NSF's Neal Lane: In Pursuit Of `Strategic Basic Research'

Editor's Note: As Neal Lane settles into his new job as director of the National Science Foundation, his enthusiasm is tempered by a clear understanding of the formidable challenges facing him, his agency, and the United States research community in general. While confident that the nation can maintain its scientific leadership internationally, the 55-year-old physicist and former Rice University provost acknowledges that, if American science is to fulfill its mission, it must do so in the context of a rapidly changing global environment, with all countries seeking to reshape and reidentify themselves in the post-Cold War world. Foremost among NSF's objectives, Lane contends, is the identification and support of scientific endeavors that accommodate both the individual investigator's inclination to pursue pure research and the nation's need for applications of scientific discovery. Such applications could come, for example, in the form of advanced technology and commercial products that shore up America's commanding position in the increasingly competitive world economy. In discussing agency goals in this regard, Lane uses the phrase "strategic basic research"--an idea that may well serve him in his efforts to balance pressures from Congress for NSF to do more immediately useful work against the urgings of supporters of basic, curiosity-driven, untargeted investigations. In a recent exclusive interview with Senior Editor Franklin Hoke--conducted shortly after Lane was confirmed by the U.S. Senate as NSF director--he expressed his views on the direction that, if he has his way, the agency is likely to take in the near future. Following is an edited presentation of that interview. Q: Dependable year-to-year federal funding support is, of course, vital to basic research and other efforts--programs in science education, for instance. As you look at 1994, do you foresee any areas where maintaining current NSF support levels may be especially difficult for you? A: Continuity of support is certainly important to individual scientists and engineers and also to the programs. But because of fluctuations in the annual federal appropriation, it's sometimes a challenge to provide that continuity. Large construction projects, for example, have to be planned well in advance, and they have to be funded adequately on an annual basis. Otherwise, they get stretched out, and the overall cost goes up. In a bad year they can really squeeze the research budgets. You try to resist that. But it is a balancing act. Q: What are some of the large projects that you feel must move forward, even if their high expense would necessitate cuts in other areas of the NSF budget? A: The one that looms large right now is the LIGO [Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory] project. That project is very good science, the timing is right to go forward, and it's a fully approved project--it's just a matter of getting the money. I might also mention the FCCSET [Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology] initiatives-- the federal strategic initiatives where the foundation enters into interagency agreements. These are the things like high- performance computing and communications, advanced-manufacturing technology, and advanced-materials processing. We try to meet those interagency agreements, of course, and in a tight budget year, that could cause other research that does not happen to fit within one or another of the strategic definitions of the initiatives to get squeezed. Q: Regarding priorities, are there any programs for which you would hope to find more support? A: The area of education and human resources--along with the FCCSET initiatives I've mentioned--is clearly a high priority for the country and an area of emphasis for NSF. By continuing to emphasize these initiatives, we really are doing something that is very important for the science, engineering, and technical foundations of the country. I include the national information infrastructure initiative because high-performance computing and communications really provide the technical foundation for a much larger initiative that seeks to bring technology to all aspects of people's lives--education, health care, and every area in which information and the rapid transmission of it can be helpful to the country. Q: Your agency increasingly has become involved in fostering technology transfer between academia and industry as a means of strengthening the United States economy. What kind of priority do you expect to give to technology transfer and related issues of economic competitiveness? A: Projects that academic researchers work on deal with some very fundamental or, we sometimes say, foundational questions. These people are involved in making discoveries about the way nature works, and many NSF researchers, by working with industry directly and by educating students who go on to work in industry, transfer new technologies and knowledge to a whole wealth of applications, frequently industrial applications. New knowledge is the goal, and new technology has often come out of the research process, particularly in the experimental pursuit of new knowledge. That's why the connections between industry and the universities are so important. I believe that the only way that technology really gets transferred is through close interaction between people. These interactions with industry are very important for both the universities and the industry. Now, I think it would be a mistake if we were to change the objectives of NSF programs so that they were narrowly focused on producing new technologies and transferring them to industry. That's not what most university researchers are good at, and industry knows that. Industry doesn't want to see that kind of change in the NSF mission; I really don't believe anyone does. Q: But pressure to do more targeted research that will meet national needs has been growing. What's your view of the pressure being applied by Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-Md.] and others in this regard? A: Over half of the research that NSF supports is strategic or targeted research, that is, research in fields that have been identified as being directly relevant to some of the nation's highest-priority needs. However, the research that is supported in these areas is very fundamental, and it meets the high standards of review that NSF requires. Now we are being asked to see if we can't fund more basic research in strategic areas, and that request certainly is entirely understandable and not unreasonable. I don't believe we're really being asked to perform applied research. Q: You are not, then, anticipating a dramatic change in direction for your agency? A: The nation has serious problems. All of us should contribute to their solution in whatever ways we can. The question is, can NSF do more of that, and I don't know the answer. Perhaps it can. It's a question of balance. If we can support more strategic basic research without lowering the standards of merit that have long