Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
285790875
label
PCAST
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285790875
contentType
document
title
PCAST
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
06834-007
collections
Records of the White House Office of Policy Development (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Charles E. M. Kolb Subject Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285790875
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c50fab73453ca8b7
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
2005-0336-F
2005-0336-F
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection: George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin: Policy Development, White House Office of
Series:
Kolb, Charles E. M., Files
Subseries:
OA/ID Number:
06834
Folder ID Number:
06834-007
Folder Title:
PCAST
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
17
28
1
2
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Notes
Handwritten notes re: Russia (1 pp.)
(b)(1)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Policy Development, White House Office of
Series:
Kolb, Charles E.M., Files
Subseries:
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
PCAST
Date Closed:
2/2/2010
OA/ID Number:
06384-007
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
02. Memorandum
To: Roger Porter From: Charles Kolb
10/15/91
(b)(1)
Re: Center for International technical Cooperation and
Research (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Policy Development, White House Office of
Series:
Kolb, Charles E.M., Files
Subseries:
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
PCAST
Date Closed:
2/2/2010
OA/ID Number:
06384-007
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
03. Memorandum
To: Roger Porter From: Charles Kolb
10/15/91
(b)(1)
Re: Center for International technical Cooperation and
Research (2 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Policy Development, White House Office of
Series:
Kolb, Charles E.M., Files
Subseries:
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
PCAST
Date Closed:
2/2/2010
OA/ID Number:
06384-007
FOIA/SYS Case #:
2005-0336-F
Appeal Case #:
Re-review Case #:
Appeal Disposition:
P-2/P-5 Review Case #:
Disposition Date:
AR Case #:
MR Case #:
AR Disposition:
MR Disposition:
AR Disposition Date:
MR Disposition Date:
RESTRICTION CODES
Presidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]
Freedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]
P-1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]
(b)(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]
P-2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRA]
(b)(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of an
P-3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]
agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]
P-4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
(b)(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]
financial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]
(b)(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial
P-5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President
information [(b)(4) of the FOIA]
and his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]
(b)(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
P-6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]
personal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]
(b)(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement
purposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]
C. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed of
(b)(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of
gift.
financial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]
(b)(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information
PRM. Removed as a personal record misfile.
PCAST
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 3, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR ALAN BROMLEY
FROM:
CHARLES E. M. KOLB CEMK
SUBJECT:
PCAST
Attached is the article from the December 19, 1990,
edition of the "Princeton Alumni Weekly." I think you'll enjoy
this.
THE PRESIDENT'S PAGE
Serving on a Presidential Council
ast year, I was invited to be one of the dozen members
L
choose what he was most eager to discuss. Of these, the
of President Bush's Council of Advisers on Science and
president selected three topics on which to concentrate our
Technology (PCAST). I was the sole economist on a
initial discussion: global change, science and mathematics
committee otherwise made up of distinguished
education, and economic competitiveness.
scientists and engineers and chaired by Dr. Allan Bromley, the
president's science adviser. Serving on the council has been an
As a result of that discussion, we decided to form a panel of
experts in the area of global change to learn more about its
honor and a challenge, and I'd like to share some reflections on
nature and impact. This is, of course, a highly controversial area
my experience to date.
The council has a number of overlapping functions-all of
where much remains to be learned, but where policy actions
them advisory to the president through Dr. Bromley. One is to
need to be taken before all the necessary information is fully
help inform key federal
understood-a dilemma often faced by policy-makers.
policy-makers of recent
As for science and math education, it is a tragedy in the
developments in science and
classic sense: We see events unfolding before our eyes and we
know what to do to improve the situation, but we seem to be
technology relevant to various
federal issues. We also
paralyzed in our capacity to act. How do we mobilize a complex
society to work on the problem?
