Sununu Offers His Views On Science And Science Policy

[Ed. note: In the October 31 issue of The Scientist New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu was interviewed as a spokesman for the Bush campaign on science. Now, of course, Sununu has been named White House chief of staff, putting him into position to influence debate on many of the issues he discussed with The Scientist’s, Jeffrey Merivs. As a result, we have decided to print additional parts of the interview.] Q Do you think that some sort of national program is needed to bring about changes in the public’s negative attitude toward science? A This tendency to try to establish public institutions for everything is quite often counterproductive. The constraints of “impartiality” and fairness that come under a publicly supported program sometimes are self-inhibiting and counterproductive. I would rather have the private side—education and the private sector research facilities and individuals involved in government— take the lead. The most important thing that can be done isto understand that what has become a product of the congressional hearing process, namely, that all sides are equally good and that you’re making, on all issues, a kind of 51-49 decision, is just not correct. But we give all sides equal time before a congres sional committee even if the views may be 100 to within the technical community, and then we ask a nontechnical body of Congress to make a decision on a technical matter. That, to me, is so representative of what I’m concerned about when you talk about institutionalizing this process, that the benefits of not going that way actually outweigh trying to do it. Q Are you thinking about the debate on nuclear power? A That’s one of the issues. But there are other areas as well. Look, it’s so hard to get a permit for a picnic ground from the local planning board that you don’t have to talk about something as complicated as nuclear power to see what happens when you deal with things in the public domain. Even if there’s almost a consensus, the 1% that feels the other way gets equal time, and so the public perception is that the decision is marginal. That’s the problem of institutionalizing these kinds of things. Q How important an issue, from a scientific perspective, is the debate on U.S. competitiveness? A Sometimes it may actually cloud the issue. We have to have a long-range perspective to our scientific goals, and sometimes the debate on competitiveness focuses entirely on short-term results. Certainly our technological edge is a very important part of the competitiveness argument, but it is not sufficient to stay ahead of the competitiveness curve. There are other components that play a bigger role, involving productivity, incentives for investment, currency relationships and so on. Q What role can the national labs play in this issue? A I have gone through 20 to 30 years of debate on what people should do with the national labs. I think that they’re an asset that’s underused, but I wish somebody would come up with a model that would show us how to make better use of them without reigniting the fires of lab-to-lab rivalry, of agency-to-agency rivalry, of lab-to-private-sector rivalry, of lab-to-academic-community rivalry, and of congressional district rivalry. It would take a long time to list all of the issues, and we could identify three dozen reasons why we haven’t succeeded in using them properly. Sometimes the best way is to develop a plan and then just surprise everyone. Maybe that’s what I’ll recommend to the president. The problem is not the model, it’s implementing the model. Q Are there other scientific agencies besides NSF that should receive significant increases in their budgets? A I think, for example, that our recommendation to combine NOAA and EPA would result in the allocation of significant funds in an area, environment research, that is clearly science and engineering. And within EPA we are talking about an increase in funding. Q Does a separate research facility to support environmental research, as has been recommended, make sense? A I have a personal bias against people who expect that a change in the structure of an institution will lead to a solution to the problem. I think that the research institute sounds nice, it sounds like it would separate out responsibilities and define roles more sharply. Yet in the long run it may be counterproductive, especially if the research side is left on its own to wither and die. There’s an advantage sometimes to be a part of an organization that is inherently stronger than you are and has more political clout. Q Several current scientific issues, from global warming to the release of genetically engineered organisms, require cooperation among government agencies. Do you think there is sufficient cooperation now? What can the science adviser do to promote joint activities? A One of the ways of doing it is leveraging the science adviser’s reach into the scientific community by establishing the preeminence of the presidential science advisory committee. It is anticipated to be, as in the past, a body of one dozen to two dozen preeminent engineers and scientists who help, by virtue of their breadth of background, in the coordination of programs and who provide information to the president that allows the president to make sure that the programs stay coordinated. Q You seem to be talking about a body that would provide an opportunity to channel outside views into the adininist ration, not merely a group that reacts to presidential initiatives. A It really is a two-way street, and its eventual effectiveness is determined by the style of the president. In George Bush you have someone who is very willing and capable of receiving that kind of information, and of making good use of it. Like all staff tools, the more it is used, and the more comfortable the parties become with it, the more effec tive it becomes. Q Some people say that what’s really needed is to have greater influence within the Office of Management and Budget. How much can a science adviser influence budget decisions? A I think that the science adviser and the science adviser’s committee, together, can have a significant role. It’s nice to say that the influence should be within 0MB, but the final decision is the president’s. And if I had my choice between advising 0MB and advising the president, I’d rather advise the president.

Sununu Offers His Views On Science And Science Policy

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of