President Clinton's Science Policies Draw Cheers, Jeers From Observers

After serving as chairman of the United States Senate subcommittee on science, technology, and space, Vice President Al Gore brought a technological and environmental bent to the White House. In addition to Gore's background, Clinton's 1992 pledges to build up the country's technology infrastructure, shift some R&D spending away from defense, and "significantly strengthen" the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, may have raised expectations that a Clinton presidency would be keen on science. "There are people who, I am sure, were looking at the new administration and saying, 'Now we're going to get these large increases in the budgets of the agencies that support basic research,'" says Albert H. Teich, director for science policy at the Washington, D.C.-based American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). "But the overall budget climate is constrained, and a president has to work within the constraints. Given the constraints, he has not done too badly, although I am concerned about the out years." Out-year budget projections are those extending more than two years ahead. Like Republican rival Bob Dole, Clinton has not made science and technology a centerpiece of his campaign strategy. But in a faxed response to several questions posed by The Scientist, the campaign states that the president and administration officials "have and will continue to make public statements on science." However, it adds that support for science must be tempered by both political parties' stated goal to balance the federal budget by 2002. "Since taking office, the president has fought to sustain the strength and vigor of our scientific research enterprise while the difficult job of balancing the budget is completed," the statement contends. "Investments in research, technology, education, and the environment are central to the president's vision. . . ." The statement targets only two federal agencies for full funding preservation: "As the federal budget is brought into balance, the research budgets for both the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) will be protected. This reflects the [Clinton] administration's commitment to biomedical research that will ultimately return enormous benefits to America's health, as well as to maintaining federal support for America's research colleges and universities, the bedrock of our science and technology enterprise." While the statement notes the importance of other science and research agencies, it declares that they "must be evaluated year-by-year against other mission needs." If the deficit is reduced, it says, the economy will perform better, and there will be more funds available for non-defense discretionary needs, such as private-sector research and development. "There have certainly been encouraging statements from Clinton [recently] in support of biomedical research," contends John W. Suttie, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. However, Suttie, also a professor and chairman of nutritional sciences and professor of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, worries about what will happen to science funding under the balanced-budget plans. "We're obviously concerned about what's going to happen a few years down the line. If you look at the projected reining in of the budget by both parties, it's going to make it extremely difficult for discretionary funding, and we're well aware of that." Several observers say that, given the circumstances, the president has done well with respect to science. "In light of the general budget constraint of the last three years, one has to say that science and technology have fared very well. . . ," states Rodney W. Nichols, chief executive officer of the New York Academy of Sciences. "As I read the numbers, in general the administration's proposals have been reasonably good with respect to research and development." Teich of AAAS praises the "interesting set of initiatives" with which the president began his term. Examples include expanding the Department of Commerce's Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which provides funds for private research and development of new technologies. The Republican Congress has opposed such expansion. Teich also cites the administration's 1994 report, "Science in the National Interest," that declared broad goals for American science in the post-Cold War era (B. Reppert, The Scientist, Aug. 22, 1994, page 1). "Science in the National Interest" was not universally well-received by the scientific community, and as Teich points out, the report has faded into the public-policy background. "Unfortunately, the whole thrust of that conversation has been kind of overshadowed by the debate between the administration and Congress over the budget," he notes. Regarding the ATP issue, he states: "Given that the amount of money involved in there is, in the greater scheme of things, not all that large, it's a shame they've gotten involved in so much political infighting. It's too soon really to tell how effective they have been, but they're experiments that are worth doing. I'm hoping they are going to be continued in some fashion." 'DEAD WRONG': GOP efforts fall far short of Clinton's success in facilitating technology transfer, contends William Wells. William G. Wells, Jr., an associate professor of management science at George Washington University and an informal adviser to a Washington, D.C.