recommend policies to
With respect to economic competitiveness, we continue
strengthen the nation's re-
search and development
to focus our attention on how to translate most effectively
(R&D) base. Third, we help
accomplishments in science into equally extraordinary
evaluate the effects of various
economic accomplishments. There can be a deep chasm
federal policies or policy
between these two. Indeed, it is my opinion that this divide has
initiatives-for example, tax
been precisely the area of our greatest difficulty in recent
law-on the science and
years. Simply stated, whether or not we are economically
technology base. The fourth
competitive is intimately related to both the nation's R&D
charge is to contribute to
base and a wide series of social, political, and cultural arrange-
Harold T. Shapiro
policy discussion and analysis
ments (that is, how members of a society work together
toward a common goal).
regarding technology transfer, that is, ways new understand-
ings of the natural world get translated into products and
Other issues that have occupied us include tax policy; big
science versus small science, and the role of the individual
processes that generate economic and social dividends such as
improved economic competitiveness or health care. Finally,
investigator; and the necessity of building up our country's long-
the council is charged to play a role, as may be requested, to
term investments in physical and human capital and research
advise on the coordination of federal policy in science and
and development. In addition to global change, we have also
decided upon special
technology that stretches across various agencies and congres-
panels in bio-science,
sional committees.
education and human
As you can see, the scope of the council's responsibilities is
"We had to keep our
resources, and material
potentially quite broad. We began our work with a four-hour
sights focused squarely
science and high perfor-
meeting with President Bush at Camp David. Our group's first
on science and tech-
mance computers. We
challenge was to articulate an agenda for that meeting;
confer with the president
nology despite the
selecting an agenda of finite size for this rare opportunity
and some of his advisers
temptation to speak to
proved to be a daunting task indeed.
for about an hour at each
the president about
For one thing, it was very difficult restricting ourselves to
of our monthly two-day
issues of which we had special knowledge-I, at least, had
other large and critical
meetings.
many things I wished to discuss with the president! As Winston
issues.
Whether the sugges-
Churchill said, the only problem with democracy is that only
tions of PCAST and its
those out of power know how to fix things. We had to keep
our sights focused squarely on science and technology despite
panels will have any impact on federal government policy I
the temptation to speak to the president about other large and
cannot predict. As my colleagues and I begin to delineate the
critical issues.
issues for the present and the future, I am constantly reminded
Four hours is a lot of a president's time, but not a lot of time
how vital it is to develop sound policies in these areas, and I am
for even a preliminary examination of the long list of issues
continually aware of the role Princeton can and should play in
within our charge and expertise. It was difficult to concur on
educating the next generation of scientists, engineers, and public
what we should cover. After many hours of discussion, with
officials knowledgeable about science and technology. I also
each of us advocating our own perspectives, we finally agreed
know that the process has been fascinating and the discussions
often profound. I consider it a high privilege to be able to serve
to submit a list of a dozen or so topics and let the president
the nation in this particular way.
THE UNIVERSITY SPONSORS THESE PAGES FOR SPECIAL MESSAGES.
PCAST
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 13, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR D. ALLAN BROMLEY
FROM:
CHARLES E.M. KOLB cank
SUBJECT:
PCAST Briefing Material
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the briefing
memorandum to the President. I have made some minor editorial
suggestions on page 2.
My more specific concern is about the section that describes
White House staff comments on the PCAST paper.
I would recommend deleting the section on Comments about
meeting the National Education Goals. This section will only
confuse the President. First, it is unclear who the "staff"
are who are commenting and why their views are needed here.
I'd let the PCAST document speak for itself.
Second, the point made about assessment tends to confuse the
mechanism completely. The strategy behind the National Goals
is to develop an assessment issue that will provide parents and
others with reliable data on how their children are performing
in school. Doing so will serve as a major catalyst for
reforming and restructuring our education system. This issue
is altogether different from calling "for more studies on
assessment" as indicated in your cover memorandum. Assessment
has nothing whatsoever to do with centralized planning; in
fact, it is the opposite. By providing reliable data on
performance down to the individual student level, we will be
offering parents greater information with which to exercise
educational choice and, therefore, help reform the educational
system.
I hope these comments are helpful.
