Science Community Praises White House Policy Report

Science Community Praises White House Policy Report Author: Barton Reppert Date: August 22, 1994 Long-awaited `white paper' receives high grades from most observers, although some say it misses target. A long-awaited White House report on United States science policy, released earlier this month, is drawing generally strong praise from key scientific and educational association leaders, as well as senior officials at several major universities. These observers view the document as a strong expression of the Clinton administration's commitment to scientific research and education as national priorities. But some scientific and academic leaders, as well as members of Congress, have voiced reservations about the report, saying it lacks specifics on issues of research funding and the balance between basic and applied research. In a joint statement, Bruce M. Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences; Kenneth I. Shine, president of the Institute of Medicine; and Robert M. White, president of the National Academy of Engineering, praised the report: "We applaud the administration for taking a fresh look at the nation's goals for science. It is time. The Cold War is over and no longer drives decisions in the funding of science and engineering research." The academy presidents observed that "in these changing times, the administration has laid out a wise plan to continually evaluate the nation's position in science, math, and engineering in order to assure that the United States remains a world leader in all major fields. This field-by-field assessment is an essential tool in ensuring that precious resources are properly appropriated." And Cornelius J. Pings, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Association of American Universities, which represents major U.S. research institutions, says, "I applaud President Clinton and his administration for so forcefully emphasizing the importance of fundamental research and science and engineering education." On the other hand, Lewis Branscomb, director of the Science, Technology and Public Policy Program at Harvard University, echoes the criticisms of other scientific and academic leaders who say that while the policy statement expresses admirable sentiments, it hedges when it comes to facing the real issues that are troubling U.S. science. "I would rate it an A on importance and perspective, but a B on wrestling with the really tough issues," he says. Focus On Investment The 31-page report, "Science in the National Interest," seeks to enunciate broad goals for American science in the post-Cold War era. The document--officially released on August 3--stems primarily from an administration-sponsored "Forum on Science in the National Interest," held at the National Academy of Sciences January 31 to February 1. The forum was attended by more than 200 scientists, research administrators, and science-policy experts from around the country, as well as several key members of Congress. At a news conference to formally release the report, Vice President Al Gore declared that "fundamental science--discoveries in math, physics, chemistry, biology--is the foundation on which technical progress ultimately rests. The long-term investment that we make in pioneering discovery and knowledge generation is our `venture capital' for the future." Along with the report, Gore also announced the appointments of 18 prominent experts from industry, educational and research institutions, and nongovernmental organizations to serve on the President's Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST), an advisory arm of the Cabinet-level National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). Among those named to the committee were Nobel physicist Murray Gell-Mann and John A. Young, former president and CEO of Palo Alto, Calif.-based Hewlett-Packard Co.--who will serve as cochairman of the panel with presidential science adviser John H. Gibbons. Senior administration science officials on hand for unveiling of the science-policy statement were Gibbons; National Institutes of Health director Harold Varmus; National Science Foundation director Neal Lane; and M.R.C. Greenwood, associate director for science at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Greenwood said at the news conference that the report was especially significant now, because "in a world where economic competitiveness and environmental responsibility are increasingly tied to national security, we need to be concerned about our long-term R&D positioning." Goal-Oriented Report "Science in the National Interest" sets five basic goals for U.S. "stewardship of science in the national interest": Maintain leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge; Enhance connections between fundamental research and national goals; Stimulate partnerships that promote investments in fundamental science and engineering and effective use of physical, human, and financial resources; Produce the finest scientists and engineers for the 21st century; and Raise scientific and technological literacy of all Americans. To help achieve these goals, the policy paper says, "NSTC will provide ongoing evaluation of America's position in fundamental science, mathematics, and engineering and recommend actions to assure world leadership in all major fields." It also asserts that "investment in fundamental science must be accompanied by careful attention to support for international collaborations. The NSTC, with advice from PCAST, will recommend policies for long-term multinational agreements for the support of large scientific projects." Total U.S. support of nondefense R&D, according to the report, is currently about 1.9 percent of gross domestic product (GDP)--below that of Germany (2.5 percent) and Japan (3.0 percent). Including defense R&D, the U.S. figure is 2.6 percent. The OSTP report contends that