Science and Technology Policy: Past and Prologue
         A Companion to Science and Engineering Indicators--2000


I.      Introduction

Every two years, the National Science Board* produces Science and 
Engineering Indicators, a quantitative overview of the U.S. science 
and technology (S&T) enterprise.  Publication of Science and 
Engineering Indicators-2000 coincides with the 50th anniversary of the 
creation of the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1950.  As NSF and 
the National Science Board prepare to embark on their second half-
century, the Board believes it is useful to reflect on the conditions 
that characterized U.S. science and engineering 50 years ago, on 
accomplishments and changes, and on directions for the future of the 
enterprise.  

In taking stock of the impacts of science and technology, the Board 
is moved to comment on the role of policy in S&T - how it is shaped 
by data, information, and analysis.  The process of making choices 
constitutes the heart of policymaking - determining priorities and 
investment levels, nurturing long-standing programs, and responding 
appropriately to emerging research opportunities. Any retelling of 
U.S. achievements in science and engineering must include policy as 
"organizing principles" and the arrangements for pursuing them.  
Together they create the prospects for discovery and application.  
Inevitably, S&T are among the factors tied to choices made in the 
strategic allocation of scarce resources.1  


II.     A Record of Discovery in Science and Technology


	"Even economics, in this age of a booming economy, 
	cannot rival the appeal of science and technology as the 
	driving force of history."
                               Gertrude Himmelfarb2

A record of research discoveries in science and engineering stands as 
a legacy of Federal contributions to the life, health, security, and 
enlightenment of the U.S. citizenry. The innovations driving our 
economic prosperity have emerged, often unpredictably, from a bedrock 
of national investments in fundamental research made in years past.    
The Council on Competitiveness, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the 
Federal Reserve Board last year all cited S&T research as good for 
business.3  Evidence mounts that research is a major contributor to 
U.S. productivity.

In 1971, the first commercial microprocessor was manufactured. 
Fourteen years later, Indicators highlighted instrumentation for 
advancing knowledge in science and engineering - spectroscopy, lasers, 
superconductivity, and monoclonal antibodies.4  Since then, 
discoveries, techniques, and refinements abound:  materials such as 
synthetic polymers are used in products ranging from clothing to cars; 
tools such as the Hubbell and Gemini telescopes explore even beyond 
our solar system; particle beams probe the structure of matter at 
distance scales 100 billion times smaller than the size of an atom; 
and mathematical modeling helps us predict the probability of 
earthquakes and long-term weather phenomena such as El Nino, test 
ideas of the nature of matter, study traffic patterns and brain 
function, and assess economic and health risks.

A human resource base developed in our institutions of higher learning 
and employed in all regions and sectors of the U.S. has grown the 
capacity of the Nation's research workforce.  Since 1973, the number 
of science and engineering researchers receiving support from at least 
one Federal agency nearly doubled (97 percent).5  Add to these 
federally funded researchers the contributions scientists and 
engineers make as educators, administrators, managers, and public 
servants, and the investment in people yields handsomely.  Demand for 
such workers, at all degree levels, is projected to increase well 
beyond the rate for other occupations.6

The 21st century will be known for the melding of our human and 
science-based infrastructure.  The infusion of information technology 
in our economy is revolutionizing communication as embodied in the 
Internet and "e-commerce," shrinking the world, creating wealth, and 
transforming daily routines.
 
Such impressive research-based capabilities are juxtaposed against a 
troubling reality:  For more than two decades, surveys have shown that 
American adults have a high level of interest in scientific 
discoveries, new inventions, and technologies.7  Three of four 
perceive the benefits of scientific research to outweigh its potential 
harm.  But no more than one in five Americans either comprehend or 
appreciate the value and process of scientific inquiry.  While the 
public's confidence in science is high, for many it is a blind trust.  
Americans are deeply divided over the development and impact of several 
important technologies, some of which are discussed below.

The progress of S&T demands more of each of us.  One peril is that 
technical virtuosity distances what most can observe from what a few 
specially equipped and trained can see and manipulate.  Even if we are 
motivated to understand the implications of new knowledge, this 
requires more plain talk about risks as well as benefits and better 
explanations of why the latest breakthrough matters.8  Before citizens 
will embrace yet another marvel intended to ease, remedy, or otherwise 
improve life, they deserve information that will inform their thinking.