CC: James W. Cicconi
Document No.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE: 12/12/90
12/13/90 NOON
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
SUBJECT: PCAST BRIEFING MATERIAL
ACTION FYI
ACTION FYI
VICE PRESIDENT
MCCLURE
SUNUNU
NEWMAN
SCOWCROFT
PORTER
DARMAN
ROGICH
CARD
UNTERMEYER
CICCONI
BOSKIN
DEMAREST
BROMLEY
FITZWATER
GRAY
HAGIN
HOLIDAY
REMARKS:
Please forward any comments directly to D. Allen Bromley, Rm.
358, x7116, no later than NOON, Thursday, December 13, with a
copy to my office. Thank you.
RESPONSE:
James W. Cicconi
Assistant to the President
and Deputy to the Chief of Staff
Ext. 2702
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 11, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
SUBJECT:
Briefing by the President's Council
of Advisors on Science and Technology
Attached are two papers prepared by your Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST), and one paper prepared through an interagency process, that
will be used in discussions at their next meeting with you. The first is entitled
"Education in Science and Mathematics: Meeting the National Education Goals"; the
second is entitled "Technology and the American Standard of Living." The two
PCAST papers are summarized below. The third paper, "U.S. Technology Policy," is a
compilation of current Federal government policies that affect technology.
The two PCAST papers have been circulated to a number of offices within the
Executive Office of the President for review and comment. Because PCAST is
chartered as an independent advisory body it is appropriate for them to provide you
with independent advice. We believe, however, that it is important for your White
House staff to have an opportunity to respond to the thoughts of this group, which
would also allow the PCAST to obtain a better understanding of Administration
interests and policies. As a result, we have summarized here the major issues that
were raised in the review process. In addition, comments received on the papers will
be shared with PCAST members in preparation for their next meeting.
"MEETING THE NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS"
The first paper applauds your leadership, and that of the nation's Governors, in
moving education toward the top of the nation's agenda. It points out, however, that
achieving the goals will require a fundamental restructuring of elementary and
secondary education in America. The goals themselves are an important element of
this restructuring, in that they focus on performance or levels of achievement rather
than processes or inputs such as the amount of time a student spends in a particular
class. Past reforms have most often involved changes in inputs, and the results of
these reforms have been generally disappointing.
A number of other fundamental changes will also be required to meet the national
goals. Promising approaches include the introduction of parental choice in education.
rewarding exceptional teachers, reducing impediments to change through school-based
management, and a shift in focus in education from institutions to the children those
institutions serve (particularly for students at risk of dropping out).
United most dure to
The members of PCAST believe that an evaluation of the proposed changes will
depend on the availability of reliable performance based assessment mechanisms for
both students and teachers. They indicate that considerable work needs to be done in
this area to create greater confidence in assessments and more understanding of how
assessments relate to actual learning.
PCAST points out that the federal government cannot mandate reform in the
decentralized system of basic education in America. However, the federal government
can facilitate the reform initiatives mentioned in the paper. A number of actions are
presented for further consideration:
0
Provide incentives to states or regions pursuing reforms
0
Foster greatly intensified research on academic assessments
0
Facilitate and coordinate state and local programs to deal with the dropout
problem
Encourage both private companies and government agencies to work
cooperatively with local schools
0
Encourage talented females and minority students to study science and
mathematics
dolete
or
0
Invest in teacher training programs in science and mathematics and use
forgivable loans and other incentives to attract young people with degrees in
science, mathematics, and engineering to teach in schools
COMMENTS ON "MEETING THE NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS"
Some of the comments were favorable, pointing out that the papers are generally
White A Hour
consistent with existing Administration policy and the decisions emerging from the FY
1992 budget process. However, some specific points have been raised.
Some staff objected to the emphasis on assessment, indicating that we do not need
better tests to tell us how our schools are failing. To meet the goals we must take
action now and not wait for more studies on assessment. Furthermore, a focus on
assessment tends to emphasize central planning, whereas choice programs and other
reform strategies call for greater local autonomy and flexibility.
The scientific and engineering communities were also urged to focus on specific
actions that those communities might take to promote educational reform. For
example, scientists and engineers could work with local communities to promote
choice, magnet schools, and particularly alternate certification programs.
Finally, it was pointed out that the Federal government needs a solid rationale before
embarking on major efforts to retain talented females and minorities in science and
mathematics and to invest in teacher training programs. In addition, forgivable loans
for teacher education is not current Administration policy; similar legislative
provisions prompted veto recommendations from the Administration last year.
