Democratic Presidential Contenders Have Little To Say On The Subject Of Research

While the five hopefuls have opinions on such matters as education and science funding, their views lack depth WASHINGTON--The five major Democratic contenders for president of the United States generally agree that the country needs to strengthen its technology base, that spending on civilian research should be increased, and that universities remain the key to the nation's scientific preeminence. At the same time, they differ over whether it makes sense to build the superconducting supercollider and space station Freedom. In addition, they would reexamine--and possibly reapportion to more pressing domestic needs--the billions of dollars now being spent at the Energy Department's national laboratories. That assessment is based largely on their replies to a questionnaire drawn up by The Scientist on science and technology policy issues and, to a lesser extent, their public statements or voting records in Congress. The seven-question survey sought the candidates' views on topics such as indirect costs recovery and precollege science and math education, as well as how they would pay for any new spending proposals. While those replies provide some clue as to what these men might do on scientific matters after moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., they're not saying much about the subject as they woo voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and here this month. In fact, at press time, only the campaign staffs of Iowa senator Tom Harkin and former Massachusetts senator Paul Tsongas had responded in writing to the questionnaire. The survey elicited oral answers from the campaign of Arkansas governor Bill Clinton. And it produced only a four-page biography--with no discussion of research issues--from the staff of Nebraska senator Bob Kerrey. Former California governor Jerry Brown's campaign did not respond, although he has spoken on some of these issues during his campaign appearances. I do not think that the United States has an effective technology policy. We are losing ground, particularly in high technology and basic manufacturing. Our technology policy should first include making the R&D tax credit permanent. It should also reorient federal R&D spending toward cooperative ventures and encourage business, government, and university partnerships. We should allow government research to be shaped by civilian technology needs, as well as defense objectives. A technology policy means not just concentrating on inventing good products, but also on how to produce them and get them to market. It means recognizing the importance of both product and process innovation. Losing our consumer electronics industry is proof that inventing good products is not enough. It also means identifying useful technologies and ideas from around the world, and disseminating them to businesses here. For years we've excelled at this approach for farmers through our agricultural extension service. In the same way, our companies need up-to-date access to the best technologies and the latest systems from around the world. Finally, it means coordinating federal technology efforts. As president, I will appoint an office with overall responsibility for the government's technology efforts, now diffused over a myriad of agencies. On SSC and the space station I support continued construction of the superconducting supercollider, with funding maintained at the current level. We need to maintain our advantage in basic science as well as raising our level in other technologies. I am not convinced, however, that the continued construction of the space station Freedom is in our best interest. The money saved by canceling this program might be better spent on other scientific research programs like those I have outlined above. On federal spending for civilian research I support increasing the percentage of the federal budget now devoted to civilian research. This is one area where the rhetoric is in place, but not the reality. The National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, NASA, the departments of Energy and Agriculture, among others, are critical to our ability to stay on the cutting edge of technologies. We should not be satisfied with marginal increases. Economic prosperity will be impossible without a powerful basic and applied research capability. Currently, some 80 percent [actually 59 percent, according to 1991 spending levels] of all federally funded research is defense-related. This must change. Civilian research must now take precedence; our national security depends on it. As a senator I authored numerous pieces of legislation that provided funds for alternative energy research. I was also the sponsor of the High Technology Morrill Act, which established partnerships between businesses and universities to promote math and science education. On indirect costs There is no doubt that some universities have taken advantage of the way the government reimburses them for the cost of research. But these instances should not diminish the importance of such research to the United States, or the important role that universities play in such research. What is required is clearer rules on what exactly the government will and will not pay for, and then stricter enforcement of those rules. On the national labs It is time that we took another look at the $20 billion we are now spending on our national laboratories. Our goal should be to do the best research in the most efficient manner. Much of this can certainly be done at the national laboratories. But if some can be done more efficiently or at lower costs at other places or through public/private consortia or partnerships, we should not hesitate to