characterized the success of the foundation and the community it supports, then there's no law that I'm aware of that says exactly what fraction of strategic research it is appropriate to fund. Q: Much has been said about changes in our national science and technology goals since the end of the Cold War. NSF is not a Department of Energy entity, of course, but what effect do you think the changes on the international scene are having, or will have, on NSF? A: The strategic initiatives I mentioned earlier are based on this change in the world. Some of the initiatives have directly to do with the competitiveness of our country in the global market, and some of them--those pertaining to the environment, for example--have to do with the quality of life of U.S. citizens and other people in the world. The research community will continue to be asked to provide the underpinnings of the knowledge base and technology that are important in these various areas of application. And I expect the research community will be responsive. Q: How do you regard the notion that this responsiveness, in terms of practical applications, may compromise or dilute basic, so-called curiosity-driven research? A: Our scientists, engineers, and educators understand that the reason the federal government funds their research activities is because the results of such research are expected to be of value to the people. What drives them individually is the fundamental curiosity about how nature works, the opportunity to work with bright and interesting young people in the universities, and so forth. But I think researchers entirely understand that the expectation is that the results of their work are for the good of humankind. Sometimes, it is hard to predict exactly in what time frame these results will pay off, but it is expected that ultimately they will be valuable. Q: The National Academy of Sciences' COSEPUP [Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy] issued a report last year [Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era, Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1993] suggesting, that we should fund selected research areas in which the U.S. can establish clear global leadership. Do you find this policy framework a useful one? A: We have an international effort here at the foundation and have had for some time, and I think that international concerns are going to be as important, if not more important, in the future than they have been in the past. It is very important that we maintain good, close interactions between our scientists and engineers and those in other countries, and exchange ideas and knowledge. We will be the beneficiary of that kind of openness, so that's pretty high on my agenda. The foundation and the science community have long considered international comparison as one metric for assessing where a field is at a particular time. There are good reasons for that: Even if you aren't the world leader in a particular field of science, unless you have some of the best scientists working in that area, and you are making discoveries, you really can't take advantage of discoveries in that field that are made here. You must have your people interacting with people in other countries, working right at the edge of the field, so that as a discovery is made someplace it can be picked up here. Sometimes those discoveries, as I pointed out earlier, are of immediate importance to one or another application, and the way to make sure that that application can occur is to be sure that we have people working right at the cutting edge of that same area of science. Q: No matter what skills a leader brings to his or her job, there are limits to what can actually be accomplished. Limiting factors can include budgetary constraints, institutional inertia, and policy opposition. Do you anticipate these kinds of broader impedi- ments in any particular areas that you'd like to succeed in? A: Realistically, budgets are a constraint. We always have many more good ideas out there than we can support. That's been true for a very long time at NSF, so you always feel somewhat constrained. We set our priorities, and we evaluate programs, and we believe that we allocate the funds in a way that is in the best interest of the country in support of science and engineering. But there are many opportunities that we're really not able to follow up on just because the funds are limited. Q: Do you expect to see any relief from budgetary constraints in the near future? A: The nation is having tough times. The economy remains a great concern, and the efforts to control the budget deficit are serious and important. So we recognize that there are not likely to be large increases in many budgets over the next several years. But I think there is strong support for NSF, I think there is strong support for the community of scientists and engineers that we fund, and I think there are great opportunities here for the future of these fields. Q: Do you need anything from the community of scientists and engineers in support of what you want to do? Do you need them to do something for you? A: It is very important that scientists and engineers realize why the tax dollars of the public are used to support research and education. I also think that as the mission agencies begin to develop their programs in support of national needs, it will be important for the researchers to be responsive. We have many scientists and engineers out there whose interests could be much broader, perhaps, than they have been in recent years. There are real opportunities for those who want to pursue somewhat different areas of research. So, it would be very helpful if our colleagues in the universities and colleges would open their minds to some of these larger questions that society is asking and that the federal government is trying to address, to see if there are ways that they can be helpful as individuals or collectively. Q: Looking ahead, what are your expectations for science in the U.S.? What do you see in your crystal ball? A: Well, I certainly don't have a crystal ball, but I'm optimistic about the future of the country and of science, engineering, and technology in particular. And I base that optimism on the fact that we do have the finest system of higher education in the world. We're being very aggressive in addressing some problems we feel we have in K-12 education. We have a very strong science and engineering infrastructure in place: the laboratories, the people, and the educational process. Industry is reaching out to universities, and universities are responding. There are examples of partnerships between government and industry, between different federal agencies, and between federal and state governments. In other words, teams are forming, and whenever Americans form a team, history tells us, they are very hard to beat. So, I feel quite positive about the future. I expect that we're actually going to solve some of these major problems.

NSF's Neal Lane: In Pursuit Of `Strategic Basic Research'

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of