"TECHNOLOGY AND THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING"
The second paper states that new technologies and basic research have -contributed to
dramatic increases in economic growth and improvements in the quality of life. The
United States has led the world in science and technology for much of this century,
resulting in a standard of living to which the rest of the world aspires. But, the
paper continues, we need to take other steps to continue to lead the world and
provide a standard of living that will allow our children and grandchildren to live
better than we do.
The paper points to three things that PCAST believes are required for America to
continue to benefit from the dividends of science and technology: (1) a continuing
flow of new ideas and new understanding; (2) the translation of new ideas and new
technologies into significant new products and into steady improvements of existing
products; and (3) a revival of quality manufacturing and production of goods.
According to the PCAST, the federal government has a role, though not the exclusive
role, in each of these three areas. Regarding the flow of new ideas, the Federal
government must continue to make a strong investment in basic research and must
continue to support the principle of scientific diversity. To address concerns about
the future support of scientific research, especially among young scientists, the federal
government should develop a well-articulated position that the generation of scientific
and technological talent is essential to America's future and will be given high
priority. Finally, the Federal government should join with the private sector to
revitalize the instrumentation and facilities that are crucial to forefront research.
The paper also discusses the importance of product development and the role of the
Federal government in assisting private industry. Compared with other countries, the
United States is seen as relatively weak at translating basic knowledge into significant
new products and in improving those products that are already an important part of
our lives. The Federal government can help to speed product development by creating
an economic climate that stimulates the development of new products and processes.
It can also support the development of generic, pre-competitive technologies that have
widespread applications in the public and private sectors.
The federal laboratories are a major resource. PCAST believes that they could
contribute more effectively to technology transfer, particularly if some of the
laboratories are given new missions focusing on generic, pre-competitive technologies,
on manufacturing, and on technology transfer. In addition, legislative and regulatory
actions by the federal government can support and encourage appropriate technology
transfer at the level of individual scientists and institutions.
Finally, even though manufacturing technology is predominantly the responsibility of
industry, PCAST believes the Federal government could take several actions to make
manufacturing a high priority for this country. Programs can be established to
recognize the importance of manufacturing to the American standard of living, as is
done through the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. The Federal government
could also support engineering education and fellowships targeted for research and
manufacturing technology.
COMMENTS ON "TECHNOLOGY AND THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING"
The majority of comments on the PCAST's technology paper focused on their call for
a renewed emphasis on manufacturing. One staff person noted that some economists
disagree on this emphasis, particularly since manufacturing accounts for just 22
percent of our GNP (down from 29 percent in 1950). In addition, it was felt that this
recommendation went beyond the charter of PCAST because it addresses economic
rather than R&D issues.
A concern was also raised about radically redirecting the missions of the federal
laboratories in support of civilian applications. If these laboratories no longer serve
a useful federal purpose, they should be phased down or closed. According to this
view, it would be very inefficient and unproductive to try to use the federal
laboratories to support the private sector.
Attachments
EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS:
MEETING THE NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS
The National Education Goals developed by the President and the nation's
Governors have helped to move education toward the top of the nation's agenda.
Following the lead of the President and the Governors, Americans in growing numbers
are committing their energies to efforts designed to improve basic education.
Achieving the national goals will require significant improvement in science and
mathematics education. However, revitalizing science and mathematics education will
not be possible without much broader reforms in American basic education. This
paper therefore examines some of the general reform strategies that will be needed to
meet the national goals. It then suggests several ways in which the President and the
federal government can anticipate and facilitate those reforms, with a particular
emphasis on science and mathematics education.
THE NATURE OF THE GOALS
The National Education Goals have revolutionary implications for basic
education. They are performance goals stated in terms of outcomes or levels of
achievement. In the areas of science and mathematics, they require "demonstrated
competency
in mathematics [and] science," sufficient to place U.S. students "first
in the world in science and mathematics achievement" by the year 2000, when "every
adult American will be literate and possess the knowledge and skills required in a
global economy." Moreover, the call for 90 percent of our young people to graduate
from high school requires that the goals extend to virtually all school-aged children,
even those for whom alternate educational strategies are required.