III.     Opportunities for the Ages 

	"The coming century will impose greater demands and 
	responsibilities on all who have a stake in the discovery and 
	use of knowledge."  
                              National Science Board 9

The quest to understand the nature of the atom in the early twentieth 
century led to a scientific revolution.  In overturning conventional 
thinking, quantum mechanics was discovered.  To test this theory, 
microscopes were devised to study phenomena at scales of atomic size 
and smaller - much smaller than what is readily observable.10

In this age of S&T, the challenge to scientists, engineers, and 
policymakers alike is to generate new ideas and tools that harness 
research-based knowledge in the fight against human disease and 
disability,  preserve the natural environment, enhance the quality of 
life, and assure a robust public investment in science and technology. 
As fields of science, mathematics, and engineering continue to 
specialize, overarching research themes cross disciplines and, 
moreover, captivate the public as issues of health, environment, 
energy, and space.

Areas such as genetics/biotechnology and information technology/
telecommunications hold special promise.  They are ripe for 
exploitation because of scientific discoveries made in past centuries 
and 20th century tools that enable discovery and advance knowledge.  
For example, the Human Genome Project, launched in 1990 as a 
distributed "big science" initiative, has historical roots in the 
Watson-Crick discovery in 1953 of a double helical structure of the 
DNA molecule, and the first recombinant DNA techniques (or gene 
splicing) pioneered by Hamilton Smith and Daniel Nathans in the 1970s. 
A quarter-century later, Ian Wilmut and Keith Campbell cloned a sheep 
from adult cells.11  

Today, the research environment includes a host of normative ("should 
we do it?") questions that surround technical capability ("we can do 
it") with public controversy.12  For all the inevitable apprehension 
about the unknown, a newer age of life-enhancing innovations is not 
far off - biomonitoring devices that provide accurate readouts of our 
health and sensory prosthetics that synthesize speech, computerize 
vision, and feed electronic waves directly into the brain.13 

A separate stream of inquiry in information technology has borne 
remarkable fruit.  The U.S. Department of Defense's Advanced Research 
Projects Agency created ARPAnet, the precursor to the Internet, to 
facilitate communication among researchers.  The National Science 
Foundation provided the critical sustenance that delivered this tool 
to university researchers. Subsequently, the World Wide Web was 
created to promote rapid data sharing among large collaborations of 
high energy physicists, a development that both simplified and 
popularized navigation on the Net.  "The idea that anyone in the world 
can publish information and have it instantly available to anyone else 
in the world created a revolution that will rank with Gutenberg's 
. . . .14

The need to store, share, and interpret vast amounts of data15 has 
engendered whole new subfields, such as bioinformatics, which is 
dedicated to applying information technology (IT) to the understanding 
of biological systems.  To explore the interdependencies among the 
elements of specific environmental systems will require the 
development of software, human-computer interaction and information 
management, and high-end computing.  Companies use information 
technology to compete in today's global marketplace by tailoring their 
products and services to the needs of individual customers, forging 
closer relationships with their suppliers, and delivering just-in-time 
training to their employees.  If we are to understand and deal with 
the socioeconomic, ethical, legal, and workforce implications of these 
systems, we will need to support a research agenda that crosses 
disciplines, languages, and cultures.

Highlighting technologies that are likely to blossom in the 21st 
century recalls yesterday's basic research.  History instructs that we 
cannot predict which discoveries or technologies will change the lives 
of future generations. Rather, fundamental science and engineering 
research presents long-term opportunities - a high-risk investment 
with high payoffs. 


IV.	The Role of  Policy


	". . . each new branch of science can open wondrous
	new opportunities while posing societal challenges that 
	will require vigilance and insightful management."
                                 Floyd Bloom16

The future of science and technology will require more wise policy 
decisions about how to use the Nation's resources to the greatest 
benefit.  Policy is a management tool for nurturing, distributing, and 
harvesting the creativity of S&T.  In choices made daily by 
decisionmakers in the public and private sectors, Federal policy 
clasps the invisible hand of the market.  The result is an evolving 
research economy in science and engineering that continues to spur 
intellectual endeavor, increase participation by those talented and 
trained, and capture innovations for the public good.

