Clinton Administration Seeks New Model For Applied Research

Some basic tenets of the Clinton administration's science and technology policy - the encouragement of applied research and collaboration with industry to bring it to fruition - are colliding with traditional Republican values. These include long-standing opposition to such partnerships, a desire to give the states a greater voice in science matters, and a general urge for budget reductions on the part of the GOP-controlled Congress. IRONY: The Department of Commerce's Mary good notes that while states want to expand their development programs, federal officials are discussing disbanding such efforts. Shifting more authority for federal R&D spending to the states meshes with a desire to cut government research funding and an overall back-to-the-states movement in federal politics aimed at reducing government size and influence. "There's a strong sentiment in Congress to cut federal expenditures, including science and technology, and cut the federal role in governing in general," says Richard Thornburgh, former governor of Pennsylvania and attorney general during the Bush administration. "At the same time, Congress wants to devolve more power and authority to the states." The model emerging from these philosophical differences - and in light of the political and scientific realities - may be a national system in which the federal government facilitates collaboration among states, academia, and industry. But while both federal and state government leaders are in favor of greater state input in science and technology development, critics worry that states may fall prey to political influence, not unlike pork-barrel projects prevalent in the federal arena. SEIZING THE DAY: Presidential science advisor John Gibbons started a task force to bring together state and federal governments to support R&D. A special task force appointed by John H. Gibbons, head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), has been working to establish guidelines for a new relationship between the states and the federal government in planning and supporting research and development. The task force, which first met in Washington, D.C., in April, is expected to submit its recommendations to presidential science adviser Gibbons at the end of this month. "The time may never be better to establish these principles," observes task force member William R. Wiley, vice president of science and technology policy at Battelle Memorial Institute in Richland, Wash. He notes, however, the danger of politically motivated projects. "Unless we can establish [principles] with state agreement, we'll still have pork barrel, which will affect the partnership among states and the government. We have to get away from that." Named by Gibbons in January, the task force is cochaired by Thornburgh and former Ohio governor Richard Celeste, joined by a number of governors, academic administrators, and corporate executives. Thornburgh and Celeste are no strangers to state-based science and technology programs, and two of the initiatives established during their administrations may serve as blueprints for the task force. Under Thornburgh in 1983, Pennsylvania established the Ben Franklin Partnership, a system of universities and industries sharing know-how and facilities, and collaborating in efforts to form new businesses and create jobs. That same year, Ohio established the Thomas Edison Program, in which university expertise and research is brought together with local industries and federal agencies to promote technology transfer. "We're looking at representative winners and losers, at where state and federal programs have succeeded in integrating federal and state efforts as well as where they've failed, and we'll make some specific recommendations for policies to build on the successes," says Thornburgh. The idea for the task force grew out of a colloquium in January sponsored by OSTP; the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government; the National Conference of State Legislatures; the National Governors Association; and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Until recently, Thornburgh notes, "the vast majority of our national science and technological resources have been devoted to military and national security purposes." Without Cold War tensions, "we can channel these resources into economic development," he notes. Gibbons claims that the Clinton administration is "committed to building these partnerships. We'd like to optimize resources and find symbiotic situations among technology, science, the federal government, and the states, which would do the technology transfer to their people and industries." According to the presidential science adviser, the states would coordinate the development of technologies on a local level, in conjunction with community business needs and higher education support. With Democrats Gibbons and Celeste working closely with Thornburgh, a Republican, building federal-state partnerships seemingly means putting aside partisan differences. The three worked together previously on a Carnegie Commission colloquium on science, technology, and the states in fall 1993. "As former governors, both Thornburgh and Celeste have similar perspectives," says Christopher Coburn, task force director and vice president for technology partnership practice at Battelle Memorial Institute in Cleveland. "Washington political acrimony doesn't carry over to every government official. On these issues they have similar views." OSTP task force member Admiral Richard Truly, vice president of the Georgia Institute of Technology and director of