U.S. Science Dept. Plan Reprised

WASHINGTON—The bandwagon on Capitol Hill to boost American competitiveness has breathed new life into proposals to place federal science agencies under one roof. In recent weeks, Rep. George E. Brown Jr. (D-Calif.) has reintroduced bills to create a federal Department of Science and Technology and a new agency, the National Policy and Technology Foundation, to coordinate research and efforts to translate knowledge into products. Brown has introduced similar measures in the past, without notable success. This year, however, his is not the only voice. Rep. Don Ritter (RPa.) and Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) have sponsored legislation to coordinate technology activities in the Department of Commerce so the National Bureau of Standards can help industries market the fruits of their research. Few political observers are betting that the measures will become law in this session. Brown's proposals face strong opposition from fiscal conservatives, who are reluctant to create a new federal agency in the face of massive budget deficits, as well as from many scientists, who fear it could narrow the focus of federally funded research. A bill to create a center for manufacturing research within the Commerce Department was vetoed in 1984 by President Reagan. "Everybody is aware of how many competitive problems we've got," said Patrick H. Windham, an aide to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, of which Hollings is chairman. "That has radically changed the political environment. But the down side is that the budget is phenomenally tighter than it was three years ago. It's tough to propose new things in this environment." Windham and James H. Wilson, an aide to the House Science, Space and Technology subcommittee on science research and technology, said Congress is more likely to approve a smaller reorganization of science agencies along the lines of the Hollings-Ritter proposal. Brown's bills "are a valuable first step toward the definition of new measures to mobilize our scientific and engineering resources and direct these resources more effectively toward the solution of our current problems," Russell C. Drew, president-elect of the Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers, told a House subcommittee. "We support them in principle and strongly endorse further discussion and refinement over the coming months." But scientists by and large have opposed the measures. "American science has really flourished in the United States under a pluralistic system," said Alvin W. Trivelpiece, executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a former research director at the Department of Energy. "That is one of its great strengths. I would hate to see anything done in the name of efficiency that would bring all the pluralistic elements together and lose the effectiveness of the system." Coordinating federal scientific efforts will not solve the trade problem, he added. "If there is a cause-and-effect relationship, I fail to see it," Trivelpiece said. Trying to force such a relationship might harm the quality of science and scare business leaders who fear a federal "industrial policy," argued Lewis M. Branscomb, director of the science, technology, and public policy program at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "The temptation will be to try to find more quantitative measures of output, to be more formal about the technology-transfer arrangements, to prove that these measures are making a direct and immediate contribution to reducing the trade gap," said Branscomb, former chief scientist at IBM and former chairman of the National Science Board, in recent House testimony. Rothman is on the staff of Education Week.

U.S. Science Dept. Plan Reprised

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of