Ex-OSTP Official Hopes To Influence Washington, Academe

Editor's Note: Biologist M.R.C. Greenwood has had a banner year. Last July, she was named chancellor of the University of California, Santa Cruz. A short time later, she was selected to serve on the National Science Board and was voted president-elect of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Greenwood 's new positions allow her to continue being involved in national science policy, a role she has been in since she served as associate director for science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)from November 1993 to May 1995. One of her major policy contributions was serving as a member of the team that crafted the 1994 report "Science in the National Interest," which set post-Cold War science goals for the Clinton administration. They included raising scientific literacy, stimulating partnerships that promote investments in fundamental science and engineering, and raising the national R&D investment to some 3 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), up from its current 2 percent (B. Reppert, The Scientist, August 22, 1994, page 1). As Congress deliberates the 1998 budget, it appears that science and technology spending will hold at current levels. However, a recent report from the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government recomments changes in OSTP administration and its role in the budget process. The commission, whose members include scientists, university presidents, and industry officials calls for additional employees, a chief of staff, and a written agreement between OSTP and the office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine OSTP's role in creating an R&D budget. Senior editor Steven Benowitz recently met with Greenwood at National Science Foundation headquarters in Arlington, VA, to discuss criticisms about the effectiveness of OSTP, science funding, and the increasing need for a science-educated Congress and public. Q A recent report from the Carnegie Commission, which calls for OSTP to sharpen its policy focus, is another voice in the growing chorus calling for change at the agency. How do you respond to critics who contend that OSTP should be more effective? A Well, this criticism of OSTP not being as effective as it could be has been going on for a decade. . . . One of the things that's underappreciated by most people who talk about OSTP and [other offices] is how much turnover there is. . . .That sometimes means the sort of re-formation of the understandings of how the offices do business on a continuing basis. I think some of the anxiety . . . that people have voiced to me on occasion about OSTP right now has much more to do with the vacancies in the Senate-confirmed positions. . . . I think the answer is that no organization moves as effectively as it would if the leadership has not been appointed or confirmed. . . . The way in which the political-appointments process tends to work is that the White House-the administration-concentrates on the highest, most visible appointments first. And, in a politically charged environment, such as the one we've been working in over the last couple of years, those don't go that smoothly. . . . Although OSTP is extremely important to the science community, it's probably not as important to this administration-or any other administration-as some of the appointments in the Cabinet and the heads of agencies. . . . So, part of what's happening here is that there has been instability-as there always is-between terms over . . . changes in the Cabinet, and since there were some rumors about whether or not the leadership at OSTP would change, that probably slowed down the process of identifying the associate directors quite substantially. Q Rumors about the resignation of OSTP director John Gibbons have been circulating for months. The White House even issued a statement that claimed it was not making a change. While any change would likely take a backseat to more pressing issues like the balanced-budget amendment, it seems that his departure is imminent. How would you sum up his tenure? A I think he has done a much better job than people give him credit for, and I think that his low-key relationship, particularly with the vice president and other people, is just not very well understood. And it's a shame. I think there's also been a perception of a little bit of change this term. Remember, [his appointment] was announced almost immediately, along with the Cabinet members, in the Clinton administration's first term. That was very unusual. . . . But on the other hand, if there's not going to be a change, then there was no reason to move quickly. . . . That's part of what's going on. I also think that with the balanced-budget [debate in] the sessions going on, it's increasingly difficult, and difficult for any individual office to get out in front of that. Q How will a balanced-budget amendment affect science and technology research and funding? A It's amazing what we have now come to consider good news. We've gone from an expectation of five or six years ago, in a big deficit budget environment, where we were expecting the science agencies to be up in the single digits, and in some cases in the double digits for funding, and we now are encouraged if we can keep up with inflation and do better than that in some fields that have a lot of popular support. What's it mean for the future? . . . . It's going to continue to be very tight for the next few years. I personally think that scientists and the higher-education community have to continue to be increasingly vigilant and increasingly more articulate about why science