Title: NSB 97-186 "Government Funding of Scientific Research: A Working Paper

             of the National Science Board"

    Date:  December 10, 1997

    Government Funding of Scientific Research

    A Working Paper of the National Science Board

    INTRODUCTION

    "...[P]resently there is no widely accepted way for the Federal government in

    conjunction with the scientific community to make priority decisions about the

    allocation of resources in and across scientific disciplines."

    With the end of the Cold War and the need to reduce the size of the Federal

    deficit, all facets of the Federal budget have come under scrutiny, including

    the Nation's investment in research and development (R&D).  There has been

    considerable discussion on proposals to reduce the Federal R&D budget and to

    reorder its priorities.  The National Science Board (NSB) is specifically

    charged with assessing the health of science in the Nation and with advising

    the President and Congress on matters of national science policy.<sup>1</sup>

    The Board therefore offers its perspective on the important issues this

    country  confronts today concerning the funding of scientific research by the

    Federal government.  Consistent with its charge, the Board has focused its

    efforts on issues affecting scientific research as distinct from development.

    Peer review of proposals has long assured the funding of the best researchers

    with the best ideas.  However, presently there is no widely accepted way for

    the Federal government in conjunction with the scientific community to make

    priority decisions about the allocation of resources in and across scientific

    disciplines.<sup>2</sup>    We examine this complex issue and offer our views

    on this challenging task with two purposes in  mind.  The  first is  to guide

    future  actions of the  Board  in reaching priority decisions about the budget

    of the National Science Foundation (NSF).  The second is to engage the

    attention and participation of others in meeting this challenge by

    supplementing present procedures with other systematic ways to reach and

    prioritize decisions.

    The rationale for the major Federal role in funding scientific research goes

    back some fifty years to the time after the end of World War II, when

    realization of the impact of science-based technology on the course of the war

    was keenly felt.  The mood was expressed in Vannevar Bush's July 1945 report,

    Science--The Endless Frontier.<sup>3</sup>    It is natural to question the

    validity of the philosophy for today and, particularly, to examine the

    question of the coordination of federally-financed research.

    The Board has studied the report, Allocating Federal Funds for Science and

    Technology, issued in 1995 by a committee of the National Research Council

    chaired by Frank Press.<sup>4</sup>    (We refer to this as the "Press

    report.")  A major theme of that report is the need for some degree of

    coordination of federally-financed research.  This idea is not totally new but

    was particularly well developed in the report.  This timely and critical but

    highly controversial proposal merits careful attention at this time.

    If it is in the Nation's interest for there to be some form of

    "comprehensive" and "coherent" coordination of federally-financed

    research,<sup>5</sup>   it is necessary to have guidelines to provide clear

    direction on setting priorities within the Federal research budget.  The Press

    report pointed out that guidelines were offered in the 1993 report of the

    National Research Council's Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public

    Policy (COSEPUP) Science, Technology and the Federal Government--National

    Goals for a New Era.<sup>6</sup>   The Board has considered the adequacy of

    the COSEPUP guidelines.

    "With this paper, the Board hopes to encourage a much needed dialogue among

    appropriate stakeholders."

    This working paper presents the Board's thinking on these subjects.  With this

    paper, the Board hopes to encourage a much needed dialogue among appropriate

    stakeholders. The  document is divided into four sections.  The first section

    addresses the definitions of "research" and "development" and highlights the

    essential differences between them, particularly as they affect the possible

    government role in funding.  Considerable confusion has been created by

    imprecise and sometimes improper use of the term R&D. The Board feels it is

    important to clarify this issue.

    The second section revisits the justification articulated by Vannevar Bush for

    government funding of scientific research.  It addresses some of the changes

    in the past fifty years that may have altered the justification but concludes

    that the need for government funding of research is just as critical today as

    it was at the height of the Cold War.

    The third section examines the need for comprehensive coordination of

    federally-financed research.  It concludes that such coordination could assist

    the President and Congress by providing a valuable addition to and improvement

    over the processes presently in place.  However, implementation of such a

    policy would involve the difficult task of developing acceptable procedures.

    "...[F]urther study of priority setting methodologies involving appropriate

    stakeholders should be undertaken.  The NSB recommends such a study and

    pledges its support for this effort."

    The final section addresses the availability of guidelines to provide clear

    direction on setting priorities.  It concludes that further study of priority

    setting methodologies involving appropriate stakeholders should be undertaken.

