In an upbeat and collegial Science magazine editorial in June (F.D. Raines, Science, 280:1671, 1998), the outgoing director of the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Franklin D. Raines, addressed how the scientific community might better help to maintain the Clinton administration's commitment to R&D. Raines alluded to the "excitement and wonder of science" and called for better measures of the success of research, greater priority-setting for research fields, and ways to stren

Corporate welfare is something we love to hate. On the political left, economist and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich derides it as "business subsidies that don't make sense." The consumer watchdog group Common Cause estimates that federal subsidies to U. S. businesses amount to more than $150 billion annually in various manifestations, including "direct payments to companies, provision of public goods or services at below-market value, federal purchases of goods or services at above-mark

Congress has lost a stunning opportunity to reform the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The authorization for the agency's critical "user fees"-approximately $100 million paid annually by regulated industry to help FDA expedite the approval of new medicines-expired on October 1. The need for another five-year reauthorization provided a strong incentive for the Clinton administration to accept meaningful reforms. Characteristically, however, the Congress settled for a half-baked compromise di

Steven Benowitz's page 1 story (The Scientist, March 17, 1997) is entitled "Scientists Optimistic About Clinton's Federal R&D Budget." Which scientists? The only ones identified in the text who are not disconsolate about the Clinton budget are senior federal political appointees in various departments and agencies-Commerce, the National Science Foundation, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy-who don't get to have their own opinions (if they want to keep their jobs). The proposed

The president and his men pay ritual homage to science and technology, to be sure. In March, donning electricians' gloves and hauling cables, Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore participated in California's "Netday" effort to give students access to the Internet. More important, last November Gore and the president's science adviser, John Gibbons, sketched out the grandiose federal plan for one of the nation's most promising but challenged fields in the report "Biotechnology for the 21st Ce

Competition Author: HENRY I. MILLER America learned long ago that what's good for General Motors isn't necessarily good for the country. This axiom applies to the biotechnology industry, as well. The biotech industry's major trade group-the monolithic, Washington, D.C.-based Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)-has been part of the problem, rather than the solution, on a variety of regulatory issues during the past decade. They were at it again in a big way in July. In fact, the organiz

Consumers, Scientists, And Industry Author: Henry I. Miller. The 1992 "Biodiversity Treaty," rejected by the Bush administration but signed by President Clinton, faces opposition to ratification in the Republican-controlled Senate. But the treaty, a lose-lose proposition for United States consumers, scientists, and industry alike, is a bad idea that won't die. It remains high on the administration's agenda. Speaking at Stanford University on April 26, Tim Wirth, undersecretary of state for glo

An additional goal is "a stable, science-based regulatory system." The Clinton-Gore report asserts that the administration has "taken significant steps . . . towards accelerating the development of technologies critical for long-term economic growth and for increasing productivity while reducing environmental impact . . . [via] fundamental science." The reality is that at the same time that funding is down, biot

An additional goal is "a stable, science-based regulatory system." The Clinton-Gore report asserts that the administration has "taken significant steps . . . towards accelerating the development of technologies critical for long-term economic growth and for increasing productivity while reducing environmental impact . . . [via] fundamental science." The reality is that at the same time that funding is down, biot