the Georgia Tech Re-search Institute, favors more local say in science and technology matters. Asserts Truly: "You want the federal government to be a limited partner, not a general manager." Currently, the states vary significantly in terms of their existing industry and technology bases, educational institutions, and other resources. Formulating a coherent policy to address the needs of each state is one focus of the task force. "We're not approaching the task force with the notion that the states are uniformly strong," says task force director Coburn. "They're not. That's the challenge of the task force and the beauty of federalism. We might have half the states with competencies in one area, and half in another. We're trying to get a national system to work with that." Coburn also thinks that "a more open system should diminish pork- barrel programs. Many states want greater involvement with businesses. Industrial connections occur at the grass-roots level; it's not pork." He adds that "in theory, the cost-cutting mood of Congress should increase the impetus for collaboration among states and federal government" because of the programs' cost-effective focus. Mary L. Good, undersecretary for technology in the Department of Commerce, heads a liaison committee to the task force within the National Science and Technology Council. Ironically, she says, "the states are very enthusiastic to learn how to do more programs and expand the ones that are working in regard to economic development at the very time that the discussion on the federal level is whether we should have these programs at all." Indeed, despite the states' enthusiasm, such federal-state partnership programs, as well as those involving collaboration with industry, may not pass congressional muster. In May, budget proposals in both the House of Representatives and the Senate threatened to eliminate one such federal-state-industry program, the Department of Commerce's Advanced Technology Program (ATP). ATP funds research on commercially related technologies, with funding contingent on matching amounts from recipients. There has been congressional discussion about revamping - or perhaps eliminating - the departments of Commerce, Education, and Energy - sponsors of many applied programs and partnerships. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), vice chairman of the House Science Committee, says that the committee supports federal backing for basic research programs. But it believes that applied research programs should be left almost entirely to the states, which is in opposition to Clinton administration policy. "Applied research is in some peril," Ehlers notes, "unless industry takes some responsibility. "Part of [House Science Committee chairman Rep. Robert] Walker's [R-Pa.] concern about this is that when you have the government funding applied technology, it's in the position of picking winners and losers, and deciding which products will be made and which companies will prosper. "Once you go beyond basic research, you begin making judgment calls whether federal support for technology development is needed. If we can develop guidelines for making those judgments in the continuum between basic and applied research and technology development, it would be helpful." Wiley disagrees. "The federal government must understand that innovation not only involves the basic research in the university, but also the applied research - and the government has a role in that," he says. "The states are fighting each other to attract high-technology industries to the state, or to enhance small business in the state. The government shouldn't choose winners and losers, but should provide industries with capabilities by leveraging federal and state resources. "There's no agreement among the states as to what this leveraging program should be. Some states can't compete. The OSTP task force needs to come up with principles to bring equity among states." Most R&D policy observers agree that the federal government should continue to bankroll basic research, which is beyond the scope of most states and has a spillover effect to research nationwide. FEELING THE PULSE: Lehigh University president Peter Likins notes that states are closer to the people. At the same time, many believe that state governments are more attuned to issues affecting applied researchers in their areas. Notes Peter Likins, Lehigh University president and OSTP task force member, "State government is closer to the people and better understands the problems of the sheet-metal worker down the road. States feel the pulse of business and see the need to find relevant talent in the university and persuade faculty to pay attention to community needs." While Wiley favors continuing federal R&D programs such as ATP, a downside to such programs may be a lack of competitive ability of smaller, less resourceful states. "There may be a lack of opportunity," he says. "Washington [state] has major companies such as Microsoft [Corp., based in Redmond] and Boeing [Co., based in Seattle] to provide opportunities. Some states can't garner matching funds to compete." John Ahlen, president of the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority, agrees. The authority is a Little Rock organization that funds basic and applied research at higher-education institutions and runs technology transfer and development programs with small and medium-sized businesses. Existing federal programs, he says, don't always play well for less-resourceful states. "ATP does not scale well in rural states," he explains. "We don't stand much chance of relying on ATP and $500,000 projects. A good program