    The NSB recommends such a study and pledges its support for this effort.

    SECTION I:

    DEFINITIONS OF "RESEARCH" AND "DEVELOPMENT"</A>

    "...[I]t is appropriate to define "research" as distinct from "development,"

    recognizing that there are instances where the boundaries blur."

    Because this document focuses on research, it is appropriate to define

    "research" as distinct from "development," recognizing that there are

    instances where the boundaries blur.<sup>7</sup>

    Research

    Research is the search for new knowledge and concepts that unify and extend

    that knowledge. The work, stimulated by theoretical or practical questions, is

    conducted in the context of existing knowledge and paradigms.  A paradigm is a

    guiding concept or model, based on accumulated knowledge, which is generally

    accepted as valid and useful.

    Typically, research is designed to answer specific questions to fill gaps

    within the existing body of knowledge or to test the paradigm itself.  Work

    which is intended to confirm or refine an existing paradigm may, in fact,

    contradict it, thus opening the way for a scientific revolution.

    Practical applications of knowledge may range from new products and processes

    to the information base needed for management or policy decisions.  An

    investigator may or may not have specific, practical applications for the

    results of his/her work when designing the research.  However, extensive

    history has documented the fact that the most important applications and

    policy implications are not envisioned at the time of the research.  This fact

    is most especially true of work that leads to new or greatly modified

    paradigms.

    Development

    Development is the process by which a new product or process is brought into

    being or improved based largely on existing knowledge and theory.  In an

    industrial setting, development encompasses a wide range of activities, such

    as scale-up, packaging, or cost analysis. Here we will consider only the

    technical development by which the concept may be  reduced to feasible

    practice.  We have chosen not to address development efforts outside of the

    commercial sector, that is, development directed to achieving the mission of a

    sponsoring agency.

    In general, development cannot occur based on existing knowledge and theory

    only, for there are inevitable gaps in the knowledge base.  Experiments are

    typically designed in the development process to address these specific gaps.

    Thus development has some important features in common with research, though

    the questions in a technical development program tend to be of narrower scope

    than in research.

    While there are research aspects to technical development, research does not

    naturally lead to development in any linear way.  Rather, research and

    development are iterative, with development dependent on research, and often

    vice versa. Taken together, research and development may be defined as

    "technical innovation."  Invention is possible at any stage in the technical

    innovation process and success is necessary at every stage to produce a

    commercially viable product or process.

    Observations on the R&D Definitions

    "...[R]esearch and development are iterative, with development depending on

    research and often vice versa. ."

    Research and development, as here defined, are related:  not every activity

    can be clearly classified as one or the other.  Additional phrases such as

    "applied research" or "exploratory development" have been created to provide

    finer definition of the gray areas between research and development.  The

    above definitions are simpler and adequate for present purposes.

    It should also be noted that success in technical innovation is necessary, but

    not sufficient, for commercial success.  Many other factors influence the

    ultimate commercial success or failure of a new product or process.  Some

    factors, such as marketing, distribution, design for manufacturability, and

    testing, are primarily the responsibility of industry.  Other factors, such as

    the cost of capital, liability laws, environmental regulations, and tax policy

    are dependent on government actions and general economic conditions.  It is,

    in fact, these interdependencies that necessitate close cooperation among the

    sectors-- academy, industry, and government--to ensure the economic well-being

    of the Nation.

    Our definitions distinguish research from development and also indicate the

    relationship between them.  Discussion of support by the government must deal

    carefully with this relationship, while recognizing that the rationales for

    supporting the two are quite different.

    It further should be noted that research and education are inexorably linked

    in U. S. higher education in science and engineering.  During the

    undergraduate and graduate years, students learn the fundamentals of their

    fields.  However, because the knowledge base is growing explosively, students

    must also learn how to learn, lest their education become obsolete.  It is in

    this realm that research becomes a powerful part of both undergraduate and

    graduate education, which is one of the great strengths of the American higher

    education system.  In research, students learn how to gather current

    knowledge, how to pose significant questions to further that knowledge base,

    and how to frame and implement an approach to address their questions.  This

    research/ education experience is invaluable training, not only for those

    continuing in research, but for the broader workforce and an informed public.