	Origins.  The progress of science and technology appears so 
inevitable that the role of policy choices is not often highlighted.  
Knowledge may appear to unfold in a "natural" course, but sponsorship, 
and increasingly stewardship, have played a key role in the 20th 
century.

With the passage of time, early visions of science for society have 
come to embody a set of national values and objectives that provide a 
framework for policy development.17 Two key policy documents are 
virtually synonymous with these values: Vannevar Bush's "Report to the 
President on a Program for Postwar Scientific Research" (subsequently 
known as Science-the Endless Frontier, July 1945), and Science and 
Public Policy (the "Steelman Report," August 1947).  Each report 
emphasized the bipartisan nature of Federal funding for science and 
established a core principle that remains among the strengths of the 
U.S. research system:  a strong commitment to partnerships, especially 
those rooted in the exchange of Federal support of research in 
universities for the production of knowledge, innovation, and trained 
personnel for the Nation's workforce.

The Bush Report was not a science policy blueprint.  However, it 
contained the seeds of ideas that have come to be known as "policy-
for-science" - issues focused on funding levels, sources, incentives, 
and priorities for research, and the development and utilization of 
human resources for science and engineering. In contrast, the Steelman 
Report encompassed "science-for-policy" issues concerned with the uses 
of scientific knowledge and capabilities for governance and in the 
service of the larger society. 

The first summary volume of Science and Public Policy employed 10-year 
projections to support recommendations about the resources required 
to assist the U.S. science and engineering enterprise in addressing 
national objectives.  Significantly, one projection called for a 
doubling of national R&D expenditures during the succeeding 10 
years.18  This was before the launch of Sputnik and the National 
Defense Education Act of 1958, which accelerated a rising national 
consciousness about S&T careers and science education and ratcheted up 
the Federal R&D budget. 

 	Revisiting the Origins.  As the 20th century came to a close, 
the United States faced the novel challenge of redefining its goals 
and priorities in the post-Cold War era.  While the importance of 
science and engineering to the Nation was unquestioned, a clear and 
uncomplicated rationale rivaling "national security" was lacking.  
When the "balanced budget" became an overriding priority by 1995, 
competition for scarce resources grew fierce among claimants to the 
"discretionary" budget.  Long-term investments such as R&D were 
decidedly vulnerable.  

By the mid-1990s, two major Federal policy reports sought to 
reexamine science policy in a changing economic, political and social 
context.  Both emphasized science in service to society while 
reaffirming a commitment to university-based research and improved 
science and mathematics education.  The 1994 Clinton-Gore blueprint, 
Science in the National Interest, reiterated the core values that 
have enabled the Nation to achieve so much through fundamental 
science - the strength of investigator-initiated research and merit 
review by expert peers.  The report suggested a framework for national 
science policy organized around five goals deemed essential for the 
U.S. scientific and engineering enterprise:  leadership across the 
frontiers of scientific knowledge; connections between fundamental 
research and national goals; partnerships that promote investments in 
fundamental science and engineering and effective use of physical, 
human and financial resources; the finest scientists and engineers for 
the twenty-first century; and scientific and technological literacy of 
all Americans.19

A congressional perspective came in the form of a special study in 
1998 by the House Committee on Science led by Congressman Vernon 
Ehlers.  Unlocking Our Future: Toward a New National Science Policy 
noted that the scientific enterprise needed to "ensure that the well 
of scientific discovery does not run dry . . . ," that "discoveries 
from this well must be drawn continually and applied to the 
development of new products or processes . . . ," adding that 
"education . . . [produces] the diverse array of people who draw from 
and replenish the well of discovery . . ." and amplifies "the lines 
of communication between scientists and engineers and the American 
people."20

Both reports employed a participatory process, increasing the 
credibility of subsequent decisionmaking and asserting a continuity 
of organizing principles tempered by new economic realities:  
university-based research in a global context; partnerships across 
disciplines, organizations, and sectors; and public accountability.  
Each report also acknowledged the indispensability of Federal research 
investments in a 21st century S&T enterprise shaped by information 
technology and attuned to societal needs.  Predicting that a broad 
bipartisan consensus would likely continue, the reports warned of 
funding constraints and the need to establish priorities for Federal 
support and demonstrate contributions to attaining societal goals.  

