Bromley Laments Funding Shortfall

Bush's science adviser says he'd like to see government bolster financial support, urges more consideration for individual researchers WASHINGTON--The Bush administration wants to do more for "small science," says presidential science adviser D. Allan Bromley. But the type of support Bromley has in mind appears to be more psychological than financial. "The small investigator needs to have a feeling of being paid attention to," Bromley told The Scientist. "There's a feeling that the large projects, like the genome project, the AIDS epidemic, and so on, have taken the focus away from the individual investigator. And I think that we can do something about that." Bromley, on leave from his post as professor of physics at Yale University, outlined his strategy to help individual investigators in a wide-ranging, 90-minute interview held late last month in his ornate office across the street from the White House. He agreed that the National Institutes of Health are being "undersupported" in the current budget now before Congress and urged scientists to join him in convincing legislators to raise funding levels for research in all disciplines. Earlier in the day, at the National Academy of Sciences, Bromley told a star-studded group of biomedical scientists at a symposium on the problems facing their field that NIH would receive "special attention and special treatment" in discussions now under way concerning next year's budget. In the one-on-one interview, Bromley discussed several high-level science personnel moves that are pending at the White House, offering them as signs that the administration recognizes the importance of strong leadership in science throughout the federal government. He said he has submitted to President Bush his choice to succeed Erich Bloch as director of the National Science Foundation and was hoping for an official nomination well before Bloch's departure at the end of August. Also, Bromley expressed his disappointment with the decision of William Danforth, chancellor of Washington University, to reject a second offer to be named NIH director. That position, vacant since the departure last year of James Wyngaarden, has been filled on an acting basis for the past 11 months by William Raub. And Bromley said that he hopes to announce "very shortly" his choice of an associate director at the Office of Science and Technology Policy to replace Wyngaarden, who left last month to become foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences. Bromley has earned high marks from both scientists and politicians since he took on the dual roles of science adviser and OSTP director last August. His greatest strength, say observers, is his apparent access to President Bush and his strong working relationship with such domestic policy heavyweights as Richard Darman, director of the Office of Management and Budget. Bruised by clashes with Democrats in Congress who have opposed him on such issues as global climate change and technology policy, Bromley has nevertheless won points for his willingness to listen to opposing views. And his determination to force federal agencies to join together to create an overall plan for federal support of science--giving the president what he calls "a set of clearly defined options"--is a winner on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Al Gore (D-Tenn.), perhaps the leading cheerleader in Congress on the value of science, has called Bromley "a breath of fresh air." Although Bromley can be counted on to defend the president's stance on any sensitive issue relating to science and technology policy, he does not shy away from publicly offering his own views on matters ranging from science education to industrial ties with academia to government service. Bromley distances himself from a widespread feeling among many scientists that undergraduate teaching needs to be strengthened. He says that the chief deterrent to government service is not low salaries but rather society's attitude that federal employees "are guilty until proven innocent." And he says that industry and private foundations could reasonably support up to one-third of all the basic research on university campuses, taking up the slack left by a financially strapped federal government. As with most government servants, Bromley usually accentuates the positive in discussing the problems facing the country in science. But his message was not entirely upbeat. The 64-year-old Bromley said he fears that, among scientists, much of the joy of doing their work is being squelched--probably forever--by career concerns and a bureaucratic system that forces researchers to account for everything they want to do before they can even begin. Says Bromley: "We'll never be able to return to the past, when a young scientist could concentrate on his research and let the future take care of itself." [Editor's note: Following is an edited transcription of an interview with D. Allan Bromley, the president's science adviser and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The interview was conducted on June 27 by The Scientist's News Editor Jeffrey Mervis in Bromley's office adjacent to the White House.] Q You and other senior scientists have remarked that doing science isn't as much fun as it used to be. Is that just the inevitable looking back by those nearing the end of their careers, or does it reflect a fundamental shift in the essential nature of the enterprise? A First of all, I would hate to think that I'm near the end of my career. But your point is well taken. In part, it certainly is a reflection of the fact that you remember only the good things when you look back at your early days. But there's more to it than that. It is simply true that nowadays there's more red tape, more bureaucracy, more support activity that you have to do before you have the chance to get to the frontiers of research. I think that there's also far more worry about career opportunities and career paths. When I graduated, for example, everyone assumed that if you had a job lined up for the next year you were way ahead of the