    SECTION II: JUSTIFICATION FOR GOVERNMENT SUPPORT OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH</A>

    "Bush saw the benefits of research accruing to a wide range of national needs

    rather than to a single objective, such as defense."

    Prior to World War II, support for research by the government of the United

    States was largely focused on government missions and carried out by Federal

    employees in Federal establishments.  The experience with weapons development

    during the war highlighted the enormous potential impact of the results of

    scientific research on national needs.  It was also realized that academic

    research was a powerful engine for generating such results.

    The government role in supporting research in the scientific community at

    large was greatly stimulated by the vision enunciated by Vannevar Bush.  Bush

    wrote, "The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the

    flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in

    our youth.  These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government

    for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national

    security."<sup>8</sup>    Bush used the word "jobs" to describe what elsewhere

    he referred to as "prosperity" or "public welfare."  The concept is now

    commonly referred to as "economic security."  The three areas identified by

    Bush were those of most concern at the time.  Were Bush writing today, he

    would probably add others, including "the environment," "green manufacturing,"

    and "clean energy sources."

    Bush saw the benefits of research accruing to a wide range of national needs

    rather than to a single objective, such as defense.  Indeed, he concluded his

    letter to President Truman transmitting his report with a broad vision of the

    impact of science on quality of life:  "Scientific progress is one essential

    key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a

    higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress."<sup>9</sup>

    Vannevar Bush clearly recognized that applications of research results often

    appear many years after the work is started and that there is no certainty as

    to which of the many national needs will benefit from this work.  He also

    observed that "...basic research is essentially non-commercial in nature.  It

    will not receive the attention it requires if left to industry."<sup>10</sup>

    Today this concept is recognized as a lack of "appropriability."  Because of

    the long-term nature of research and the uncertainties in predicting its

    practical applications, a company cannot be certain that investment in

    research will result in a competitive advantage in the worldwide marketplace.

    Indeed, the increase in global competition has exacerbated the

    "appropriability" issue.  It consequently has increased the need for

    government support of research.

    The Bush vision encouraged the mission agencies to support research

    universities in fields that were deemed to have probable long-term relevance

    to their missions.  It also led to the establishment of the National Science

    Foundation and the gradual building of its budget to the point that it has

    become a major source of support for science and engineering in our

    universities.  The National Science Board was created with its dual mission of

    overseeing the activities of NSF and monitoring the health of science in the

    Nation.

    "As a result of implementing the Bush vision, our research universities have

    become the envy of the world.  The application of new knowledge and talent in

    science has indeed created handsome benefits..."

    As a result of implementing the Bush vision, our research universities have

    become the envy of the world.  The application of new knowledge and talent in

    science has indeed created handsome benefits in the three areas Bush

    identified.  We will cite just one example in each area.  The understanding of

    the structure and properties of DNA opened up totally new opportunities to

    address health issues and provided the basis for the vibrant new biotechnology

    industry.  Polymer and photochemical research led to the creation of

    photoresists that are key to the success of the microelectronics industry,

    which accounts for well over a quarter of a million jobs in the U. S. today.

    The atomic clock, which was based on research in atomic physics and was

    stimulated by needs in astronomy, provided a foundation for the development of

    the Global Positioning System to satisfy a critical defense need.  More

    recently, it is creating a large commercial marketplace for everything from

    ships to backpackers.

    In the fifty years since the end of World War II, major changes have occurred

    here and overseas that might have an impact on the rationale for government

    support of scientific research. Two of the most frequently cited are the end

    of the Cold War and the emergence of a global technological marketplace.

    Another  is  the  increasing  need for information and knowledge as a basis

    for policy and management  decisions by institutions and individuals, to

    enable them to contend with the modification of natural and social

    environments that is occurring at increasing rates, over larger scales, and in

    fundamentally new ways.

    "Do these changes call for a major change in our attitude toward research?...

    We conclude that changed circumstances... do not reduce the desirability of

    continued government funding of scientific research."

    Do these changes call for a major change in our attitude toward research?  We

    believe that none would invalidate the justification for wise government

    support of research.  Health, economic security, and national security remain

    as imperatives, and are now joined by social and environmental concerns.  Only

    the sense of priority has changed.  Defense priorities have decreased but

    competition from global science- based technological industry and

    environmental and social concerns have increased as no one would have dreamed

    in 1945.