-based campaign group called Scientists and Engineers for Clinton/Gore, agrees. "The Republicans that came into Congress in '94 are dead wrong on their technology policy positions," he argues. Wells points out that initiatives such as ATP were begun during Republican President George Bush's term and welcomed by a Democratic Congress. Since then, he says, Clinton has improved the programs, and he declares that the clear dividing line that now exists between congressional Republicans and the White House "represents a watershed political change." Wells's position is that Democrats bettered the Bush administration's initiatives, expanding "the cooperative relationship between government and the private sector" and making it "a matter of firm administration policy." While Clinton himself has been criticized for passing responsibility for science issues off to others, David B. Moore, associate vice president for governmental relations at the Association of American Medical Colleges in Washington, D.C., gives the administration high marks. "We don't have many direct dealings with the president," he acknowledges. "But in working with various members of the White House, I think they've been remarkably accessible, willing to meet with us both at the White House and at the department level." For all of the good words, however, there is seemingly an equal amount of criticism. Much of it is focused on charges that Clinton has not lived up to his early pledges-either implied or stated outright-to make science a prominent part of his presidency. Until paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve spoke at the Democratic National Convention about the need to fund research, the party had not issued a statement, contends Bruce L.R. Smith, a senior staff member at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. "They hadn't said boo, they'd said nothing," he states. "Clinton has showed massive disinterest throughout his term as president. Bush used to attend all the meetings of his [Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology], until the Gulf War. Clinton has kind of laid it off on Gore. . . . In the end it just wasn't part of the campaign, because it wasn't a very important issue to him." OPTIMISTIC: While disappointed that science has been de-emphasized, Martin Apple is hopeful that the situation will improve. Martin A. Apple, executive director of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents in Washington, D.C., says: "We have appreciated the initial emphasis the president put on science. We have been concerned with its submergence over much of his term, and we are hopeful that the platform of both parties has recognized the need for a scientific future." 'INADEQUATE': GOP Rep. John Porter charges that the president has neglected to sufficiently fund biomedical research at NIH. GOP critics have pointed out that the Republican Congress voted to increase NIH funding to a far greater degree than Clinton recommended in recent budgets. Rep. John E. Porter (R-Ill.), a champion of NIH on Capitol Hill, contends: "Christopher Reeve needed to be at the Democratic convention to tell this administration that they're not putting enough emphasis on biomedical research, that the budget the president has submitted for NIH has been inadequate. We have raised those numbers in the Republican Congress significantly in order to ensure that the research that NIH funds goes forward." The campaign statement responds that NIH is just a part of the picture. "Increased NIH budgeting is a welcome boost for biomedical research, an administration priority, but it must be recognized that such increases beyond the administration requests (which also build in real growth beyond inflation) come at the expense of other priorities, including education," it says. The campaign also criticizes Congress for reducing NSF research budgets, making "unwanted and unnecessary defense procurements at the expense of civilian investments," and cutting environmental and energy research as well as technology-transfer programs. HAT IN HAND: Frederick Seitz predicts that researchers will have to join others in the struggle to win federal grant money. Even those who think the president generally has done a satisfactory job are not entirely happy with his science policy. "It hasn't been very conspicuous," says Frederick Seitz, a former president of Rockefeller University and the National Academy of Sciences. HOUSE CALL: Both the president and the Congress are underfunding research and development, according to Democrat Rep. George Brown. And Rep. George E. Brown, Jr. (D-Calif.), the ranking minority member on the House science committee, concedes: "The priorities for R&D spending aren't very high in either [the president's or the Congress's] budget. . . . I have been pressuring the president for several years, since at least '94, to do something about the five-year outlook for NASA and other R&D areas. I haven't succeeded in getting anything." Henry I. Miller is the Robert Wesson Fellow of Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at the Hoover Institution, a consulting professor at Stanford University's Institute for International Studies, and an adviser to the American Council on Science and Health. Also a former official at the Food and Drug Administration, Miller believes current federal agencies are bogged down in regulations that stifle research, and he blames the president: "This is Clinton's watch. This is real-time stuff. This is the stuff of which distractions for researchers are made. This is what causes researchers to be doing paperwork instead of experiments. "There's been a marked disconnect between the rhetoric and the actions," he contends. "The actions have been very damaging to science and technology, particularly to basic research." THIRD WHEEL: Ross Perot, the Reform Party candidate, does not include science as one of the high-priority issues that must be addressed by the country's next president. H. Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire and Reform Party candidate who is making a second straight run for the presidency, declines to provide a specific position on science and technology. In a faxed response to a request from The Scientist, the Perot campaign writes: "Our nation faces many challenges as we prepare for the 21st century. Ross Perot is dedicated to solving every problem, but there are several fundamental issues that face all Americans and must take priority." According to the statement, the issues Perot intends to take on include balancing the budget, passing a balanced-budget amendment, "paying down" the country's $5.1 trillion debt, producing "a simpler and fairer tax system," reforming Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, campaign finance, and lobbying, reducing crime, halting illegal immigration, improving schools, increasing the number of "better-paying" jobs, cutting illegal drug use, and rebuilding cities. The statement declares that Perot will expand on his views in paid, 30-minute television advertisements, during debates-although his participation was not definite at press time-and in the media. While acknowledging that science is not among the issues Perot plans to address in his campaign, the statement adds: "It is important to note that all of our country's problems are connected like the pieces of a complex puzzle. We must address these fundamental issues to be able to fairly and