American Physical Society Comments on Academy R&D Report

As reported in FYI #35, Robert Walker’s (R-PA) House Science Committee held a February 28 hearing on the National Academies report entitled, “Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology.” For the hearing, two top officials of the American Physical Society submitted a written statement to the Science Committee with their views on the report’s findings. (See FYI #172, 1995 for the report’s 13 specific recommendations.) This FYI quotes excerpts from the statement, signed by APS President J. Robert Schrieffer and President-Elect D. Allan Bromley (Presidential Science Advisor for President Bush.)

After praising the National Academies committee and its chairman, Frank Press (Presidential Science Advisor for President Carter), for the report and the Science Committee for “holding a hearing on this important subject,” the APS statement continues:

* * *

Dr. Press and his panel members organized their collected wisdom into 13 recommendations. We concur with most of them, but find substantial difficulty with several. We will summarize our judgments and expand slightly on the few areas where we disagree with the report. For ease of reading, we highlight these disagreements with [an asterisk.]

RECOMMENDATIONS 1-3. THE UNITED STATES MUST DEVELOP A MORE COHERENT BUDGET PROCESS FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: We strongly concur.

RECOMMENDATIONS 4&5. THE UNITED STATES SHOULD STRIVE TO CONTINUE AS THE WORLD LEADER IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: We endorse these recommendations. We agree the U.S. should vigorously pursue international cooperation.

However, we note in connection with Recommendation 5 that our nation’s credibility on international cooperation has been severely compromised in recent years by our inability to follow through on several major commitments.

RECOMMENDATIONS 6-9. MAINTAINING U.S. WORLD LEADERSHIP IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DESPITE BUDGET CONSTRAINTS WILL REQUIRE DISCIPLINE IN THE ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES FOR FEDERAL INVESTMENTS: We agree with Recommendation 6, which deals with the missions of federal laboratories, and with Recommendation 8, which addresses the restricted role of the federal government in supporting technology.

*However, we strongly disagree with Recommendation 7, which states that “FS&T funding should generally favor academic institutions because of their flexibility and inherent quality control, and because they directly link research to education and training in science and engineering.” We believe that this recommendation is based on the specious assumptions that universities and national laboratories have similar capabilities and address similar problems. In truth, the two sets of institutions are complementary. Universities unquestionably perform excellent research as they carry out their education and training missions, but they are ill equipped to pursue large, complex projects for which the national laboratories, with their many outstanding and costly users facilities, are ideally suited. Rather than pitting universities against national laboratories, as Recommendation 7 would imply, we believe that the federal government should reinforce cooperation between the two sets of institutions.*

RECOMMENDATIONS 10&11. WITHIN THE GENERAL CONSTRAINTS DETERMINED BY NATIONAL PRIORITIES, THE SELECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS MUST REFLECT THE STANDARDS OF THE SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL COMMUNITY: We agree with the recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS 12&13. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MUST IMPLEMENT A STRUCTURE CAPABLE OF FOSTERING, NOT HINDERING, THE MANAGEMENT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT: We agree most strongly with these two recommendations.

Micro-management, often mandated by Congress in its attempt to maintain constitutional oversight, in many cases has resulted in inefficiencies and squandered financial resources. Efforts must be made to avoid this pitfall, while still maintaining accountability, as Recommendation 12 notes. Recommendation 13 argues for keeping R&D within the mission agencies and maintaining our pluralistic system of support. These features are central to the strength of our science and technology enterprise. Abandoning them would move our nation into uncharted waters with consequences that cannot be predicted.

In the section, “Defining a Federal Science and Technology Budget,” which appears in Part I of the report, the panel recommends that “in the future, government support for basic and applied science and technology be presented, analyzed, and considered in terms of an FS&T budget,” rather than an R&D budget as is currently the case.

*We take strong issue with this proposal. While it may have intrinsic intellectual merit, it creates unwise, unnecessary, and potentially damaging restrictions on policy makers. As the needs of the nation change, it is essential that planners, administrators, and Congress have maximum flexibility in changing the mix of activities that constitute the federal R&D program. By creating the distinction of a science and technology (S&T) budget, the report’s proposal would erect an artificial barrier between sets of activities that are closely related. It would also prevent the practical reallocation of resources from one set of activities to the other as defense and civilian requirements vary. We thus urge the retention and use of the now traditional R&D budget (currently totaling $73 billion) within which appropriate changes in emphasis between military and civilian programs can continue to be made.*

In closing, we wish to note that a periodic review of the way the federal government allocates funds for science and technology is as important as the annual review of budgets and programs. We urge the Science Committee to consider the issues in depth, particularly at this time of budgetary stringency, one which demands maximum efficiency in all federal endeavors.

* * *

For more information on the APS testimony, contact Michael Lubell at the APS Office of Public Affairs, 202-662-8700; opa@aps.org