Policymakers Clash Over AAAS Report on Funding Crisis

Leon Lederman wants U S to double academic science budget, but critics say his appeal is simplistic and ignores fiscal realitiess WASHINGTON -- Nobel laureate Leon Lederman's call for a doubling of federal spending on academic research was greeted with considerable skepticism last month at a meeting of science policymakers. And that's not his only problem Even some of his colleagues acknowledge that what Lederman calls a present-day crisis is, in fad, a more subtle phenomenon that won't be visible for many years, if at all. The policymakers and scientists at the meeting, held at the National Academy of Sciences, were reacting to the report of a survey conducted last year by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) at the request of Lederman, who presented the report. Lederman is president-elect of the organization, which polled science faculty at 50 research universities around the country and received about 250 responses to an open-ended questionnaire about the state of federal . funding for academic research. Lederman said at the meeting that It the funding situation is worse now than at any time in his 40-year career. To reverse the trend, he proposes in the report that government should double its annual investment of $10 billion in basic academic research. That increase should be followed by a real growth of 9 percent each year for the rest of the decade. Robert Bender, a professor of biology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, is one of the scientists who responded to the survey. Although he's received National Institutes of Health support for 12 straight years, Bender is also feeling the pinch. He rejected well-qualified postdocs who applied recently for jobs in his laboratory because he isn't confident enough that his next renewal application will get funded when it's reviewed this spring. And he doesn't think it's right to bring others into his lab without a firmer commitment from the federal government. "I can't risk it like I could in the past," he says. But Bender believes that the problem Lederman is addressing "is actually two problems: the problem of funding, and the perception of the problem. I'm dealing with the perception of what the funding situation is. And even if I'm correct, the effects won't be visible for several years, until my students go off on their own and find it impossible to get funding, or shift into another profession because they can't see any future in science." In his report, which was mailed to AAAS members as a supplement to the January 11 issue of Science, Lederman urges his colleagues to rally the public behind them. But federal policymakers who attended the January 7 meeting made it clear that scientists will have to do much more than just wring their hands and talk in generalities if they expect the average citizen to join their cause. "What the public will support will depend on what they will ultimately get out of it" Sen. Al Gore (D-Tenn.) told the audience gathered at the meeting. "Basic research is a good way to employ scientists, but they stretch the economic,benefits argument a little bit" when scientists try to demonstrate the economic payoff of basic research. In fact, according to Gores "people are troubled by what they see.happening" to the fruits of our science.'Too often, he said, "the results lead to products that enrich the standard of living in other countries." Acting National Science Foundation director Fred Bernthal was equally frank in response to Lederman's plea. "Anecdotal evidence is not enough; it's not likely to convince Congress," he said. "When the fundamental basis of the argument is that science is basic to our well-being, you need to quantify that statement." And presidential science adviser Allan Bromley, in a written statement, took issue with figures cited in the report about the slow growth of federal spending for academic research. Bromley claimed the rate over the past two decades is three times larger than the 20 percent real growth that Lederman calculated. On the subject of motley, several speakers predicted that a simple request for more would fail. Bernthal reminded his colleagues of Richard Feynman's admonition, offered in the 1960s during his physics lectures at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, that "frontier experiments will, ultimately, become too expensive to perform." Rolf Sinclair, chairman of the physics section of AAAS and an NSF administrator, stated that "we cannot exponentiate forever. The so-called golden age of science in the 1950s and 1960s was an anomaly; the decades before and after are more typical of [the type of growth] we should expect." An aide to the House Science Space and Technology Committee chided the audience for seeking a simple solution to a complex problem. "The hallmark of any interest group is to first ask for more money," said staffer David Goldston. "Unless you address specific issues, like the difficulty of funding young scientists and the sorry state of science education, this report is going to be seen as self-serving by people on [Capitol] Hill." Even those who favor Lederman's approach may find it difficult to agree on where those new funds should go. The never-ending debate over whose science is more deserving was evident in the comments of several speakers. "Remember, a lot of the problems that society is spending so much money on are matters of behavior, and require behavioral solutions," said Yale University psychologist Linda Bartoshuk. "If we solve them, we'll have more money for basic science." David Blockstein, executive director of a campaign to create a National Institutes for the Environment (The Scientist, Nov. 12, l990, page 1), urged the audience to remember his discipline. A geologist wanted to make sure that his field wouldn't be forgotten. At the meeting, Lederman called for a movement to popularize science with such techniques as a weekly television show and a regular column in a national newspaper or magazine. And he reminded scientists to be humble in presenting their case to the public "because we don't know all the answers."

Policymakers Clash Over AAAS Report on Funding Crisis

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of