Previous efforts to improve education have often used input or process goals,
which prescribe the experiences that all students and teachers should undergo -- for
example, the amount and kinds of courses required of all students. Many of the new
approaches adopted in the 1980s were process reforms, and although there is some
evidence that these changes have contributed to modest progress in recent years, their
results have been generally disappointing.
2
REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL REFORM
Since the announcement of the National Education Goals, a consensus has
emerged that achieving them will require fundamental restructuring of basic education
in America. Incremental improvements may be achieved by further incremental
changes, but the magnitude of improvement needed to meet the goals calls for massive
change in the educational system.
The emphasis on performance implicit in the goals is one of the most
important educational reforms needed to meet those goals. This focus on results
rather than inputs must be accelerated and become pervasive throughout American
elementary and secondary education.
However, performance can be emphasized only if achievement can be reliably
measured. Today, we need greater confidence in assessment mechanisms and more
understanding of how assessments relate to actual learning. Without such
improvements, many in the education community feel it will be difficult to reorder the
educational system on the basis of performance.
As assessment mechanisms are being improved, a complementary effort is
needed in the area of curricular reform. Much good work is being done in this area,
but implementation of the results in schools will not be easy. Moreover, testing
standards should be coordinated with curriculum development, which is a major
challenge.
A second fundamental change that will be required for the restructuring of
basic education is the introduction of parental choice in the selection of schools
appropriate for each child. Choice has many dimensions, ranging from permitting
some children to choose "magnet" schools within the public system to distributing
government vouchers for children to pay for educational expenses at any school,
public or private. Whatever system is adopted, it is important to provide some
measure of academic quality to act as a basis for choice. Requiring nationally
standardized tests and publishing their results would provide one of the indexes that
parents could use as consumers in the educational marketplace. Involving parents in
education has great value, and giving parents some element of choice is often the
beginning of a deeper parental involvement.
A third promising strategy in the reform of basic education is rewarding
exceptional teachers. Implementation often founders on the difficulty of assessing the
quality of a teacher, but improved assessments of teacher performance, along with
other means of evaluation, including peer review, provide important opportunities for
improving the quality of the teaching force.
Such efforts are especially important in science and technology. Unless
teachers at both the elementary and secondary levels understand and appreciate
science and technology, significant improvement will be difficult. Teacher training
programs to improve the quality of science and mathematics teaching will be an
3
essential element in meeting the national goals.
A fourth requirement for effective reform is reducing bureaucracies by relying
on school-based management that empowers principals and their teachers. However,
bureaucracies will relinquish control to teams of teachers and principals at individual
schools only if equity and accountability can be assured, which again raises the
question of educational assessment.
Finally, underlying the needed reforms of basic education is the recognition
that school is only one of many critical influences in a child's development. Only by
shifting our focus from our institutions to our children can we truly address the
challenges to our society. This strategy is particularly relevant for the retention of
students at risk of dropping out, who may require strategies beginning with prenatal
and child care even before formal school begins. If we are to strengthen our nation's
workforce and build better citizens, we must shape society's institutions to our
children and not vice versa.
THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The federal government cannot mandate reform in the decentralized system of
basic education in America. It can, however, facilitate, and where appropriate
finance, the reform initiatives cited above, using incentives and appropriate leveraging
to accelerate the reform process. In particular, we believe that the following federal
actions warrant serious consideration:
0
The federal government can provide incentives to states or regions pursuing
any of the reforms described in the previous section, subject to constraints designed
to ensure equity and equal opportunity. For example, federal funds might be used to
facilitate choice for needy students, thereby providing an inducement to states or
districts offering choice programs. Similarly, a national competition might be
established to recognize and reward exemplary programs for restructuring education
(just as the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award has recognized quality
improvements in industry).
0 The federal government can foster greatly intensified research on academic
assessment and the development of measurement instruments so that performance
standards can be set and the academic marketplace can function more rationally.
