university research facilities and instrumentation.  In light of the
effort to balance the budget in seven years, it was not surprising
that he said the budget resolution that would be proposed by the
House Budget Committee in early May would be "the single most radical
budget document this town has seen in 50 years." 


DoD Deputy Secretary John Deutch.  Deutch said the issue of
revitalizing the research compact developed by Vannevar Bush after
World War II was a remarkably important subject, but one for which he
had an answer.  He felt the compact truly had broken down:  there was
no longer an implicit understanding that basic research performed at
universities, awarded on technical merit, was in the national
interest.  He said he had great concerns about the long-run health of
the nation's system of research and education.


Deutch said there were several reasons for this break-down, including
the fact that Congress no longer places science in a special category
above politics and that the scientific community is not organized to
deliver a clear and effective message on what should be the post-Cold
War rationale for supporting research.  He suggested the new paradigm
should focus on technology's value to jobs and economic growth. While
there would be great resistance within the academic community to that
proposition, any rebuilding of the compact would require tough
choices.  He added that the president's new National Economic Council
could be an ally in this effort.   




______________________


   
To: seas-faculty () home seas upenn edu,farringt () ENIAC SEAS UPENN EDU
From: Dave Farber
Subject: Re: Republicans and Our Future


To be somewhat fair to the Republicans it should be pointed out that the
breakdown in the University/Government pact started almost two years ago.
Some attribute the Super-collider failure to that breakdown. 


As I and others have pointed out, the community has been less than effective
for many years in placing in front of the public a good case for the
benefits to be gained from continuation of the agreement. Most of the noise
out of the ccommunity to date has sounded like an entitlement argument. 


Maybe standing on the edge of the canyon will cause the science and
engineering community to work together rather than fighting for a few crumbs.


Dave