reallocate the money here. On science education Improving science and math education is one of the most important problems that we now face. I do not see how we can compete internationally when, in nations like Japan, over 90 percent of high school students study calculus, and in the United States fewer than 5 percent of our high school students do. MIT is implementing a program to help high school science and math teachers become more proficient in teaching these subjects. If successful, this program could serve as a national model for science and math education. Improved math and science education, and education in general, is so pivotal in shaping our future that we must substantially increase spending for it. One source of the additional funding will be reduced defense spending. Some in the science community have also noticed a dearth of detailed positions on issues affecting them. "We have listened for even a whisper on either science or technology policy," says Robert Park, head of the Washington office of the American Physical Society, "and we have heard absolutely nothing. They just aren't going to run around middle America talking about science--it's simply not a winning political strategy." A senior official at the National Science Foundation speculates that research policy could become more visible if Congress and the administration decide to modify the 1990 budget agreement, which prevents shifting money from military to civilian spending, and begin to debate the so-called peace dividend resulting from the end of the Soviet threat. At that point, this official says, the candidates may be anxious to offer specifics on how best to spend any additional money that is available. But other political observers say that, even on such hot topics as how to curb rising health care costs, the Democratic candidates have failed to recognize the obvious role that science can play. "Cures and prevention made possible by basic research is what, ultimately, is going to hold down health care costs," says Daniel Perry, executive director of the Alliance for Aging Research, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. "But even when the candidates talk about health care, they talk about structural issues--national health care, mandatory coverage, and so on--rather than improving our understanding of the diseases." But at this point in the campaign, it seems that few scientists are thinking much about the candidates, either. Representatives of several professional societies and coalition organizations say that, to date, they have held no candidate forums, nor have they invited any of the contenders to air his views on science. Some observers, like former Ohio governor Richard Celeste, who is the newly named chairman of the National Academy of Sciences' Government-University- Industry Re- search Roundtable, seem to be content to let events take their course. "Frankly, I haven't been paying much attention," says Celeste, who set up a consulting firm in Columbus after leaving state office in 1989. "The whole presidential campaign season started off later than usual this time around, and I'm one of millions of people who said, `Thank God for that.' " What They're Saying Still, those scientists who are listening are likely to be heartened by what the Democratic contenders say about science. Each candidate expresses the view that civilian research is vital to keep the country competitive and a world leader. "I support increasing the percentage of the federal budget now devoted to civilian research," says Tsongas. "This is one area where the rhetoric is in place, but not the reality. The National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, NASA, the departments of Energy and Agriculture, among others, are critical to our ability to stay on the cutting edge of technologies. We should not be satisfied with marginal increases [in their budgets]." Says Harkin: "I favor a substantial increase in civilian R&D funded by the federal government, with the resources taken primarily from the military budget. . . . With the end of the Cold War, we have a unique opportunity to reverse these trends, redirecting federal R&D dollars to combat a host of internal societal problems, including energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, environment protection and restoration, transportation, and health." Clinton hedges on whether to spend more on civilian research, but he argues that the country should be getting a bigger bang for the bucks now being spent. "Current levels may be adequate, but present patterns place too high a priority on defense research and leave our companies high and dry by failing to provide funding for products at the development stage," he says. "I'm committed to at least maintain, and maybe to increase, current levels of civilian spending." The consensus on research begins to dissolve, however, when the candidates tackle the more difficult question of which projects they favor, and which they would not support. The $9 billion supercollider, for example, is seen as a luxury by Harkin and Kerrey, who voted against it, but it represents a necessary enterprise to Tsongas. Clinton has not taken a formal position on the project but is thought to be in favor of it. Harkin also thinks the space station is a waste of research dollars. But Kerrey endorsed it last summer in a key Senate vote. And Tsongas says that it should be killed. Clinton declined to go on record either way, but is thought to be supportive. One issue that unites the candidates, and separates them from the incumbent, is the role for government in fostering high- tech industries and stimulating industrial research. All favor a government-wide industrial policy, which the Bush administration rejects on the