    Some Asian nations, most prominently Japan, have succeeded in building

    excellent high-tech industries in the absence of a publicly-accessible

    academic research base.  At the same time, U. S. industry appeared to be

    faltering in areas such as consumer electronics and in fundamental research in

    manufacturing engineering.  These observations have been used to suggest to

    some that government funding of science might not be required to enhance

    national prosperity.  We believe that this is an incorrect conclusion stemming

    from a number of misunderstandings of the characteristics of research and

    development and their role in the total innovation process.

    First, as discussed in the section on definitions, success in bringing

    high-tech products and services to the marketplace involves a total innovation

    process including functions such as research, development, manufacturing,

    marketing, and others.  All of the functions involved must work well.  The

    problems with the U. S. consumer electronics industry have been thoroughly

    studied and are well understood.<sup>11</sup>     American firms lost market

    share to competitors with shorter product cycles, lower costs, and superior

    quality.  Even excellent science will not compensate for such a weakness in

    the industrial environment.

    Second, as also discussed in the section on definitions, the innovation

    process is an iterative, not a linear, process.  While some very important

    product developments are triggered by new knowledge from research, the

    majority are stimulated elsewhere -- by market needs, by manufacturing

    advances, and by ideas from the development laboratory. These product

    developments can proceed largely on the foundation of existing and widely

    understood scientific and technical knowledge.  The consumer electronics

    industry fits this model as does the mature semiconductor industry.  Thus,

    even nations without ready access to research capabilities can prosper and

    excel in these product lines.

    The most obvious situation in which research can lead to a competitive edge

    for industry is where there is a fundamental breakthrough, a paradigm change.

    Here there may be opportunities to create whole new industries.  The

    understanding of DNA was surely one such paradigm change.  When this occurs, a

    nation with both a strong industry and a leading scientific capability can

    capitalize on its closer access to knowledge and talent to become first in the

    world market with the most innovative, profitable products and services.  It

    is under these less frequent and highly unpredictable circumstances that

    research makes a critical contribution to industrial competitiveness.

    There are other research benefits that can be at least as valuable.  Basic

    expertise is needed to evaluate new technical opportunities regardless of

    their source.  Whatever the extent of a nation's investment in research, some

    breakthroughs are bound to occur elsewhere.  Having expertise in a field makes

    it possible to catch up with the originator in the implementation phase and

    even get to market ahead of the originator.  In planning technical programs,

    whether in research or development, it is valuable to understand what can work

    and it can be even more valuable to know what cannot work.  Finally, ready

    access to the talent in research universities, whether as employees or

    consultants, is an asset to industry in all facets of the innovation process.

    These benefits from research can be seen in the strength of our information,

    chemical, and pharmaceutical industries and the competitive advantage they

    have gained from close access to basic science.

    "Changes in national priorities do not negate the potential of research

    benefits which are long term and uncertain in detail but have proved over time

    to be substantial."

    We conclude that changed circumstances in recent years do not reduce the

    desirability of continued government funding of scientific research.  Changes

    in national priorities do not negate the potential of research benefits which

    are long term and uncertain in detail but have proved over time to be

    substantial.  In the presence of global competition a nation should  be strong

    in  all facets of technical innovation and should have available a

    continuously renewed base of knowledge to inform its decisions and those of

    its citizens.  A nation requires a robust high-tech industry, a scientific

    talent base, and a vigorous research activity to prosper over the long term.

    SECTION III: COORDINATION OF FEDERALLY-FINANCED RESEARCH

    "Sometimes important decisions about the allocation of limited resources

    happen by default, without explicit weighing of alternatives.  There  remains

    a need to examine and coordinate the science and engineering research budget

    as a whole."

    We recognize that a degree of coordination of Federal research spending exists

    across disciplines and that during the last decade the Executive branch has

    taken steps to improve coordination of research across agencies in key areas.

    Indeed,  the Office of Management and Budget in consultation with the Office

    of Science and Technology Policy provides annual budget guidance to all

    agencies participating in support of priority research areas in preparing the

    Federal budget for submission to Congress.  Too, agency budget submissions

    must be developed in the context of the Government Performance and Results

    Act, which requires that agency supported research activities have measurable

    outcomes toward achieving agency missions.  We note in particular that the

    committees of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) provide

    coordination in areas of special national interest, such as global change, the

    development of less polluting transportation, energy, specific health areas,

    childhood development, and the future of the U.S. program in the

    Antarctic.<sup>12</sup>

    These efforts benefit from special Administration studies, including reports

    of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and

    the NSTC.<sup>13</sup>    But, beyond those special areas, coordination

    depends on individual agency-to-agency agreements, informal cooperation across

    agencies at the program level, and the memories of Congressional committees.