game and that things would take care of themselves after that. Now, understandably after the difficulties of the 1960s, they have reason to be concerned. That's when we froze a whole generation of young people out of academia in the rush after Sputnik, when universities overbuilt and tenure was granted to a great many people. So the combination of what the future holds, red tape, and what they would look on as nonproductive activity makes science less fun. Q Is that a chronic condition? A It's probably chronic. It will never get back to the original days. We have to remember that, prior to 1946, there really was no federal support for science. It's a new activity, and, like all activities, as it gets older it gets more formalized and more bureaucratic. Q You've pointed to the declining success rate of funding proposals at NIH and NSF, and you're aware that the biomedical research community is especially upset by those figures. Do you think the current level of funding for NIH is too low? A Yes. I think that the current level of funding for all science and technology is too low. As a nation we are underinvesting in our science and technology base. And I think this feeling is widely shared within the Bush administration and in Congress. But I think this year, in particular, NIH is being undersupported in terms of the opportunities that are available. Q You mentioned this morning [in a talk at the National Academy of Sciences on the future of biomedical research] that NIH will be getting special attention and special treatment in preparation for the 1992 presidential budget. What activities do you feel are most in need of that special attention? A One particular area is the individual investigator-initiated activity. The small investigator needs to have a feeling of being paid attention to. There's a feeling that the large projects, like the genome project, the AIDS epidemic, and so on, have taken the focus away from the individual investigator. And I think that we can do something about that. Q Other than supply more money, what can you do? A It is critically important that we find, as soon as we can, a very distinguished scientist to lead NIH. NIH is an absolute jewel in the world of biomedical research, and it feels the need for leadership. And because of its absence [William Raub has been acting director since August 1, 1989, when James Wyngaarden stepped down], there's been a trickle-down effect throughout the entire community. There's also the question of elevating the status of NIH within the government. The director of NSF, for example, is at an executive level two [in salary and in rank], and therefore participates in essentially all major policy discussions involving science and technology. By contrast, the director of NIH is a level four, and does not have the opportunity to participate anywhere near as broadly in science policy that sometimes would have a distinct impact on the biomedical community. Q Is it frustrating for you when a scientific appointment, like that of the next NIH director, becomes embroiled in political issues like the current ban on using fetal tissue for research? A Extremely frustrating. I think, however, that we have succeeded [in resolving that problem]. [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Louis] Sullivan, in a recent speech in Atlanta, went out of his way--with the full backing of the president--to make it very clear that in the senior scientific posts, political considerations are not to play a role. In the aftermath of that unfortunate phone call to Bill Danforth [chancellor of Washington University, who was asked by a White House staffer for his views on abortion and fetal tissue research], he made it clear that such an action does not indicate a mode of thinking within the administration. It simply was a stupid mistake by a very junior member of the appropriate office within the White House, and it's had most unfortunate consequences. Q But that was last fall. Many people feel the current delay is still tied to an applicant's views on the use of fetal tissue and other political issues. A I think that's not true. Two things happened. Two committees were put together, reporting to the assistant secretary for health [James Mason]. One was to come up with changes in the structure of NIH that would make it more attractive to the most outstanding candidates. The second was a committee to search for the best candidate. The delay reflected a decision to wait until those committees had come in with at least a preliminary report, so that we would have essentially a new job description to offer prospective candidates. Now unfortunately, the person who in my view would have been superbly qualified for the position has finally decided that he wanted to continue his present career and did not wish to come to Washington. Q You mean Chancellor Danforth? A That's correct. Q Will there be further delay? A Hopefully not a lengthy one. There is a very clear recognition throughout the administration that this is a position we must fill, and fill quickly. Q Turning to NSF, do you have any expectation that the director's slot [Erich Bloch's term ends next month] will be filled quickly? A Yes, I do. I have already made a formal recommendation to the president. Q Of one individual? A Yes, although I will not discuss any details. Q How soon do you expect an announcement to come from the White House? A Very soon. Certainly by the end of July, perhaps even earlier than that. Q Does this send a signal to the biomedical community that the administration can act quickly when it cares about something, like a new NSF director, but when it comes to biomedical research, things just don't move as fast? A I'm sure that there will be a few people who might draw that conclusion, but it would be totally wrong. There is no question whatsoever in anyone's mind in this administration that biomedical research is critically important for the health and well-being of our citizenry. Q Given the government's continuing financial problems and the need to reduce the federal deficit, as well as the growing number of problems that