From: rsherme@diamond.nswc.navy.mil (Russel Shermer (R43))
Subject: fyi #129:  House Committee's Report on the Health of US Research
Keywords: science, funding, research, congress
Organization: NAVSWC DD White Oak Det.
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:04:35 GMT

Posted for:
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
Phone: (202) 332-9662
Email: fyi@aip.org




House Committee's Report on the Health of US Research

FYI No. 129, September 25, 1992

"Research policy designed forty years ago may no longer by suitable
for addressing the problems of today's world."
             --Report of the Task Force on the Health of Research

In recent reports and surveys, much has been made of the sense of
stress and frustration pervading the research community.  Last
year, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee created a
task force to investigate the health of federally funded research
in the US.

The Committee's report, released at a September 15 press briefing
by Committee Chairman George Brown (D-California) and Science
Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher (D-Virginia), questions some of
the basic assumptions on which our country's science policy is
based.  The task force believes it is "unlikely that stress in the
research system can be relieved simply by increasing research
funds. . .  the debate over funding level ignores the broader
context.  The real question is whether available resources are
being allocated in a manner that can best achieve national goals."

US science policy, as it currently exists, took shape during and
shortly after World War II, influenced by Vannevar Bush's 1945
report, "Science: The Endless Frontier."  "However," the 19-page
report states, "there appears to be a growing mismatch between the
demands and expectations of the research community (forged during
the 1950's and 1960's) and the goals of policy makers (which
reflect current political, economic, and societal pressures.)"  As
Chairman Brown notes in his introduction to the report, "This
paradox-- growing knowledge, accompanied by growing societal
crisis-- implies a complex, nonlinear relationship between advances
in knowledge and advances in society.  More specifically, it
suggests either that we are not adequately using the knowledge that
we already have, or that we are not sufficiently producing the
knowledge that we actually need."

A first step toward creating "a more rigorous and
socially-responsive science policy," the report says, "is to define
goals toward which the research should be expected to contribute."
Examples include achieving national energy security, enhancing
environmental protection, improving human health, increasing the
productivity and profitability of high technology industries,
maintaining a healthy research infrastructure, expanding the
knowledge base, educating future scientists, and creating a
scientifically and technologically literate work force.  Both Brown
and Boucher stressed that the creation of new knowledge, through
basic research, should continue to be a priority.  According to
Brown, this review of science policy is "not intended to diminish
the importance of basic research."

The task force suggests that the Office of Science and Technology
Policy initiate the goal-setting process by "drafting a document
which sets out explicit, strategic research goals for federally
funded research. . . Goals should be reviewed by the Committee, and
evaluated by experts within and outside the research community,
including the intended users of the research results. . .
Development of a research portfolio designed to meet these goals
within existing budgetary limits could then be undertaken through
the FCCSET [Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering
and Technology] . . . process, and implemented via existing agency
procedures."

The report praises FCCSET for its contribution to interagency,
interdisciplinary science-policy planning:  "in this sense, the
Executive Branch is ahead of the Congress, and the Committee, in
terms of exploring new ways to implement research policy in the
context of evolving national goals."

To improve the effectiveness of limited resources, the task force
also recommends "performance assessment mechanisms" to evaluate the
success of research in achieving its goals.  The report says that
"federal research policy decisions must not be based solely on
input criteria (i.e., funding based on the promise of research),
but on concrete outcomes as well."

Boucher's science subcommittee plans to hold hearings examining US
science policy throughout the next year.  The first hearing was
held on September 24, and will be covered in a future FYI.


###############
Public Information Division
American Institute of Physics
Contact:  Audrey T. Leath
(202) 332-9662
##END##########

Newsgroups: sci.research