grounds that the market should decide which companies succeed. Clinton, Tsongas, and Harkin specifically mention a recent proposal by the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government to create a civilian equivalent to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [DARPA] to help nurture key industries (The Scientist, Oct. 14, 1991, page 1). In addition, Tsongas proposes creating an executive office "with overall responsibility for the government's technology efforts," one with greater authority than that of presidential science adviser Allan Bromley, who also serves as director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Asked how they would help research universities cope with the multibillion-dollar price tag to maintain and renovate their facilities, the candidates are generally supportive, without offering details. I have proposed the creation of the civilian equivalent of DARPA [the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] to manage U.S. technology policy. One of its major goals would be to fund product development and not just basic research and development projects. I am committed to maintaining or expanding federal spending on technology by increasing spending on domestic technology for every dollar we decrease spending on military technology. On civilian research I believe that the current level may be adequate, but that it places too high a priority on defense research and leaves our companies high and dry by failing to provide funding for product development stage. I'm committed to at least maintain, and maybe to increase, the present level of civilian spending. On indirect costs There clearly have been major abuses of the system, and I'm particularly disturbed that some of our most prestigious universities have appeared to overbill the government. I would be willing to look at proposals to change the reimbursement system, but at the very least we need tougher oversight to make sure that we are seeing nothing more than incidental abuses, rather than a more significant structural problem with the entire system. On science education There's probably nothing more important to the long-term health of our nation than improving our science and math education. I am proud of my achievements in this area while governor of Arkansas. Some of the steps we have taken include tripling the number of high school students enrolled in advanced math and science courses throughout the state, and requiring all high schools in the state to offer advanced math and science courses. As a result of placing a major emphasis on computer training, Arkansas currently ranks fifth in the ratio of students to computers in its public schools. To improve science and math education in this country, we need to take a two-fold approach to the problem. First of all, I believe in the importance of testing. Some people have argued that if you emphasize testing, then teachers will begin to teach to the test. But in terms of improving the skills of our students, I believe that a national test will increase awareness of what our students need to know, and where they fall short. Secondly, despite the federal deficit and the primary importance of state and local funding, there is still a tremendous amount of federal money being spent on education. I believe that we need to take a closer look at performance requirements as a criterion of eligibility for those funds, to make sure that we make the best use of limited resources. "It's important for long-term capability for R&D that universities have modern facilities and equipment," says Clinton, "but I am withholding an opinion until I have sufficient information on the topic." Tsongas says that he would provide funds for such repairs as part of his increase in funding for all types of civilian research. Harkin's response was the most specific, with a promise to "divert some portion of reduced military funding to rebuild our university research infrastructure." On the issue of indirect costs recovery for federally funded, university-based research, Clinton, Tson- gas, and Harkin concur that some universities have abused the present system but that the system is basically sound. Their prescriptions call for stricter and less-ambiguous regulations, and stronger oversight of those new rules. Precollege science and math education is another issue on which the candidates support the concept, yet are somewhat hazy on specifics. Although each one presumably supports efforts to improve student skills in these fields, none has spelled out a comprehensive approach to the problem. With respect to the research conducted at the Energy Department's national laboratories, the candidates call for a new mission for some of the labs, a position similar to that of Secretary of Energy James Watkins. But they are vague on defining what that mission should be, where the work would be done, and how the current distribution of funds among the various labs might change. Harkin says his call for "a fundamental change in research priorities . . . may involve some transfer of funds, but [that] most changes will probably occur within the existing laboratories." Tsongas says that "our goal should be to do the best research in the most efficient manner," but adds that "much of this can certainly be done at the national laboratories." Clinton says that "we need to have a major reassessment of our spending for our future research direction," and that such a reassessment should take into account "the type of environmental problems that we have created" by designing, building, and testing nuclear weapons. The men running for the Democratic nomination could well decide in the months ahead to sharpen their positions on science issues. Still, as one campaign staffer