Uncle Sam Needs More Good Scientists- And Not Just At NSF

At every level of decision making in the federal government, scientific and technological factors have become increasingly important. This is true in fields ranging from educational policy to basic and applied research strategy, from trade negotiations to arms control policy, and from defense to health related issues. Therefore, it is in the interest of the nation to have a cadre of scientists and engineers helping to make key decisions. Yet, we have a dearth of scientists and engineers in important positions in the federal government. There is a unique set of problems associated with attracting good people with scientific and engineering backgrounds to serve in the government, whether temporarily or on a permanent basis. These problems must be addressed if we are to ensure that the government serves the long-term interest of the nation. Some federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, depend on the continuing influx of temporary “rotators” from industry and academia. These highly qualified professionals are essential in maintaining the viability effectiveness, and vitality of NSF programs. But attracting the best scientific and technological minds is difficult. These individuals are in great demand by both industry and universities. And recent action taken by the U.S. Senate to tamper with salary compensation guidelines has made government service even less financially attractive. Inducing good scientists to serve in science and engineering-related agencies, however, is only one small part of the more general problem; the need is to have more scientists and engineers serving in all branches of the federal government. We should elect more congressmen and senators with educational and/or professional backgrounds in science and engineering. We need more scientists and engineers in the Department of Education, among others, to address the problem of the deteriorating quality of a pre-college education in science. There should be federal judges with scientific backgrounds, since large numbers of litigations involve patents and technological matters. Common law cannot yet override natural laws. So why are there so few highly qualified scientists and engineers serving in the government? Why do many of my colleagues perceive government service as undesirable. Perhaps the largest impediment is the federal salary structure. Government pay scales are not related to the supply and demand of particular occupational groups, nor do they recognize differences in qualifications. Nearly all personnel above the GS-15 level are paid similar salaries despite different responsibilities. Furthermore, the recently passed 1988 NSF Appropriation Bill limits the salary NSF can pay scientists and engineers on loan from universities and industry to that of the maximum Federal Civil Service salary. As a result, many professors must now take a pay cut to serve their country. One possible solution to the problem of compensation would be to uncouple salaries from the Civil Service Act at apolitical federal agencies such as NSF. In most federal agencies, there are productive as well as unproductive people, just like many organizations in the private sector. The civil service system was created to protect civil servants—and thus the federal government—from the whims and excesses of political appointees. However, the current system is anachronistic and unfair to those who serve the public and, ultimately, the nation. Congress should simply control the operating budget of these agencies and let the agency use the funds in a cost-effective manner, within the scope of broad guidelines. The result would be better performance at a lower cost to taxpayers. Another important concern of scientists and engineers is the fear that their professional development will suffer as a consequence of taking temporary administrative jobs in the government. For “short-timers,” the task of resuming research work upon returning to a university is a difficult one, made more complicated by conflict of interest laws. For a period of one year, these scientists cannot represent themselves in securing research support from the government agency they once served. This is a strong disincentive. We need a government policy that will provide nominal research support for two years to those scientists and engineers who have served in the federal government so that they can more easily resume their research activities. This will remove one major anxiety many people have when they undertake a tour of duty in the government. Despite these problems, serving in the government offers reciprocal benefits. It is an enriching experience. It broadens one’s perspective on many issues, provides an understanding of the true meaning of checks and balances, and offers a sense of contribution to society. Indeed, it is a unique privilege to be called on to serve in the government, notwithstanding the personal sacrifices one must make. Fortunately, a number of good scientists and engineers apparently feel the same way. Having served for three years and three months in the federal government, I can attest that there are many outstanding government employees who serve the nation in an exemplary way. I would argue, however, that the government still needs more good scientists. Two hundred years ago, Edmund Burke said that the best minds among us should be in public service. That motto is as true today as it was then. Whether we like it or not, the federal government affects everything we do. In this era of science and technology, we must hope that government decisions reflect technological capabilities and implications in all aspects of government policies. The best way to affect the outcome is to become a participant within the government, not only because one can have a more explicit influence on decision making, but also because the experience can provide a broader perspective and more balanced information necessary for rational decision making. To ensure that this government of ours will be “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” we must provide incentives to scientists and engineers who are interested in public service. And we must ourselves be willing to serve when called upon to participate in the governing process. Nam P. Suh is a professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Last fall he completed a three-year stint as assistant director for engineering at NSF.

Uncle Sam Needs More Good Scientists- And Not Just At NSF

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of