Finally, like Bush and Steelman, both reports assigned a high 
priority to human resources as an integral element of science policy.  
Cultivating an increasingly diverse student body to renew the 
workforce of a global economy requires quality science education at 
the K-12 level.  Our education system could serve more students far 
better than it does, especially those in urban and rural areas born 
into disadvantage.  High standards, expectations, and accountability 
alone cannot rescue schools lacking the resources to support 
mathematics and science learning to prepare students for the 21st 
century workforce.  This demands well-trained, -equipped, and 
-rewarded teachers. 21

Visionary Federal documents issued a half-century apart attest to a 
consistency of values.  The mingling of curiosity and opportunity, 
largely undirected and fostered in a climate of open exchange, has 
produced an unparalleled national record of performance and progress 
in knowledge and innovation. 

This legacy has also yielded an irony - times may change, but policy 
issues remain much the same.  Questions persist about the appropriate 
Federal role in funding the enterprise:  How much is enough?  What 
constitutes a strategic balance among problems, disciplines, and 
levels of funding?  As private R&D funding accounts for two-thirds of 
total national R&D, are investments being skewed toward the short-
term, industrial end of the research continuum? 

Over 50 years ago, the Bush and the Steelman reports identified 
fundamental policy values:  ample human resources for science and 
engineering, a vigorous science and engineering infrastructure for 
research, a robust government-university partnership to advance 
knowledge in conjunction with education and training, and a symbiosis 
between fundamental research and national goals.  These values endure.

	A Changing Federal Role?  What, then, should be the Federal 
role in a global context - one in which multinational corporations 
influence significant parts of the Nation's research agenda?  How 
should challenges facing society inform methodologies for priority 
setting in research?   What mechanisms effectively build broad public 
and scientific support for, and involvement in, the priority setting 
process?  Who is monitoring the incremental growth of the knowledge 
base and opportunities emerging at the interstices of disciplines?  
And what education and training are appropriate for producing 
versatile workers who face a growing diversity of employment prospects 
and careers?   Whatever the responses - policies, programs, and 
initiatives - the Federal portfolio must be diverse, flexible, and 
opportunistic, drawing on the creative strengths of many fields and 
employing a range of organizational strategies.

While individual serendipity - an aspect of organized science for 
over 300 years - and collaborations among scientists and engineers 
(virtually if not physically) grow, the S&T enterprise must adapt to 
the exigencies imposed by scale, resources, and organizational 
complexity.  Planning and coordination among partners within a 
framework that is explicitly global must promote collaboration without 
diminishing the system's competitive energy.  An overarching goal is 
developing strategies to enhance global scientific communication, 
international exchanges of students and technical personnel, and 
databases to sustain research and discovery in the international 
arena.22

A sequence of sage decisions made over an expansive period of science 
and technology has brought us to this point.  That is the resounding 
message of the Federal science policy reports of the last half-
century.  The current generation of stewards must apply the same 
ingenuity to endow our social structures with the wisdom of experience 
and the tools of analysis.  This legacy guides the National Science 
Board in promoting and anticipating the needs of S&T as an 
institution.23

Science and Engineering Indicators-2000, like the volumes that have 
preceded it, can be an anchor for policymakers awash in information 
and contradictory claims.  Just as we accumulate systematic knowledge 
about the enterprise, Indicators should illuminate signposts to its 
future.  By definition, indicators are retrospective and heuristic, 
not explanatory.  In combination, they may reveal patterns or suggest 
relationships that call for more intensive analysis.  We offer some 
examples below.