through continued emphasis on shifting U.S. defense R&D more toward dual-use and civilian applications, "a reasonable long-term goal for the total national R&D investment (both civilian and defense) might be about 3 percent of GDP." In the area of science education and training, it says that NSTC will produce "a human resources development policy for sustaining excellence and promoting diversity in the science and technology workforce." Critics Seek Specifics At a House of Representatives hearing the day after release of the OSTP document, Rep. George E. Brown, Jr. (D-Calif.), chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, called it "a vision statement superior to any I have seen in my experience." But he added that it would be "highly unrealistic" to expect significant growth in R&D budgets over the next few years to achieve the 3 percent of GDP level envisioned in the report. Similar concerns were voiced at the hearing by Peter Likins, president of Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa., who had served on PCAST during the Bush administration. "An unstated premise of this report is the kind of robust growth in national prosperity that will make it politically feasible to commit the resources required to implement the recommendations of this report," Likins testified. "There is too little acknowledgment of this challenge in the report, and in my opinion this diminishes its credibility." Harvard's Branscomb says, "There's no question that this [report] is high-level. But on close reading, it doesn't commit itself on the things that disturb scientists most ... [such as] what will be the policies that govern the balance between goal-driven and science-interest-driven research." But several academic colleagues of Likins and Branscomb were more effusive in their praise of the report. "The president's new science policy is right on target," says C. Peter Magrath, head of the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges in Washington. "America's leadership role in the new world of the 21st century and America's science are inextricably linked." Judith Rodin, president of the University of Pennsylvania and a new appointee to PCAST, says, "I cannot imagine a stronger statement in support of basic research--the seed of discovery and of the great scientific and technological breakthroughs that have made America the world's preeminent economic and political power." She adds that "our leadership in the world's economic and technological marketplace is not unchallenged, and Americans must be knowledgeable and literate in the basic principles if we are to take advantage of, rather than be disadvantaged by, the explosion of knowledge." Charles M. Vest, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology--and also a member of the new PCAST--said in a statement that the document "sets forth a compelling case and framework for investment in the future through development of scientific knowledge and the education of men and women to lead in the 21st century." Substance With Symbolism Some science and government officials, in praising the report, cite its significance as a guide for science policy as well as a commitment to science from the president. A statement issued by the Council of Scientific Society Presidents--a Washington-based group bringing together the leaders of more than 60 scientific societies with a combined membership of more than 1.3 million--said, "The Clinton-Gore administration has addressed one of the nation's most pressing needs and produced an important new roadmap for the role of science in the nation's future." Albert H. Teich, director of science and policy programs at the Washington-based American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), calls the OSTP report a major step toward achieving a "new compact" between science and government to guide the development of American research. "The goals it articulates are realistic, attainable, and vital for the nation," Teich says. "It is gratifying that administration officials not only consulted widely with the scientific community in the development of the statement, but that the statement itself gives evidence that they listened carefully to what members of the community had to say." Frank H.T. Rhodes, chairman of the National Science Board, the policy-setting and oversight panel of NSF, said in a statement issued by the agency that the White House report "will be welcome for its strong affirmation of science, both as a primary national resource and as a major administration policy. "It is particularly encouraging to see the recognition of the critical value of fundamental research and the determination to sustain world leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering." Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology president Samuel C. Silverstein, chairman of the department of physiology and cellular physics at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons, praises the report as "a superb statement of forward-looking principles and thoughtful, specific recommendations. "This is much more than a report on the roles of science in maintaining national competitiveness. This report emphasizes science as a frontier for the human imagination and spirit, science as an essential element in the creation of modern culture, and scientific literacy as essential for responsible citizenship." The report is available by writing to: Office of Science and Technology Policy, Science Division, Executive Office of the President, Washington, D.C. 20500; (202) 456-6130. Fax: (202) 456-6026. It is also available on Fed World and on the Internet at whitehouse.gov, sunsite.unc.edu, and other major online sites. Barton Reppert is a freelance science writer based in Gaithersburg, Md.

Science Community Praises White House Policy Report

Science Community Praises White House Policy Report

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of