require technological solutions, are we entering an era in which the government will be forced to play a smaller role in financing the needs of the scientific community? A Well, I'm not sure that it's correct to say that government will be forced to do so. I think that it's a very healthy sign that we're finding industry more and more willing to shoulder a larger share of the support for the kinds of science and technology that are critically important to industry. We have been unique in the developed world in the extent to which we have looked to the federal government to support basic research, and to our research universities, not only to do the basic research, but to train the young people who would use the new results. Most of the other developed nations have industry playing a much larger role. I think that U.S. industry has recognized that it's important to become part of the structure, to work with government. I think that we'll also see that a number of foundations will come back to [supporting] science, realizing that they can have their support very highly leveraged--that a very small amount of support provided to an active laboratory that has been built with federal funding can leverage the whole infrastructure. I anticipate that [the level of support] will grow substantially in the major research universities. At Yale, for example, just before I left, I chaired a committee that examined the issue, and we recommended that it was quite realistic for Yale to think of tripling its industrial support for research activities over a few years. Q What levels are you talking about? A It would strike me as entirely reasonable to have 25 to 35 percent coming from industrial sources. Q Do you think that there's a level beyond which it becomes a problem? A I think that there may be some point, but I think that there's a natural balance that will take place. There are some areas that are so fundamental that one has no idea when, where, or to whom the benefits will flow. And no industry can justify support for that kind of activity. But in other areas, where the activities are perhaps a little more targeted, industries can see it very much in their own best interest not only to be involved with some of the brightest people in the country, but also to get access to some of the brightest students, to show them what a marvelous place industry X would be to have a career. Q What about the problems with the research infrastructure? Can funding for that come from sources other than the federal government? And will it? A My suspicion is that the infrastructure support, which is desperately needed, is probably going to have to come in substantial measure from non-governmental sources. We have to come up with more innovative ways in which universities can raise the capital for remodeling old buildings and building new ones. I don't see that as fundamentally a federal role for the next quite significant number of years. It used to be, in the early days of federal support, that the government played a significant role. But now, with the growing needs for support of research, I think that the pressure will be on universities to find sources outside the federal government. Q Does that mean, for example, that NSF's academic facilities modernization program, now funded at $20 million annually, will stay at a low level? A I expect that it may grow somewhat. But it's not going to grow to a level commensurate with the problem [estimated at roughly $10 billion]. And it's important to remember that none of the recent studies has suggested that the federal government do more than help the universities to catch up, so that thereafter they could be self-sustaining. Q What do you think about the political deal that's apparently been struck between supporters of the supercollider and advocates of so-called pork-barrel science, in which the administration wins votes for the SSC in return for not opposing proposed research facilities that have not passed through peer review? A I don't know the details of that. Obviously, I don't like pork-barrel projects. I think that they undercut the absolutely fundamental emphasis on quality peer review that has given us the strongest scientific enterprise in the world. Q Is it possible to draw up a coordinated strategy for science in developing the federal budget? A I believe it is. Probably not as neat and tidy as some would like. But it's my intent, which is shared by the president and Mr. [Richard] Darman [director of the Office of Management and Budget], that we will work together each year to put additional areas of federal support under a common umbrella. We have established the process in the area of global climate change where, under the FCCSET [Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology] structure, we've been able to put together the programs of seven different agencies and develop a national program to use the dollars most effectively. This fall, in preparation for the 1992 budget submission, we'll be doing exactly the same thing in the area of high-performance computing and networking. We'll be doing it in education and human resources next year. Beyond that, we'll be picking up areas like biotechnology, materials science, and so on. Over a period of time, and with the cooperation of the participating agencies, I think we'll be able to bring forward a coherent national program. And it's much easier for that to be brought successfully through the administration and then to Congress than if you work from a heterogeneous grocery list of projects. Q Last week [in a June 20 speech at the Marshall Space Center] the president expressed his displeasure with congressional budget cuts in the proposed Moon-Mars mission. While he has repeatedly expressed his desire to double the NSF budget, he has never given such a speech when Congress has cut his request for research funding at NSF. Why hasn't it happened? A I would rather hope that it will happen. The problem is not that the president thinks any more highly of space than he does of NSF. But he is trying to support his entire science initiative. In the budget summit