who was asked how long it would take him to provide answers to the questions posed by The Scientist replied: "We haven't really thought about these issues. It's just not something that we have talked about." In Their Own Words Accompanying this story are excerpts from candidates' responses to a questionnaire from The Scientist on science and technology policy. Sen. Bob Kerrey and former California governor Jerry Brown declined to respond to the questionnaire. On technology policy Unfortunately, the U.S. does have a technology policy. By default, our technology policy is skewed toward military hardware development. Prior to 1980, before the Reagan-Bush administration arrived, federal R&D funding was split fairly evenly between military and civilian research. Beginning in 1981, however, the two diverged dramatically, until military research consumed almost twice as much of the federal R&D pie during the late 1980s. Even within the military R&D budget, the funding was skewed toward development, at the expense of basic research. With the end of the Cold War, we have a unique opportunity to reverse these trends, redirecting federal R&D dollars to combat a host of internal societal problems, including energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies, environment protection and restoration, transportation, and health. The Bush administration's response is to let private industry do it [set technology policy]. But private industry, with its short-term outlook on the bottom line, will not make the long- term investments essential to the progress and well-being of a modern society. To remain competitive in the global economy, the federal government must become more involved in basic and applied civilian research. And the federal government must be an agent to strengthen the diffusion of technology from the laboratory into commercial production, something our foreign competitors have learned quite well. I would review and totally reorient the mission of the national laboratories, particularly the nuclear weapons laboratories at Los Alamos, Livermore, and Sandia. I would turn them to address societal needs instead of military hardware. I would support the establishment of a civilian DARPA, or a National Advanced Research Projects Agency, as recommended by the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government, although I would be cautious about putting NARPA under control of the Pentagon, as has been suggested by some. I would also expand the role of the Advanced Technology Program within the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to assist industry with commercial R&D for the benefit of society. On SSC and the space station I do not support these projects. The are both worthy projects, although the space station has dubious scientific value. But in this time of lingering recession and gargantuan federal budget deficits, we cannot afford these megaprojects. The space station and the SSC are sapping needed resources from other space and science projects. On indirect costs Certainly there have been examples of gross abuses. The federal government should not pay for university officials to attend football games. As chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee responsible for funding university research programs, I have expressed my concern regarding the abuses of indirect cost charges. These abuses sap resources from vital research programs, and have tarnished the reputations of several university programs. But, for the most part, I believe that universities have not taken advantage of the indirect charges. While some stricter guidelines may be necessary, possibly including caps on indirect rates, we should simply enforce existing regulations regarding overhead and indirect charges to government R&D contracts. On science education The National Education Goals Report, released in September, painted a grim picture regarding student knowledge in science and mathematics. The report found that less than 20 percent of U.S. students are competent in math and noted that U.S. students had lower math and science scores than their counterparts from most other nations. In this highly technological, international marketplace, our students need to learn more math and science if the U.S. is to remain competitive. We need to make sure that schools have the resources and that teachers have the skills to ensure student achievement in these areas. While I believe that teachers are the key to improving math and science achievement, adequate instructional materials, including computers and lab equipment, are also needed. We should continue to develop business partnerships to help schools obtain these resources. However, this does not mean that the federal government can abdicate responsibility for providing financial resources for schools. Education is critical to our economic growth and national security, and I will make investment in our human resources, including education, a top priority. The budget agreement enacted last year hinders investments in our human resources. The current system protects weapons, while pitting important domestic programs against one another. I think we have the resources to make the investments noted above. It's a matter of priorities. On Sept. 10, 1991, I offered an amendment that would have shifted $3.2 billion from the Department of Defense to domestic programs, including education. [It was defeated by a vote of 69-28.] I remain committed to a budget agreement that more accurately reflects our real needs. As president, I will fight for one that makes investments in our human resources a top priority.

Democratic Presidential Contenders Have Little To Say On The Subject Of Research

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of