    Sometimes important decisions about the allocation of limited resources happen

    by default, without  explicit  weighing  of  alternatives.   There   remains

    a  need  to examine and coordinate the science and engineering research budget

    as a whole.

    "Improved coordination and decision-making at the Federal level could lead to

    a better alignment of expenditures with respect to national priorities without

    in any way replacing the spontaneous generation of ideas and proposals by

    individual research workers and teams."

    We are proposing that the Federal government take upon itself the high-level

    coordination of the diffuse sources of Federal funds for research as suggested

    in the Press report.  Improved coordination and decision-making at the Federal

    level could lead to a better alignment of expenditures with respect to

    national priorities without in any way replacing the spontaneous generation of

    ideas and proposals by individual research workers and teams.  Such

    coordination could correct deficiencies that will inevitably surface in its

    absence.  The main deficiencies are gaps, overlaps, and failures to meet

    priorities.

    Decentralized allocation will sometimes result in separate agencies

    unintentionally pursuing the same agenda.<sup>14</sup>    Duplication of

    research efforts is not always a bad thing, even when funds are scarce.  It

    may encourage competition among investigators and advances in knowledge across

    a broad front.  Whether or not any particular duplication is desirable

    competition or wasteful overlap has to be decided explicitly.  There is no

    reason to expect the optimum answer to arise by happenstance.

    In exactly the same way, decentralized allocation will sometimes leave

    important areas of research inadequately covered.  Individual funding agencies

    and individual researchers may incorrectly presume that others are pursuing

    particular topics and related areas.  Although such gaps may correct

    themselves over time as the writers and readers of proposals see what has

    happened, this can be a wasteful process, and even quite destructive if young

    researchers decide to leave important unfunded fields.  Coordination would

    allow one to see gaps in advance and judge whether they should be eliminated.

    Sometimes there will be a clear sense within the Federal government that some

    areas of research merit particularly high priority for social or economic

    reasons (examples:  climate, hydrology, violence, materials, transportation,

    etc.).  The uncoordinated generation of research proposals will not completely

    ignore such priorities, but cannot be expected to reflect them with great

    fidelity.  It was already noted that important applications of research are

    not always foreseen when the research is planned.  This observation does not

    deny that research aimed at a particular application is more likely to achieve

    it than research aimed in some other direction.  Comprehensive coordination

    can achieve a rough conformity between accepted priorities and the allocation

    of resources.  This fact becomes increasingly important when funds are scarce.

    As an extreme example, it is a common observation that completely

    decentralized modes of allocation run into particular trouble when budgets

    must be cut. At such a time it is easy for the general interest to be

    overridden by parochial interests.

    "Whenever there is some amount of comprehensive coordination and

    decision-making, it is supremely important that the criteria of choice be

    appropriate.  There is no virtue in doing the wrong thing efficiently."

    Whenever there is some amount of comprehensive coordination and

    decision-making, it is supremely important that the criteria of choice be

    appropriate.  There is no virtue in doing the wrong thing efficiently.  Any

    scheme of oversight must begin with explicit discussion of and agreement about

    the goals to be achieved.

    SECTION IV: FEDERAL SCIENCE PRIORITIES

    "...COSEPUP recommendations...may not go far enough....  The Nation may

    choose, and may be able to afford, to invest beyond the levels that the

    COSEPUP criteria would suggest.  Thus the Board believes that further study is

    needed before a particular methodology for setting priorities is adopted."

    Within the Federal budget, there should be an overall strategy for research,

    with areas of increased and areas of decreased emphasis.  The budget as a

    whole should be adequate both to serve national priorities and to foster a

    world-class scientific and technical enterprise.  To this end, Congress and

    the Administration need to establish a process that examines the complete

    Federal research budget before the total Federal budget is disaggregated.

    Departments and agencies should make decisions based on clearly articulated

    criteria that are congruent with the overall strategy.

    Within the Executive branch, the interagency NSTC, and before it the Federal

    Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET), have

    successfully organized crosscutting research areas of national interest, such

    as global change, energy, transportation science, environmental science and

    technology, and human resources for the twenty-first century.  However, in

    order for broader coordination and priority setting to be successful, general

    guidelines are required to provide clear direction.