	Investments and Returns.  While the system of national 
support of S&T has flourished, Federal funding across disciplines has 
shifted.  "The life sciences now account for more than 50 percent of 
the U.S. Federal investment in basic research . . . . Today's strong 
Federal support for the life sciences is warranted because biomedical 
research is on the cusp of a revolution in preventative medicine and 
treatment.  Nevertheless, today's overall research budget is 
increasingly out of balance."24  

When is the Federal R&D portfolio - interagency initiatives 
as well as agency mission-based programs - diversified too little or 
too much?  How can we tell when basic research seems constricted 
relative to applied investments?  How do management, regulation, and 
accountability foster inquiry without unduly fettering it?

What has worked in the past could shackle the future.  Concern for 
imbalance among fields and research problems is a challenge to 
policymakers, as is priority setting, especially when funding lags the 
pace of discovery and application.  R&D, after all, is one national 
investment among many.  

Until recently, the so-called productivity paradox, captured by the 
maxim "computers are everywhere except the productivity statistics," 
dogged investments.  Today, the value of information technology is no 
longer in doubt.25 Experts argue that, in an $8.8 trillion knowledge-
based economy, more than 2.8 percent of the Nation's GDP should be 
devoted to R&D.  In addition, given the extraordinary contributions of 
fundamental research to long-term economic growth, an investment 
greater than the 22 percent of the total Federal R&D budget that 
currently goes to "basic research" seems more than justified.26  
Unsettling to many is the declining Federal share of national R&D as 
industry fuels technology - the promising technologies profiled above 
and an array of other interdisciplinary specialties.27   

Clearly, we are more adept at measuring dollar inputs than outcomes 
such as peer-reviewed publications, citations, patents, and honorific 
awards.  Capturing the full public return on investments in science 
and  engineering research remains elusive. Yet Indicators-2000 helps 
make sense of a complex enterprise.28  Trends in knowledge production 
and the Federal stewardship role illustrate two classes of indicator.

	Trends in the Globalization of Research.  Multiple authorship 
of the S&T literature, citation patterns by field and country, and 
patents awarded provide a thumbnail sketch of the global knowledge 
system.  Since 1986, multiple and international coauthorships are on 
the rise.29 In 1997, the proportion of the world S&T literature 
published in major international journals accounted for by three 
countries - the U.S., Japan, and the U.K. - represented one-half the 
total.  But the U.S. proportion of the world S&T literature cited 
from 1990 to 1997 is down in all fields, though we lead the world's 
research production in health and psychology.  Declines in the U.S. 
share are marked in mathematics, biology, and engineering.30 

In sum, the world is catching up.  But one wonders whether a falling 
U.S. share of citations in a field should be regarded as a problem:  
the U.S. share of world GDP has declined significantly, much to our 
Nation's advantage.  There are more participants in the world 
publication market and the leaders' share is eroding, while 
collaboration with researchers around the globe is becoming a routine 
option.

The proportion of citations on U.S. patents to the U.S. S&T 
literature decreased from 1987-98 in physics, chemistry, and 
engineering/technology.  Only in biomedicine did citations to U.S. 
literature increase significantly in patent applications.31  An 
institutional perspective on patenting signals a growth trend.  But 
academic patents still represent only 5 percent, or more than 3000 
annually, of all new U.S.-origin patent awards. This is a five-fold 
increase from 1985, when 111 U.S. academic institutions were awarded 
patents.  In 1998, the number grew to a total of 173 different 
universities, and the top 100 patenting universities accounted for 
over 88 percent of all the patents awarded to academic performers.32  
Research universities have become not only incubators of innovation, 
but also partners in developing and commercializing products that 
generate income and hold value for other sectors of the Nation's 
economy.

	Payoffs of Federal Stewardship.  The Nobel Prize is the most 
widely-recognized honor conferred for scientific achievement.33  For 
the period 1950-95, U.S. citizen and foreign scientists located in 
American institutions dominate the roster of Nobel laureates. 
Indicators-2000 includes an appendix table that lists all Nobel 
laureates awarded the Prize 1950-99. Data from other agencies are not 
available, but information on whether the recipients received NSF 
funding during their career, pre- and post-Nobel, suggests the role 
played by Federal support in the careers of extraordinary 20th century 
scientists.34

The findings are striking.  The Federal Government has a remarkable 
record of supporting U.S. Nobel laureates before bestowal of the 
Prize.  Roughly one of three laureates in Physics and Chemistry, and 
two of five in Economics, successfully competed for NSF research 
grants.  In the aggregate careers of all laureates since 1950, over 
40 percent have benefited from NSF support.  

