|
|
|
|
Science Technology and the Economic Future edited by Susan Raymond
John H. Gibbons
Assistant to the President of the United States
for Science and Technology
Based on remarks delivered at the New York Academy of Sciences, June 12, 1995.
On many aspects of the role of science and technology in the nation's future, it is possible to find broad agreement across a spectrum of policy views. Congress, the Administration, and most commentators agree that the United States has embarked on an era of great change; that science and technology bring economic rewards to society; that discovery is unpredictable and research essential; that failure to maintain a robust investment in research and development will cripple U.S. competitiveness; and, that science and technology are critical to the nation's future. Indeed, Vannevar Bush, author of a seminal work on U.S. science policy, made the very same observations fifty years ago.
But such agreement can be misleading because it can mask more fundamental questions. The answers to those questions do, indeed, engender deep debate. The question is not whether science and technology are good things, but rather how the nation structures a budget that provides all of these good things, and does so without leaving essential programs bereft of resources simply to fund another equally essential program? Moreover, how can such an effort be accomplished in ways that generate support among the American people? Without the public's willingness to make the kinds of public resource commitments that S&T investments require, the government's role would diminish greatly.
The Tapestry of Science Funding
The current trend in congressional budget proposals argues for deep cuts in the nation's science and technology investments. There are those who say that such cuts will not damage the fundamental fabric of science that has supported this country for three centuries. They are mistaken.
The current system of R&D funding is the product of trial and error and painstaking reassessment dating back to the birth of the Republic, and it stems from three overarching principles. First, funding for science and technology serves broad public goals as well as specialized commercial or military interests. Second, this funding yields a better return on the dollar than nearly any other federal investment. Third, science and technology are best done across the scope of the federal enterprise, woven into the public programs of a wide range of departments and agencies.
The result of these principles and the associated funding system is a rich tapestry of research and development that has been responsible for as much as half of the nation's economic productivity since World War II. This tapestry is a remarkably sturdy and resilient piece of art. It responds to the threat of new and emerging diseases such as the Hanta and Ebola viruses. It supports a space program that can put our minds where our feet can never go. It prepares American children for the high-technology, global economy of the future. It has contributed to a world at peace, and yet continues to guard the nation's security. It protects the air and water, and puts food on the world's tables.
But however strong and carefully crafted the tapestry is, it is not indestructible. If a thread here or there is pulled, perhaps the overall effect is not noticeable. But if a third of the threads are pulled, the intricate fabric may become simply a mass of tangled yarn. That is the risk the nation's science and technology enterprise now faces. By deeply cutting the government role, Congress is hacking at the fabric of science and technology with garden shears.
Programs At Risk: Some Examples
Three examples will serve to illustrate the degree to which unwise budget decisions can endanger the nation's fundamental science and technology capabilities.
America's weather forecasting capacity is absolutely dependent upon the satellite assets of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Maintaining the current system and replacing older satellites as they near the end of their productive lives, for example, is essential for the purpose of providing early warning of Atlantic hurricanes or Pacific storms. These capabilities not only protect property, but also save lives. Current congressional budget proposals would eliminate fully half of that capability.
Similarly, congressional budget proposals have called for $1 billion in cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The result would be a potential reduction by one-third in the number of research projects that the NIH funds every year. Which bright young researcher will be left behind? Which breakthrough in curing a killer disease will remain unknown? What huge long-term price will the nation then pay for a short-term budget decision?
Basic science will also face a crisis. Budget proposals from the House of Representatives would result in the National Science Foundation's cutting 4,000 research awards and funding 11,000 fewer scientists, engineers, and students than did the fiscal 1996 and 1997 budgets proposed by the Administration. At the Department of Energy (DOE), congressional budget proposals would pare 35 percent from basic science. As many as ten facilities operated by the DOE for collaborative work with universities and industry would have to be closed, resulting in the loss of 8,000 jobs. These basic research facilities have given America a cutting-edge capacity not only to lead the world in scientific discoveries, but also to address practical needs such as the search for energy sources with less pollution, better computers and electrical appliances, and even a longer-lasting light bulb.
Support for High Technology
But it is not just the R in R&D that is under threat. Technology programs requiring development support may face even greater peril.
A great deal of America's native optimism rests on the belief that advances in technology lead to a better life. America is the world leader, or shares the lead, in 27 technology areas that are critical to national and economic security. Yet that lead is fragile or decreasing. Of those 27 areas, Europe is dead even or only slightly behind in 25. Japan is tied or slightly behind the U.S. in 17 of the 25, and closing fast in 5 others. Maintaining leadership, or even parity, means continuing to move forward.
The irony is that, just as the United States is considering abandoning its historic commitment to science and technology, the nation's economic competitors are exploiting their own commitments. With its $7 trillion economy, the United States still leads the world in total dollars spent on R&D. Yet, Japan and Germany far surpass U.S. levels of spending on non defense R&D as a percent of Gross Domestic Product. The U.S. cannot ignore the fact that the world is filled with fast-moving, highly capable competitors, aided by governments that work with them to develop advanced technologies.
America has a sturdy tradition of governmental collaboration with industry to develop better technologies with large public payoffs. That tradition has contributed to widespread economic growth, better health and longer lives, and a strong national defense. In today's world, that tradition is essential to ensure that America's businesses and workers are competing on an even playing field.
The Administration's technology partnerships with private industry, universities and colleges, and state and local governments, embody that tradition of collaboration. These technology partnerships are not "political pork," special favors for politically connected firms or powerful industries, they are investments that enrich the economy. In the partnership program, independent experts choose projects strictly on the basis of merit with industry sharing the cost. That cost-sharing provides the program's market test, ensuring that the private sector, not government, is placing bets on the likely winners.
Cutting the Budget and Protecting the Tapestry
There is no question that the federal budget will be scaled back as a result of ongoing budget negotiations. But there is a right way and a wrong way to accomplish that goal. Just as fixing or re-cutting a tapestry requires a master weaver, so it is essential that adjustments in the nation's R&D investments be made carefully. The Clinton Administration has been engaged in that enterprise for the last three budget years, resulting in more than $600 billion in deficit reduction. Despite deep cuts in virtually every other domestic discretionary account, research funding has actually risen modestly, a signal of the Administration's commitment to science and technology as the engine of growth in jobs, the economy, and the quality of life. Indeed, basic research has received the greatest percentage of that increase.
Continuing the budget reduction process will require careful examination of the reverberations of any particular budget cut on the interdependent web of science and technology across the nation. Indeed, federal S&T programs are increasingly interdependent across agencies and across budget line-items. Significant cuts to one program can have substantial effects on other national initiatives. These inter-relationships must be carefully understood, and budget reductions must be cautiously approached. A budget-cutting philosophy that uses "fast and deep" as its two central criteria is the opposite of the approach needed.
The United States faces a new and uncertain future, where road maps to success are unknown. Knowledge is the only clear advantage in such a time. Knowledge is the key to the future, and only investments in science and technology can forge that key. Lewis Thomas has said that the greatest discovery of this century will have been the discovery of the extent of our ignorance. We must not let this ignorance become public policy.
Email this citation