    The most recent effort by the scientific community to recommend guidelines for

    the allocation of  research resources across all fields of science  and

    engineering  appears  to  be  the  COSEPUP  report.    That report proposes

    that Federal research resources be allocated among different scientific fields

    and Federal agencies and departments so that the United States will be among

    the leaders in all major fields of science and the leader in selected major

    fields.<sup>15</sup>

    The National Science Board supports the spirit of the COSEPUP recommendations

    but believes that they may not go far enough.  The COSEPUP criteria would

    assure that the United States would be competitive with, indeed somewhat ahead

    of, other nations.  This, we believe, is highly desirable but may not be

    sufficient.  In addition to questions of world leadership, one must also ask

    what is the appropriate scale of the investment to meet the needs of the

    greatest economic power in the world. Given the broad range of national needs

    that can benefit from the results of scientific research, the Nation may

    choose, and may be able to afford, to invest beyond the levels that the

    COSEPUP criteria would suggest. Thus the Board believes that further study is

    needed before a particular methodology for setting priorities is adopted.

    To ensure the most effective use of Federal discretionary funding it is

    essential that agreement be reached on which fields and which investment

    strategies hold the greatest promise for new knowledge that will contribute

    most effectively to better health, greater equity and social justice, improved

    living standards, a sustainable environment, a secure national defense, and to

    extending our understanding of nature.  It is intrinsic to research that

    particular outcomes cannot be foretold; but it is possible, indeed necessary,

    to make informed choices and to invest wisely.  The need for better

    coordination and priority-setting is not related to cycles of fiscal

    constraint alone.  It is, rather, an integral aspect of a sound,

    future-oriented strategy for the investment of limited Federal dollars.

    "Although the need for establishment of research priorities has been discussed

    often, no agreed upon method exists for carrying out this task... [M]any

    scientists consider the task both undesirable and undoable... the National

    Science Board believes that this difficult task will become increasingly

    important and must be faced over the next few years."

    Although the need for establishment of research priorities has been discussed

    often, no agreed upon method exists for carrying out this task.  Moreover, no

    consensus has been built to support such a methodology.  Several subfields of

    science have long-established methodologies for producing ranked lists of new

    construction projects: for example, the Decadal Studies in Astronomy, the

    periodic reports of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) ranking

    accelerator projects, and the occasional reports ranking investments in x-ray

    and neutron scattering sources.

    However, these priority-setting exercises have been within fields and

    subfields of science. We are aware of no examples of the scientific community

    agreeing on the relative priorities for investment across scientific fields.

    Although many scientists consider the task both undesirable and undoable, the

    National Science Board believes that this difficult task will become

    increasingly important and must be faced over the next few years.

    The Board has concluded that an appropriate next step is to initiate a study

    of guidelines that go beyond those proposed in the COSEPUP report.  The

    purpose of this task would be not to set priorities, but rather to undertake a

    study of how they might best be set.  Specific charges would be to:  [a]

    review, in light of changing circumstances, the goals for Federal investment

    in scientific research as stated in the Administration report, Science in the

    National Interest;<sup>16</sup>     [b] examine what methodology and criteria

    might best be used to set priorities across different scientific fields and

    disciplines toward the attainment of those goals;  and [c] consider what

    mechanisms will be effective in building broad public and scientific support

    for, and involvement in, priority setting.  The study should involve the

    opinions of a diverse group including, among others, active researchers with

    breadth of vision.

    The National Science Board recommends further study of priority-setting

    methodologies involving appropriate stakeholders.  The Board believes that

    this task is of paramount importance to the future health of U.S. science and

    technology.  It should be undertaken to assure the continued flow of

    wide-ranging benefits to society from Federal investments in science and

    engineering research.  The Board offers its assistance on this critical task

    in any way that the President and the Congress would find helpful.

    ENDNOTES:

    <sup>1</sup>  National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

    Sec. 1861.et. seq.  A particular responsibility of the Board in implementing

    this mandate is the biennial publication of Science and Engineering

    Indicators.

    <sup>2</sup>   Throughout this paper, "science" includes mathematics,

    engineering, and materials research.