should be available to all sizes of companies and projects." Says Ahlen: "I'd be happy with a more productive dialogue between the federal government and the states for exchanging information, helping design programs - instead of the states being second-class partners." While the task force's report is not yet available, some observers wonder whether there will be any real impact from the group's recommendations. Walter Plosila, executive director of the North Carolina Alliance for Competitive Technologies and one of the founders of the Ben Franklin Partnership, cautions that the president's cabinet must take the task force's recommendations seriously for any real progress to occur. "Some really innovative economic development has come out of the states in the last few years," says Plosila, who served as deputy secretary of Pennsylvania's Department of Commerce from 1983 to 1986. "This innovation needs to be incorporated into the design of federal and state programs to help industry if this is going to be a two-way learning process at both the federal and state levels." He adds that "the federal government is under pressure to show that basic research has economic benefits. States have the ability to work with small and medium-sized firms to develop those benefits, so it's in everyone's interests to find ways to bring those efforts together." Gibbons and Plosila both point to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Gaithersburg, Md., as a successful federal- state program model. The MEP establishes, in cooperation with states, a network of centers that help companies in various ways, from management to technological advice. Plosila contends that MEP works because "NIST built on the state and local programs already in place and put their centers on top of the state centers, rather than duplicating and creating a new system." Acting MEP director Kevin Carr suggests that "a balance needs to be struck to make the federal-state partnership work," somewhere between federal agencies dictating where funds should be spent and so-called block grants, which are offered to states without any specific spending restrictions. Many states already have well-established science and technology development programs, such as the Franklin and Edison programs. While many corporate R&D directors point to these programs as prime examples of successful state-industry partnerships, most stress the importance of the financial commitment from state legislatures and industries, in addition to available university brainpower. The Franklin program was begun with the idea that state government could bring industries and universities together to help solve companies' problems. According to Lawrence McGeehan, president and CEO of the Ben Franklin Technology Center of Western Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh, the Franklin model works because it's regionally led and responsive to the economic development needs of the communities it serves. It consists of four centers in Pennsylvania, located in Philadelphia, Bethlehem, University Park, and Pittsburgh. Each center is affiliated with at least one research university. Each provides funding for a range of activities, such as joint university-industry R&D projects, university-based research centers, and education and training. The Pittsburgh center, McGeehan explains, frequently will fund high-risk, pre-venture research in several different areas. "Our peer-review process is focused on the commercial aspects of the work," he says, as opposed to only scientific merit, which is used by national government funding agencies. "It takes us away from pork barrel because we're not political appointees; we're private citizens running a private company that is under contract to help the state." At the Pittsburgh center, 80 percent of the funding goes to R&D, 10 percent is for training programs, and 10 percent for business services. "We often help companies define their markets and develop strategic plans to get products to market," he notes. He sees the Franklin program as a national model to help U.S. economic competitiveness, both at home and abroad. "The country is lacking enough of these programs," he adds, suggesting a "larger focus on commercialization programs." "The 1990s is really the first decade where many of the states have programs going," says Likins. "In the 1980s, the state programs began to explode. They're all designed to create partnerships taking advantage of market forces." INTEGRATION: Richard Bendis of Kansas says state agencies need to coordinate. Richard Bendis, president of the Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation, points to the need for "state science and technology resources to work together so you have an integrated plan with a state. "The key in Kansas is that there is one body making decisions. Having too many agencies managing science and technology results in inconsistencies in evaluating programs and investments," says Bendis, whose $15 million budget comes from a state lottery. "It's an uphill battle," Wiley concludes. "If the states can get their act together, they can have input and opportunity to change priorities for the budget for science and technology. If we don't agree on principles for fair distribution of federal resources to states, it won't work." Steven Benowitz is a science writer at Penn State's Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in Hershey, Pa. (The Scientist, Vol:9, #15, pg.1 , July 24, 1995) (Copyright © The Scientist, Inc.) garfield@aurora.cis.upenn.edu

Clinton Administration Seeks New Model For Applied Research

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of