negotiations he was adamant that science and technology were going to be protected. The real problem is in the structure of our congressional appropriations committees. We don't have coherent support for the whole range of science and technology programs across the federal government, although it's something that I'm going to do everything I can to build while I'm here. At the same time, our political friends are faced with tradeoffs; they don't have enough money to do what everybody wants. What I hope that we can do, this year and in the future, is to bring more of our heavy artillery to bear to make sure that we can help Sen. [Barbara] Mikulski [a Maryland Democrat and the chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that allocates funds for NSF, EPA, and NASA] and her colleagues really respond to the requests that we have made and not find themselves faced with a situation in which two of their constituencies--veterans and housing--are very strong and one of them--science--is not strong at all. Q How would you mobilize that artillery? A That's being done already by the professional scientific societies--the American Physical Society, the American Chemical Society, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, AAAS [the American Association for the Advancement of Science] and so on. All that's really involved is to sensitize the scientific and technical communities that it's no longer viable for them to sit back--as all of us have done for decades, frankly--and say that Washington recognizes what a valuable role we scientists play and then expect that the money will come. Q Do you think the incidence of scientific misconduct has increased over the past decade? A No. I still think that the incidence of real misconduct is minuscule. It's probably no different than it has ever been. What has changed is the focus on it and the publicity that it has been receiving. And I think that it's crucial for us to emphasize that misconduct involves the intention to deceive and defraud, while errors are a fundamental part of the scientific process. And within the structure of science, there are time-proven methods for eliminating those errors. Information doesn't become science until it becomes public, and if it's of any importance it's going to be re-examined by other people. If they can't duplicate the results, the situation will be corrected. But I'm worried that a great many people are tending to confuse errors, which are intrinsic to making progress, with a concrete intent to deceive. Q How will the draft guidelines being prepared by your officeaffect the situation? A I think that the major impact will be to help universities develop a standard approach to investigating these questions. We don't want each institution inventing its own rules, because that would lead to a chaotic situation. Of course, every institution and every case has unique characteristics, and there's no automatic profile that fits every case. But there are general approaches that we can recommend that I think will be acceptable. It's true that, in some cases, there has been a rather cavalier approach to the preserving of data, that has made it impossible for someone totally unconnected with the research to audit it at some subsequent time. So researchers need to be more careful to maintain records than they have been. Many places have always done a superb job of it, such as IBM and Bell Labs, where they know within hours when every word and every piece of data was recorded. Universities tend to be a little sloppy, in particular because of the half-life of a graduate student. When a graduate student leaves, there's been a tendency for some of the data to leave with them. I anticipate that our new draft guidelines will be out within a matter of weeks. I don't foresee any major holdups. Q Why are there so many scientists who feel that the administration should be acting more quickly and forcefully to take action to mitigate the effects of a rise in CO levels and other greenhouse gases? A I don't think that's a true statement. There are a tremendous number of environmental activists who feel that the U.S. should be acting in a different fashion than it is. But I don't think that great numbers of scientists believe that. The U.S. has had a leadership position in global studies since at least 1957, the International Geophysical Year. In terms of the research to understand the underlying phenomena, we are outspending any other nation by at least an order of magnitude, more than $1 billion. But at no time have we thought of research as a substitute for action. We believe that there are a very large number of things that we can do for which we have very good reasons, quite independent of global climate change, for doing them right now, that will also have a major impact on global change. I look at them as an insurance policy, against possible adverse effects of global change. . . . But we are not prepared at this time to commit to particular targets and timetables for reduction of any particular greenhouse gas because we are not yet sufficiently certain of how we would do it or what impact it would have on our economy. Q Would you like to see another major increase in FY 1992 in the global climate change research program, or do you expect it to stay at the billion-dollar level? A It's too early to say. The Committee on Earth Sciences is now taking a hard look at what we should be doing, because we will be coming in with another program plan for the 1992 budget. And we will be integrating the programs of the seven agencies. There is a tremendous amount of information that we would like to have. Q Do you think that, even at a billion dollars, the funding is well below what it should be? A That's impossible to say. If you told me, `Here is a large satchel of money that is not available for anything else. Can you find a good problem in environmental science to which it could be devoted?' my answer will always be yes. There is a huge spectrum of good, unanswered questions out there. But each year, in putting together the president's budget, we weigh one of these demands against