    <sup>3</sup>   Vannevar Bush,  Science - The Endless Frontier (40th

    Anniversary Edition, Washington, DC:  National Science Foundation, 1990).

    <sup>4</sup>   National Research Council, Committee on Criteria for Federal

    Support of Research and Development, Allocating Federal Funds for Science and

    Technology (Washington, DC:  National Academy Press, 1995).

    <sup>5</sup>  Ibid, p. 5.

    <sup>6</sup>  National Research Council, Committee on Science, Engineering,

    and Public Policy, Science, Technology, and the Federal Government:  National

    Goals for a New Era (Washington, DC:  National Academy Press, 1993).

    <sup>7</sup>   Definitions of "research" and "development" are congruent with

    operational definitions for the National Science Foundation Survey of

    Industrial Research and Development.

    <sup>8</sup>   p. 8. <sup>9</sup>  p. 2. <sup>10</sup>   p. 22.

    <sup>11</sup>   Richard S. Rosenbloom and William J. Abernathy, "The Climate

    for Innovation in Industry:  The Role of Management Attitudes and Practices in

    Consumer Electronics," Research Policy, 11, no. 6 (1982): 209-25.

    <sup>12</sup>  National Science and Technology Council, Technology for a

    Sustainable Future/A Framework for Action.  Washington, DC:  US Government

    Printing Office, 1994, and Infectious Disease - A Global Health Threat.

    Washington, DC:  September 1995.

    <sup>13</sup>   President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology,

    Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First

    Century.  Washington, DC: November 5, 1997.  National Science and Technology

    Council, National Security Science and Technology Strategy.  Washington, DC:

    OSTP, 1995.

    <sup>14</sup>  The funding environment is an ecosystem.  Changes in a

    particular agency's budgets and programs may  have unintended consequences by

    creating gaps in significant areas of research and increased pressure on other

    agencies that may not be in a position to respond.

    <sup>15</sup>  pp. 18-24.

    <sup>16</sup>   William J. Clinton and Albert Gore, Jr., Science in the

    National Interest (Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy,

    1994).

     BIBLIOGRAPHY

    Bush, Vannevar.  Science-The Endless Frontier (40th Anniversary Edition).

    Washington, DC:  National Science Foundation, 1990. Clinton, William J. and

    Albert Gore Jr.  Science in the National Interest.  Washington, DC: Executive

    Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),

    August 1994. Committee on Criteria for Federal Support of Research and

    Development, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,

    Institute of Medicine, National Research Council (NAS/NAE/IOM/NRC).

    Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology.  Washington, DC: National

    Academy Press, 1995. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy,

    NAS/NAE/IOM.  Science, Technology and the Federal Government/National Goals

    for a New Era.  Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993. Energy Research

    and Development Panel, President's Committee of Advisors on Science and

    Technology (PCAST).  Federal Energy Research and Development for the

    Challenges of the Twenty-First Century.  Washington, DC: November 5, 1997.

    Executive Office of the President, OSTP.  Science and Technology Shaping the

    Twenty-First Century.  Washington, DC: April 1997. National Science Board.

    Science and Engineering Indicators-1996 (NSB-96-21).  Washington, D.C.: US

    Government Printing Office, 1996. National Science Foundation.  NSF Survey

    Instruments Used in Collecting Science and Engineering Resources Data

    (NSF-95-317).  Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 1995. National

    Science and Technology Council, OSTP.  Accomplishments of the National Science

    and Technology Council (NSTC).  Washington, DC: 1996. _________, Technology

    for a Sustainable Future/A Framework for Action.  Washington, DC:  US

    Government Printing Office, 1994. _________, United States Antarctic Program.

    Washington, DC: 1996. _________, Committee on International Science,

    Engineering and Technology Working Group on Emerging Infectious Diseases.

    Infectious Disease - A Global Health Threat.  Washington, DC:  September 1995.

    _________, Committee on National Security.  National Security Science and

    Technology Strategy.  Washington, DC: OSTP, 1995. _________, Committee on

    Transportation Research and Development Intermodal Transportation Science and

    Technology Strategy Team.  Transportation Science and Technology Strategy.

    Washington, DC: OSTP, September 1997. Rosenbloom, Richard S., and William J.

    Abernathy.  "The Climate for Innovation in Industry:  The Role of Management

    Attitudes and Practices in Consumer Electronics."  Research Policy 11, no. 4

    (August 1982): 209-25.