discoveries . . . are critical for our future. We can't afford to let up, particularly in a time of term limits in the states and possibly in the [federal] government. Q How will term limits affect science? A We are seeing an unprecedented turnover in the House of Representatives and in most of the states' [legislative bodies]. . . . Many of these people come to Congress and they have been educated in our institutions of higher [learning], and we have, regrettably, over the last two decades allowed people to graduate from institutions of higher [learning] without any appreciation or understanding of the scientific methods or of the promises of scientific discovery. As a consequence, the very same people that we educated are now skeptical of our values. We hold some responsibility for that. . . . However, I see signs that the relationship between first-rate science and good science education at whatever level are beginning to be recognized by the American public as critical to our future success. And I see this in the concerns that people have at the local level, over whether or not their children's science courses are any good. I see it at the state legislatures over the economic initiatives that include support for universities, or university-industry partnerships in the states. I see it at the federal level, when I listen to members of Congress talking about the need for a technologically sophisticated work force. . . . [It] really means we have to do a better job of training people [to do] science, training people to use science, and we have to be better, more appreciative of the science that we're doing. I think there are signs that this argument is getting made. Q You helped to write "Science in the National Interest," which established several science education and investment goals for the Clinton administration. Where are we in achieving these goals? A Well, probably better than is popularly acknowledged for a very political reason. . . . It was a message from the president and the vice president. So, its timeliness probably was somewhat diminished by the change in the partisan power structure. . . . But, if you look carefully at the language that's being used by agencies, including the National Science Foundation, and if you look at the language that people are using to describe science today, I see evidence that that document did set a tone for how we think about the public investment in science that continues to be very relevant. I'm actually very proud of that document. That document, which included a lot of bipartisan participation while we were developing it, is well-written and really makes a compelling case to the public for why people should invest in something that you don't see a return on, sometimes for as much as 50 or 60 years, but that return has been rather tremendous. Q Is the goal of investing 3 percent of the GDP achievable? A The 3 percent of GDP was really an indexing measure. At the time that we [wrote "Science in the National Interest"], the economists didn't have a great justification for a specific number, . . . and we used it more as a comparative index. We had been higher than 3 percent; other countries were around 3 percent. It was a goal. . . . Now that I'm not in government, I can say what I think. I think it should at least be 3 percent. The fact of the matter is, it's a very, very small investment of capital in what is basically a seed point. [But] I wouldn't quibble over 2.9 or 3.1. Q Would you like to see other changes? A Well, the suggestion [to have] a chief of staff is not a bad idea, the reason for that being that it's a very broad portfolio that OSTP is called upon to deal with. . . . [There are] very unpredictable and sometimes surprising demands that get made on the science adviser. . . . You can't predict an international crisis that happens to have scientific or technical aspects to it. We couldn't predict the emergence of an Ebola. Issues come up that can sort of totally consume someone, and so I think having a chief of staff that was a clear point of contact in those kinds of circumstances would be very helpful. . . . But it has to be the right chief of staff. A chief of staff that's a bottleneck isn't going to help, either. It's got to be somebody who is able to really work well with both the OSTP staff, the associate directors, who are, after all, Senate-confirmed appointees, and the demands of what can sometimes be a rapidly changing environment, if there is a crisis going on. Q What are your goals as president-elect of AAAS? A [There's] a good, quick sound-bite that summarizes my concerns. . . . "If there's no national interest in science, then there's not going to be any science in the national interest." So, if we do not concentrate as scientists on the infrastructure of our own interest, that is, if we don't see to it that science education occurs, that science teachers actually know something about science, that our schools and our colleges and universities don't have the resources or the people to really excite and teach and help students master the elements of science, then we aren't going to have any public support for these very expensive aspects of science, which we call the early research projects. This does not mean that everybody in the country has to be a scientist, nor do I think there's even any reason for that, but we can [no longer] afford to let people complete a higher education and not have a pretty good command of how to determine for themselves what constitutes appropriately good scientific evidence.

Ex-OSTP Official Hopes To Influence Washington, Academe

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of