So while the Nobel Prize is often discounted as a measure of where 
science - paradigm-breaking science at that - has been, as opposed to 
where it is going, the Federal distribution of scarce resources to 
researchers has repaid the investment in their work many times over.
 
Taken together, these data reflect a national commitment to science 
and engineering research.  This grand public experiment engendered 
fields of knowledge not easily visualized a half-century ago.  Such 
government stewardship indicates an oft-overlooked U.S. achievement 
in science - underwriting risk-taking research programs and 
investigators long before their promise was recognized by the S&T 
community and hailed by the world.

V.  Conclusions


"We should also remember that, like the Internet, super-
computers and so many other scientific advances, our ability
to read our genetic alphabet grew from decades of research that 
began with government funding. Every American . . . should 
be proud of their investment in this and other frontiers
of science."
                  President William J. Clinton 35

Today we have the ability to manipulate individual atoms and 
molecules on the scale of one billionth of a meter.  This poses 
myriad possibilities in the way most everything, from medicines to 
automobile tires, is designed and made.36  By increasing the wonder 
of science and engineering - a computer chip millions of times as 
fast as today's Pentium 3 or new methods of removing the smallest 
contaminants from water and air - we increase hope.

Communicating how things work and why they matter is a continuing 
challenge.  S&T cannot flourish without the visionary use of policy 
to communicate the joy, fascination, and utility of science and 
engineering.  Indicators can tell us where we have been and suggest 
where we might be going. 
 
As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of an institution called the 
National Science Foundation, and reflect on the creative S&T 
enterprise of which it is a part, we welcome the still-endless 
frontier that the 21st century holds.  We are especially proud to 
assist, through Indicators, policymakers and government leaders 
whose decisions will affect the ability of science and engineering 
to benefit society.  That would be a noble achievement beyond this 
jubilee year.

                                  ***

EHR Subcommittee on Science & Engineering Indicators 

Claudia I. Mitchell-Kernan, Chair
John A. Armstrong, Robert M. Solow, Richard A. Tapia, John A. White 
Bob H. Suzuki, Chair, EHR Committee (ex officio)
Daryl E. Chubin, Staff to the Subcommittee

*The National Science Board (NSB) consists of 24 members plus the 
Director of the National Science Foundation.  Appointed by the 
President, the Board serves as the governing body for NSF and 
provides advice to the President and the Congress on matters of 
national science and engineering policy.  National Science Board 
Members:  Eamon M. Kelly, NSB Chair; Diana S. Natalicio, NSB Vice 
Chair; John A. Armstrong; Pamela A. Ferguson; Mary K. 
Gaillard; Sanford D. Greenberg; M. R. C. Greenwood;   
Stanley V. Jaskolski; Anita K. Jones; George M. Langford; Jane 
Lubchenco; Eve L. Menger; Joseph A. Miller Jr.; Claudia I. 
Mitchell-Kernan; Robert C. Richardson; Vera C. Rubin; Maxine 
Savitz; Luis Sequeira; Robert M. Solow; Bob H. Suzuki; 
Richard A. Tapia; Chang-Lin Tien; Warren M. Washington;  
John A. White Jr.; Rita R. Colwell,  Director, National Science 
Foundation; Marta Cehelsky, Executive Officer 	


