White House Help Wanted List Worries Scientists

President George W. Bush's hesitance in filling top positions in science and engineering has the scientific community concerned about how funding policies may change and whether decisions will be based on research or rhetoric. Top positions remain unfilled at the National Institutes of Health, Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy (DOE), and Department of Agriculture. Bush even boasts the record for tardiness in choosing a White House science adviser--on the 25th anniversary of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), over which the science adviser usually presides. Bush has waited longer than any president, even former President Ronald Reagan (who named his adviser on May 19), to nominate a top-ranking science policy adviser, who could help him make key appointments in other departments. Bush supporters say the president has had quite a lot on his plate and that in the meantime, the staff of the OSTP manages White House science policy on its own. "There are about 35 people working in the office right now," says Richard Russell, OSTP chief of staff. "We are still up and running. We will see that the job gets done until the appointment is made." Nonetheless, the high-placed vacancies have many in the science community questioning whether the president has any interest in consulting experts before making decisions in international trade diplomacy, or health funding. Scientists who want to plan their future grant schedules wonder how the government will manage its science spending and whether the president's priorities will change. Concern over global warming ranked high on scientists' list for which Bush needed an adviser. "I think it's appalling," Stephen Berry, of the National Academy of Sciences, said of Bush's delay in appointing the top science adviser. "The academy had produced a study at the end of last year intended for the transition team. Essentially, the report said that for the government to act responsibly, they must have these positions filled. We are very concerned that there could be some foolish decisions made in absence of this advice. The climate report is the first indication that there is some attention to this. We are very uneasy." Bush's reluctance to name a chief scientist represents a marked departure from the previous two administrations' policies. Former President Bill Clinton included science and scientists in his bag of promotional tools--even linking his own presidency with the dawn of the 21st century and the technology and science that accompanied it. Though he left the top adviser office vacant for a short time, he used the bully pulpit of his office to talk about scientific advances. Neal Lane, scientific adviser from 1998 to 2000, says Clinton backed the hype on science with significant policy advances. "We finally came up with a realistic plan for the space station--how big it will be, how much it will cost--and established a partnership with the Russians," says Lane. He also lists as achievements increased spending on nonmilitary research and development, including an increase in the National Science Foundation budget and Clinton's stance on human genetics and embryonic stem cell research as evidence of the administration's commitment to science and technology. Former President George Bush, elevated the position's importance as a coordination tool, according to Ed Furtek, associate vice chancellor of science and technology policy and projects at the University of California, San Diego. In 1989, The elder Bush made his science adviser, D. Allan Bromley, an assistant to the president. "He empowered Bromley to start programs that formed interagency cross cuts," Furtek says. With an increased focus on super computing, climate changes and other important matters, "Bush set a precedent that the Clinton administration followed up on." The actions of the father, however, aren't perpetuated in the son. While fulfilling his promises to double the NIH budget by 2003, George W. Bush shorted the NSF and DOE, leaving what some see as a gaping hole in basic research. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the NIH's federal science and technology budget is $23 billion for fiscal year 2002, a 15 percent increase from 2001. The NSF budget will increase only 1 percent in that time and the DOE will see a 5 percent decrease. "Without a major investment, we should expect innovation--and with it our competitive edge--to shift overseas," Marye Anne Fox, former science adviser under Bush while he was governor of Texas, wrote in The News and Observer in Raleigh.1 Bush's defenders say the private sector has already taken up the slack for the federal government by contributing almost twice as much money as the government: an expected $180 billion in 2001, according to The New York Times.2 Not so, Lane says. "The private sector works very little on basic research. It focuses more on short-term investments. It is the work in basic research... that is going to drive the economy in 10, 15, or even 20 years, and that is where the federal government comes in." Jack Gibbons, who served under Clinton from 1993 to 1998, tempers concern for the president's private-market focus by urging cooperation between government and industry. "We will need these partnerships as we progress into the 21st century," he says, adding that the cooperation will be especially important to the development of low emission and fuel efficient vehicles. U.S. Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.), a two-term member of the science committee, said in a May 21 statement, "The president has sent the very clear signal that he does not value objective scientific input." Science committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), in a counter statement May 22, called this a partisan attack and said, "There is no indication that the administration is dragging its feet or downgrading science." A spokesman from Boehlert's office cites White House records as evidence that former administrations may have announced their intention to nominate earlier, but they did not officially appoint until well after the former May 19 record for foot dragging. Lane asserts that some early actions--such as complications with the European Union concerning genetically modified foods--might have turned out differently had a science adviser counseled the president. "A lot of things come into play when you start negotiating trade agreements," he explains. "When you sit down to talk about these things, you have to know the science. I think the Bush administration is just beginning to realize this." Russell stressed that those in the Office of Science and Technology Policy were working hard to provide President Bush with the best advice. Rita Colwell, director of the NSF, says, "Speaking as a scientist, I wish [science] were higher on the agenda of every administration. Previous administrations did not have to deal with a prolonged election and brief transition period. The priorities as annunciated in the campaign are being addressed." She says operations at the NSF have not been drastically affected by the budget decision and asserts that Bush's priority list does not reflect a distaste for research. "Science is respected and regarded. My discussions in the White House have been very positive." More telling than the late appointment will be the president's handling of the position, according to Furtek. If Bush lowers the rank of science adviser from assistant to the president as it is rumored, he says, "that would change the stature of the position dramatically." Maria Anderson can be contacted at manderson@the-scientist.com; Brendan A. Maher can be contacted at bmaher@the-scientist.com References 1. M. Fox, "Growth's engine in trouble," The News and Observer. April 14, 2001. 2. W.J. Broad, "Bush actions, and inactions, set scientists grumbling," The New York Times, May 15, 2001.

White House Help Wanted List Worries Scientists

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of