a great many others. The process of putting together the budget is one of getting these things developed and staffed so that we can present to the president a series of clearly defined options. Then the president decides which to support, within the funds available. I think that's a more rational approach than in the past, when it was very difficult for a president to make those decisions because he had never been presented with coherent choices within major areas [of science]. Q Do you think, as many people have said, that universities have moved too far in the direction of emphasizing research over teaching? A No, although the answer depends on how you ask the question. The problem usually comes up in matters of promotion and tenure. The normal argument is that universities should judge citizenship, teaching, and research competence on some scale. Although all universities do that, it is also true that the research universities give substantially greater weight to research competence--scholarly output and so on--than they give to teaching. The assumption is usually made that someone who is a superb researcher will also be an adequate teacher. It is not always true, but if you have to bet on someone's future contributions over the next 30-35 years, which is what you do when you grant tenure, then the best indicator you have of continued intellectual vitality and excitement is their research output. Q Given that, do universities need to improve their teaching of science? A I do not consider that as one of our major problems in education, quite frankly. I'm much more concerned about the quality of science and math teaching at the elementary and high school levels than I am about the quality at the undergraduate level. Students in colleges and universities are much more able to cope with less-than-superb teaching, and if they have been taught at all well, they should be doing a remarkable amount on their own. But at the pre-college level, you require a stimulating teacher who makes contact with the sense of adventure in the student. Q Are you worried about the government's ability to attract and keep enough talented science administrators, and is there anything that can be done to improve the situation? A It's a double problem, of both attracting and retaining top people. The difficulty has come not so much because salaries in government are not competitive with industry--they're not, nor are they competitive with the major universities. Most people recognize that fact. But what is becoming a major issue is the perception that somehow, if you're in government service, you probably are guilty of something, and it's simply a matter of discovering what it is. The greatest difficulty in attracting people into government at the present time is the tremendous investigation that they must go through. They are asked questions that their mother would have never dreamt of asking them, about every aspect of their past life. Many people simply refuse to go through that, and it is particularly serious at the senior level. During the Apollo program, we were able to meet that challenge by bringing people into government for a year or two. They delivered their expertise, and then they went back to their home institution or industry. You can't do that anymore, because of all the regulations about what you can do after you leave government service. Q Many people say that the only scientists willing to come to Washington are those near the end of their career, whose children have graduated from college and who have a pension or other means to supplement their government salary. Do you find that to be the case? A You're absolutely right. It is extraordinarily difficult to attract someone in their 40s, in the prime of their creativity. We do have those people, of course, but the problem they face is that they can only afford to be here for a limited period of time, if they want to educate their children and so on. And so we can't keep them. It will get better next year, for example, if the currently scheduled pay increase continues. And I think that we have reached a stage of maturity in the country where we're not going to see this decade-long hiatus in the salary levels of federal employees that we saw in the 1970s and 1980s. Q As you approach your first anniversary on the job, how is the scientific community better off for having Allan Bromley as science adviser? A If you're asking, how is science and technology in the U.S. government better off than they were, I would say two things. One, the newly organized federal coordinating councils that we've put together have the strength of participation at the highest levels that will allow us to do the kind of coordination and integration of federal programs that the Congress had intended back in 1976. I'm very pleased with that. Secondly, I think that the President's Council of Advisers in Science and Technology [PCAST] has turned out to have excellent chemistry with the president, and the members with one another, so that it is working extremely well. And I have been extraordinarily pleased with the high quality of the people who have chosen to join me here at OSTP. For the first time in the history of the office, all four associate directors are in place. Q Didn't you lose one this week [James Wyngaarden, associate director for life sciences, who left June 29 to become foreign secretary of the National Academy of Sciences]? A But I'm going to replace him very quickly. You can look for an announcement quite soon. Q One year from now, what would you like to have on that list of accomplishments? In terms of overall planning? A What I am most anxious to see is longer-range strategic planning in almost every area for which this office bears some responsibility. We have tended in this country to focus on a relatively short range. But one of the functions of this office clearly is to back off and take a longer strategic look. And with the help of PCAST and the FCCSET mechanism, I think that we are going to be able to do that.

Bromley Laments Funding Shortfall

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of