ENDNOTES

1   National Science Board, Government Funding of Scientific Research 
    (Arlington, VA:  National Science Foundation, 1997, NSB 97-186). 
2   Gertrude Himmelfarb, "Heroes and Antiheroes Survive the 
    Millennium's Dawn," The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 21, 
    2000, p. A64.
3   Specifically, the 2 percent per annum growth in productivity 
    observed in the last three years doubled the pace of growth from 
    1973 to 1995.   See Council on Competitiveness, Going Global:  The 
    New Shape of American Innovation (Washington, DC, September 1998); 
    Progressive Policy Institute, The New Economy Index:  Understanding 
    America's Economic Transformation (Washington, DC, November 1998); 
    Committee for Economic Development, Basic Research:  Prosperity 
    through Discovery (New York, NY:  CED, 1998); Lester Thurow, 
    "Building Wealth," The Atlantic Monthly, June 1999, pp. 57-69; and 
    President Clinton's Remarks on Science and Technology Investments, 
    California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, Jan. 21, 2000.
4   National Science Board, Science Indicators-The 1985 Report 
    (NSB 85-1), ch. 8. 
5   National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators-2000 
    (Arlington, VA:  National Science Foundation, 2000, NSB 00-1), 
    Appendix Table 6-32.  Hereafter, this source is abbreviated as 
    Indicators-2000.
6   Indicators-2000, ch. 3.
7   College graduates and citizens attentive to science and technology 
    policy hold the most positive views.  Chapter 8 of Indicators-2000, 
    "Science and Technology:  Public Attitudes and Public 
    Understanding," elaborates on these themes.
8   For example, see NSF GPRA Strategic Plan, FY 2000-2005, February 
    2000 Draft, NSB 00-16.
9   National Science Board, Toward the Next Century:  The State of 
    U.S. Science and Engineering (Arlington, VA:  National Science 
    Foundation, February 1994, NSB 94-24), p. 4.
10  Joel Achenbach, "Ingenuity," Washington Post, Dec. 31, 1999, 
    p. M12.
11  "Pathways of Discovery," Science, vol. 287, Jan. 14, 2000, 
    p. 231.  In the view of some, "DNA is likely to be the discovery 
    made in the 20th century that will be the most important to the 
    21st." See Walter Isaacson, "Who Mattered and Why:  The Century of 
    Science and Technology, Time, Dec. 31, 1999, p. 54.
12  Even before the cloning of "Dolly," questions were raised about 
    who will own the map of the human genome, what are the limits to 
    privacy in gene therapy, and what is the safety-profitability 
    tradeoff in genetically-modified foods.  All illustrate the 
    "slippery slope" that policy must confront. For example, an 
    executive order now prohibits Federal agencies from using genetic 
    testing in any employment decision.  Remarks by the President on 
    Genetic Discrimination, American Association for the Advancement 
    of Science, Washington. D.C., February 8, 2000.
13  Dita Smith, "The Millennium Baby," Washington Post, Jan. 1, 2000, 
    pp. A10-A11.
14  Isaacson, op.cit., note 11, p. 57, notes that "Just as the flow 
    of ideas wrought by Gutenberg led to the rise of individual rights, 
    so too did the unfetterable flow of ideas wrought by telephones, 
    faxes, television and the Internet serve as the surest foe of 
    totalitarianism in this century."  But concern continues to grow in 
    the U.S. over the "digital divide" - the gap between those who have 
    access, at home and in school, to IT hardware and software and 
    those who do not.  Chapters 8 and 9 of Indicators-2000 explore 
    evidence of this gap.
15  See NSB Statement on the Sharing of Research Data, NSB 99-24, 
    Feb. 18, 1999.
16  Floyd E. Bloom, "The Endless Pathways of Discovery," Science, 
    vol. 287, Jan. 14, 2000, p. 229.
17  The following discussion is indebted to Chapter 1 of  Indicators-
    2000, "Science and Technology in Times of Transition:  The 1940s 
    and 1990s."
18  John R. Steelman, Science and Public Policy, vol. I (New York:  
    Arno Press, reprinted from 1947), pp. 13, 26. 
19  William J. Clinton and Albert Gore, Science in the National 
    Interest, Executive Office of the President, August 1993, p. 7.
20  Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, Unlocking 
    Our Future:  Toward a New National Science Policy, 105th Congress, 
    Committee Print 105-B, September 1998, p. 12.
21  These and related human resource issues are discussed in the 
    Board's report, Preparing Our Children:  Math and Science Education 
    in the National Interest, NSB 99-31, March 1999.