fully return our government to the people and to leave a stronger, better country for our children and grandchildren." -T.W.D. But the campaign statement counters, "While others have talked about doing it, this administration has delivered on simplifying regulations and reducing the paperwork researchers and others must face." It details Gore's efforts to scrap 16,000 pages of "obsolete regulations" and to rework another 31,000 pages, reducing "regulatory and administrative burdens on the public" by $28 billion. "We have done so without compromising the important environmental, health, and safety objectives the rules were designed to achieve," the statement adds. Predictions of what could be expected if the president wins a second term vary widely. The campaign statement indicates that in the next four years, Clinton would continue to join with the private sector in an attempt to increase private R&D funding, "to expand the essential science and technology infrastructure," and to push education in science and mathematics, at both the K-12 and collegiate levels. In addition, the Democratic Party platform, adopted in August, offers a reliable guide to Clinton's views on science, according to the statement. The platform calls for a permanent research and development tax credit and pledges to make finding cures for AIDS and breast cancer "a top priority," as well as to support "serious biomedical research which promises breakthroughs for so many diseases." And in a new space policy announced last month, the administration committed the United States to participation in the International Space Station; called for robotic exploration of Mars and for the identification and characterization of planets orbiting other stars; directed the government to purchase commercially available, space-related goods and services from the private sector; moved away from international launch quotas in favor of "free and fair trade in commercial launch services"; and directed the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies to coordinate efforts related to space. However, not everyone is convinced that more funding will come. "I think it will go on about as it is now," Seitz contends. "We're obviously under great fiscal constraints. We'll have to stand in line with everyone for money." Langdon Winner, director of graduate studies in the department of Science and Technology Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, worries that past political defeats will prevent the president from proposing any kind of progressive research policy. "What has happened to Clinton is that he's been chastened by his experience in the health-care reform debate," Winner offers. "So he's not about to propose any major initiatives that, let's say, link research to social reform. He's going around the country in his campaign proposing very modest, noncontroversial [policies] of every sort." He forecasts that regardless of who wins, the status quo probably will continue. "As regards the scientific establishment, the various recipients of research funds are still going to do well. The suburban middle class is similarly well-served by the federal research and development budget. The people who are not well-served, these lower 40 percent-I wonder if the scientific community will simply insist that the gravy train continue for it, or will it turn its attention to that growing problem in the American community?" UNDEREMPHASIS: Analyst Bruce Smith criticizes Clinton for showing "massive disinterest" in science and technology during his first term in office. "It'll be interesting to speculate what will happen to R&D in a second Clinton term," Smith muses. "I think it'll just grind down slowly without much attention being paid to it." Of the two candidates' approaches to science, Wells feels that Clinton's is the more prudent one. He believes that Dole's 15 percent tax-cut proposal would likely harm science funding. "With both candidates having committed to a deficit-reduction program by the year 2002, that does put stress on the overall support of science. . . ," Wells says. "I've heard nothing from Dole saying he's going to exempt research and development [from cuts]. . . . Where are you going to do things otherwise that will attempt to protect investments in necessary areas, such as environment, education, and research?" Finally, research advocates say they are frustrated that Clinton, like Dole, has failed to use his position to speak out vigorously in favor of science funding. Observes the Brookings Institution's Smith: "It's not a salient, front-runner issue for either candidate." That view rankles Mary Woolley, the president of Research!America, a research-advocacy group in Alexandria, Va. "If we decide as a nation that we're going to do much more in conquering diseases and preventing diseases, we will do it. But it takes that kind of galvanizing national leadership to get us there, and it's the kind of leadership a president is perfectly suited to," she says, citing the Manhattan Project and the moon landings as initiatives that were fueled in large part by presidential ambitions. "The same kind of thing can happen with medical research. That's what we would hope that one or both candidates would start talking about. So far they haven't gone beyond what the conventions brought out and beyond platform statements to tell us what's possible and how we're going to accomplish it." According to Woolley, Research!America officials would like to see a doubling of the budgets of NIH, NSF, and the Centers for Disease Control. She acknowledges that accomplishing such a goal would require a vast restructuring of federal appropriations, but says it's possible, if the country decides the gains that would result were worth the money spent. Unfortunately, she continues, in this area neither Clinton nor Dole has expressed "the kind of transformational leadership from a president that changes things." "We are very hopeful that the 1997-2001 president will recognize the extraordinary importance of science to the national future, both to the creation of jobs and to creating a healthy environment and healthy people," Apple states. "We think the proper recognition of the importance of science and technology to the national economic future is probably one of the most important tasks facing the next president."

President Clinton's Science Policies Draw Cheers, Jeers From Observers

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of