From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Society's New Contract with Scientists (draft legislation)
Date: 14 Sep 1992 20:40:25 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <iXuZqB2w165w@netlink.cts.com>, jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> 
> Congressman Brown sounds like he is serious about negotiating a
> "new contract with scientists" wherein scientists are more directly
> guided by society's needs.  The primary danger in this is that it
> will degenerate into the kind of "science" represented by NASA
> which is not science at all, but is really a jobs program for
> engineers.  The first manifestation of this failure mode of 
> civilian government science and technology funding is the 
> centralization of funding authority which, in turn, creates a
> familiar political logic wherein "consensus" is more important
> than creativity -- and genuine discoveries/advances are seen as
> a threat to the advocacy posture taken within the appropriations/
> authorization process by those who manage to climb to the top of
> the funding pyramid -- postures are totally out of touch with 
> technical and scientific realities.
> 
> The following draft legislation proposes a new contract with 
> scientists in which their funding is guided by society's needs,
> and which avoids the historical failure mode of institutions
> such as NASA by linking funding authority NOT to the position
> one attains within a bureaucracy, but rather to the actual
> contributions one has made to valuable technologies as measured
> by one's contribution to total patent royalties.
> 
> Section 1.  Short Title
>  
> This act may be cited as the Science and Technology Competitiveness
> Act of 1993.
>  
> Sec. 101. FINDINGS:
>  
> The Congress finds that --
>  
>         (1) Throughout history, mankind's quality of life has been
> enhanced by the discovery of the properties of nature and the 
> invention of useful techniques based on natural properties.
>  
>         (2) Nature's properties are shared by all.
>  
>         (3) Funding of science, in which research discovers properties of
> nature, is a proper function of government.
>  
>         (4) Invention creates intellectual property belonging to the
> inventor.
>  
>         (5) Funding of technology, in which development creates
> intellectual property belonging to the inventor, is a proper function 
> of the inventor.
>  
>         (6) The inventor, being most closely attuned to the utility of
> nature's properties, is most capable of effectively allocating 
> government science funding among various research proposals.
>  
>         (7) The inventor, being most insightful into the feasibility of
> various inventions, especially as they are, by definition, not obvious 
> even to those skilled in the applicable art, is most capable of 
> effectively allocating private technology funding among various 
> development proposals.
>  
>         (8) The inventor, specializing in the creation of intellectual
> wealth, is typically not highly skilled in the business arts of 
> acquiring and protecting the capital assets required for the material 
> support of his development activities.
>  
>         (9) Our country was founded by scientists and technologists who
> placed within our Constitution prohibitions against patents of nobility 
> at the same time as they provided for patents of invention.
>  
>         (10) United States culture is based on the recognized nobility of
> the creative act, rather than mere possession of property or inheritance.
>  
>         (11) Income from creator-owned intellectual property therefore
> deserves preferential treatment in our laws and regulations.
>  
>  
> Sec. 102. DEFINITIONS --
>  
>         (1) the term "Science" means the discipline by which people
> discover the properties of nature.
>  
>         (2) the term "Technology" means the discipline by which people
> create useful inventions and associated intellectual properties.
>  
>         (3) the term "Research" means the activity by which scientific
> knowledge is acquired.
>  
>         (4) the term "Development" means the activity by which an
> inventive technique is reduced to practice.
>  
>         (5) the term "Invention" is any useful technique not previously
> existing and not obvious to those skilled in the applicable art.
>  
>         (6) the term "Administrator" means the Administrator of the 
> United
> States Patent Office.
>  
>         (7) the term "Authorizing Inventor" means any U.S. Citizen whose
> name appears as the Inventor of at least one Authorizing Invention.
>  
>         (8) the term "Authorizing Royalties" means royalties paid for the
> commercial use of an Authorizing Invention.
>  
>         (9) the term "Authorizing Invention" means any patent whose
> assignee is not the United States Government and whose primary source 
> of royalty payments are commercial in nature.
>  
>  
> Sec. 103. GOVERNMENT FUNDING FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
>  
>  
>         (a) REVIEW -- The Administrator shall review proposals for
> scientific research from any U.S. citizen, to ensure they are not, 
> in fact, intended to support the development of a patentable 
> innovation.  Such proposals must contain a dollar amount, a maximum 
> period of performance and the name and address of the principal 
> investigator.
>  
>         (b) PUBLISH -- The Administrator shall abstract, categorize 
> and publish, the contents of all scientific research proposals.
>  
>         (c) ASSIGN AUTHORITY -- In cooperation with the Internal Revenue
> Service, the Administrator shall assign a funding authority level to 
> all Authorizing Inventors, which is the percent of total Authorizing 
> Royalties each Authorizing Inventor's total Authorizing Inventions 
> are responsible for, multiplied by the total amount of funding 
> appropriated for scientific research by Congress.
>  
>         (d) TALLY AUTHORIZATIONS -- Authorizing Inventors shall, at their
> option, inform the Administrator of the way they wish to allocate 
> their funding authority among the reviewed research proposals, and 
> the Administrator shall keep a tally of these authorizations.
>  
>         (e) DEFAULT AUTHORIZATIONS -- Funding authority not exercised
> within a reasonable time established by the Administrator, shall 
> result in the that authority being divided among research proposals 
> in proportion to their tallied authorizations.
>  
>         (f) DISBURSEMENTS -- Principal investigators whose research
> proposals receive full funding authorization shall be issued a 
> cashiers check for the full amount requested within 30 days.
>  
>         (g) RETAINED AUTHORITY -- Research proposals not receiving full
> funding shall remain unfunded and the unexercised funding authority 
> shall be retained by the Authorizing Inventors into the following 
> year, with the associated appropriations being invested in 1 year 
> United States Treasury Notes during the interim.
>  
>         (h) DISCLOSURE -- The principal investigator of a funded proposal
> shall fully disclose all results of his research, placing such results 
> in the public domain and he shall do so within the period of 
> performance stated in his proposal.  A list of delinquent principal 
> investigators shall be published by the Administrator.
>  
> Sec. 104. TAX EXEMPTION OF INVENTOR'S AUTHORIZING INVENTION
>  
>         (a) Authorizing Royalties paid to the Authorizing Inventor shall
> not be taxed, nor shall the income to an Authorizing Inventor from the 
> sale of the assignment of or other rights to an Authorizing Invention 
> be taxed.
>  
> 
> --                    
> INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
> UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
> NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
> 
> 

Well Jim,

I notice you are not advocating the death of the delinquent scientists
anymore. That's good. However, this legislation still shows a lack of
understanding of the purpose of science and the performance of scientific
research.

The goal of science should never be limited to the societal goals.
Most policy types just do not know enough science to judge the merits of a
proposal. Furthermore, the goals of society change rapidly and the importance
of a given research field (according to societal goals) can ebb and flow with
time. This system has no long-range foresight built into it.

Secondly, science, especially at the forefront, can be a very trial-and-error
endeavour. The placement of time limits on the disclosure of results will
limit the proposals to weak, safe, low-risk research. It will kill proposals
of important, long-term, high-risk, high-return projects.

Norman

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.astro