22  An NSB Symposium on International Models for S&T Budget 
    Coordination and Priority Setting, in November 1999, examined 
    decision making models in industrialized, centralized, and 
    developing nations.  Also see Committee on Science, Engineering, 
    and Public Policy, Capitalizing on Investments in Science and 
    Technology (Washington, DC:  National Academy Press, 1999); and 
    Lewis M. Branscomb and James H. Keller, eds., Investing in 
    Innovation:  Creating a Research and Innovation Policy That Works 
    (Cambridge, MA:  MIT Press, 1998). 
23  National Science Board, National Science Foundation, Science at 
    the Bicentennial:  A Report from the Research Community 
    (Washington, DC:  U.S. GPO, Apr. 30, 1976), ch. 1.  The Board is 
    currently grappling with methodologies for coordination and 
    priority-setting in the Federal science and engineering research 
    budget.  See Charge to the Ad Hoc Committee on Strategic Science 
    and Engineering Policy Issues, Mar. 23, 1999, NSB 99-56. 
24  Philip M. Smith, "Life Sciences' Stewardship of Science," Science, 
    vol. 286, Dec. 24, 1999, p. 2448.
25  In the view of Business Week's economics editor, "In the 1990s, 
    at least, it seems that technology is more powerful than either 
    taxes or deficits.  No one is saying that the three are mutually 
    exclusive.  Lower interest rates from increased savings can 
    encourage innovation.  So can lower tax rates."  Michael J. 
    Mandel, "How Most Economists Missed the Boat," Business Week, 
    Nov. 15, 1999, pp. 106.
26  Note that the U.S. investment, which includes both military and 
    civilian expenditures, is second in percentage terms only to Japan 
    (whose R&D investment is all civilian).  For national funding data, 
    see the AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program website 
    <www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/rd/rdwwwpg.htm>. 
27  Congress has extended the Research and Experimentation tax credit 
    for an unprecedented five-year period.  See President Clinton 
    Highlights Progress toward Building a High-Tech, High-Wage Economy, 
    White House Press Release, Dec. 3, 1999.  But the President's 
    Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC), Interim Report 
    to the President (Arlington, VA:  National Coordination Office for 
    Computing, Information, and Communications, August 1998), has 
    warned that the Federal investment in IT is inadequate and 
    "threatens to interrupt the flow of ideas that has driven the 
    information economy in this decade" (p. 3).   
28  Also see National Research Council, Measuring the Science and 
    Engineering Enterprise (Washington, DC:  National Academy Press, 
    2000).
29  Indicators-2000, Appendix Table 6-60. If coauthors from different 
    countries are considered, the U.S. proportion grows 9.8 percent, 
    Japan 7.1 percent, and the UK 12.6 percent.
30  Indicators-2000, Appendix Tables 6-56 and 6-63.
31  Indicators-2000, Appendix Table 6-65.  However, articles resulting 
    from "public research" - that performed in academic, nonprofit, and 
    government research organizations, and funded primarily by Federal 
    sources - are increasingly cited in U.S. patent applications.  See 
    National Science Board Working Paper, Industry Trends in Research 
    Support and Links to Public Research (Arlington, VA:  NSF, 1998, 
    NSB 98-99). 
32  Indicators-2000, pp. 6-84 to 6-87 and Appendix Table 6-67.
33  Of course, the Nobel Prize is given for only a subset of 
    scientific fields.  Omissions include fields such as information 
    science and technology that did not exist at the time when the 
    Nobel was established.  For all fields in which the Nobel Prize is 
    awarded, U.S.-based scientists represent two-thirds of the 
    laureates, ranging from 54 percent in Chemistry to 77 percent in 
    Economics.  These tabulations are derived from the "Nationality 
    or Citizenship Index" in Bernard S. Schlessinger and June H. 
    Schlessinger, eds., The Who's Who of Nobel Prize Winners 1901-1995 
    (Oryz Press, 1996), pp. 243-244.
34  Indicators-2000, Appendix Table 1-1.  The prize was adopted as 
    the unit of analysis, with multiple winners increasing the 
    likelihood that at least one will have had NSF support.  Laureates 
    from foreign countries, of course, would be less likely to apply 
    for U.S. funds.
35  Remarks by President Clinton at the National Medal of Science 
    Award Ceremony, Mar. 14, 2000.
36  See President Clinton Fact Sheet on National Nanotechnology 
    Initiative, Jan. 21, 2000.