IP: Hearing on Press Report

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

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 35: March 4, 1996


House Science Committee Examines Academy R&D Report


"If used well by policy makers in both the legislative and
executive branches, the Press report will be a good tool for
evaluating science policy.  I want this report used as a starting
point for the discussions we will have over the coming months."  
      --Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker


In November 1995, a National Academies panel chaired by Frank Press
issued a report on "Allocating Federal Funds for Science and
Technology" (see FYI #171, 172, 1995.)  The subject, how to
maximize the effectiveness of science funding in a time of budget
constraints, is an important issue for Congress.  On February 28,
the House Science Committee invited Press and two of the report's
co-authors to testify on their recommendations.  Science Committee
Chair Robert Walker (R-PA) supported the report's recommendation
that the U.S. "achieve preeminence is a select number of fields
and...perform at a world-class level in the other major fields,"
but he added that "there will be no more blank checks...it is time
for the science community to provide us with guidance and
priorities."


Press described as "the heart of our report" the proposal for a
budget process that allows for both a unified view of the science
budget, and its separation into department and agency budgets.  "In
this way," he said, "Congress will be able to gauge the overall
health of the enterprise, the accuracy of the overall funding, the
manner in which it meets the nation's needs, and understand the
interrelationships and complexities among governmental programs." 
He admitted that the report "has been both praised and criticized,"
and attempted to clarify some of its recommendations.  


Much discussion revolved around the report's suggestion to separate
the R&D funds that go to new science and technology from those
funds (particularly in DOD and NASA) that support product
demonstration and testing.  Of the more than $70 billion annually
considered as R&D spending, the report would define the $35-40
billion spent on new knowledge and enabling technologies as the
Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) budget.  While critics such
as Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) complained that this separation would
make S&T funding a political target for budget-cutters, Press
explained that it was the only way to accurately compare U.S.
spending with its major competitors.  "To claim the country spends
$70 billion on R&D is false," he said, and "not adequate to
describe how well we do compared to other countries."  Press also
cast doubt on the accuracy of using percentage of Gross Domestic
Product for comparison.


Ranking Minority Member George Brown (D-CA) and others questioned
the report's recommendations that the national labs remain tightly
focused on agency missions and that science funding should
"generally favor" academic institutions over other performers. 
Rep. Steven Schiff (R-NM), whose state contains two national
laboratories, said, "I don't want it to become a contest" between
labs and universities.  Press responded that the report was not
intended to be critical of national labs and that they were "an
essential component" of the nation's science enterprise, with
strengths that were complementary to universities'.  However, the
Academy panel had believed it important to emphasize the importance
of universities' flexibility and their role in linking education
and research.  


Brown also expressed disappointment in the report's skepticism of
a federal role in technology development.  The report finds that a
federal role is appropriate when a government mission is involved
or the government is the only available supporter of broadly
important technologies, Press explained, noting that this
recommendation was "hardly restrictive."  He called for the
effectiveness of such programs to be compared to that of other
federal R&D investments.


Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) asked whether the goal of achieving
preeminence or world-class status in all major fields of science
could be accomplished with a one-third decrease in R&D funding over
the next seven years, which the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) has projected to be the result of
Congress's 1996 budget resolution.  "The answer is no," Press
replied unequivocally.  To the frustration of many Members, he
refused to name an appropriate level of funding, but said the
report "outlined a process to estimate...better than before" what
that amount should be.  While he admitted that "the outyear
projections of both parties don't look overly optimistic," Press
added that in light of the actual appropriations bills passed
since, "AAAS may be backing off of that projection."  Walker, a
strong backer of the budget resolution, replied, "I'm delighted to
hear" that news.


FYI #36 will contain testimony on the Academy report provided to
the House Science Committee by the American Physical Society.




###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Audrey T. Leath
fyi () aip org
(301) 209-3094
##END##########