For example, federal funds could be used to leverage voluntary participation in
appropriate achievement evaluation programs.
0
The federal government can make a concerted, national effort to facilitate
and coordinate state and local programs, both public and private, to deal with the
school dropout problem. Successful drop-out prevention programs could be
recognized by the President and rewarded for their achievement.
The federal government can encourage private corporations, universities, and
4
national laboratories to work cooperatively with local schools, building on the many
excellent initiatives already under way.
0 In the areas of mathematics and science, the federal government can
encourage effective programs to engage talented girls and minority students in science
and mathematics, where they are now underrepresented.
0
The federal government can invest in teacher education programs in science
and mathematics and use forgivable loans and other inducements to attract to
teaching young people with degrees in science, mathematics, and engineering.
0
The federal government can support programs using modern
communications technologies, including satellite technologies, to expand access of both
students and teachers to the most highly qualified teachers of science and
mathematics.
THE PRESIDENT'S ROLE
Responsibility for our system of basic education in America rests fundamentally
on the general population, who shape the learning environments of their children,
elect their school boards and other influential politicians, and demonstrate their
priorities by their behavior toward teachers and schools.
However, our nation's leaders influence the attitudes and values of the
electorate. The President, in particular, has a personal role that reaches beyond his
authority as our nation's chief executive officer. In choosing his own priorities as a
leader, he sets a standard for all to heed.
The President, in partnership with the Governors, has placed a great challenge
squarely on the national agenda. Now all of the resources of leadership must be
applied to meeting that challenge. Federal budget priorities must be set, the activities
of the federal agencies must be guided, and the President's personal commitment to
education must continue to be demonstrated. With timely actions, and with a
continuing and unremitting campaign of words, the President can secure his place in
the history of American education.
TECHNOLOGY AND THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING
Today most Americans take for granted a standard of warmth, cleanliness,
food, medical care, music and entertainment, and transportation that was undreamt of
150 years ago. This great surge forward in the standard of living can and will
continue. Furthermore, this progress can encompass all Americans and the citizens of
other countries as well.
The foundation for dramatic increases in economic growth and improvement in
the standard of living has been technology. Basic research built a fundamental
understanding of the physical world, including the laws of mechanics and gravity, the
atomic and molecular bases of chemistry, and the basic principles of electricity and
energy. Building on this knowledge, individuals brought forth one striking invention
after another, from the steam engine, railroads, and the telegraph to electric lighting,
the telephone, and radio. Over the years, the rate of technological progress
accelerated. Advances in agriculture liberated the vast farm population for other
pursuits; automobiles and airplanes provided unprecedented speed and accessibility
over vast distances; and the television and computerized communications linked the
world together. This remarkable surge in invention, which contributed to an equally
remarkable ability to produce goods and services in volume, did much to create the
modern world.
America has led the world in science and technology for much of this century
-- resulting in a standard of living to which the rest of the world aspired. This paper
explores what will be necessary to continue to lead the world and thereby provide a
standard of living that will allow our children and grandchildren to live far better
than we do today.
REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP
Since World War II, basic scientific research has provided a new foundation on
which to build for the future. The molecules in a material can now be seen and
studied at the atomic level. The discovery of the structure of DNA and of the
immense complexity of the cell has opened up whole new areas of opportunity. New
materials are being developed that are lighter, stronger, and more durable than
anything known today. Advanced computers and new modes of communication, such
as optical fibers, are resulting in new ways to learn, new ways to work, new kinds of
2
intelligent machinery with virtually unlimited new capabilities. Furthermore, a better
understanding of the environment is making it possible for these advances to have far
fewer negative environmental impacts than did earlier technological advances.
Three basic things will be required if the United States is to continue to
benefit from the dividends of science and technology.
1. A continuing flow of new ideas and new understanding, which are the basis
of new materials, better health care, new information technologies, a cleaner
environment, and other technological advances.
2. The translation of new ideas and new technologies into significant new
products and into the steady improvement of those that are already an important
part of our lives.
3. A revival of manufacturing and the production of goods, which in the past
has provided both the material wealth and the jobs that built the American standard
of living.
THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The federal government has a role, although not the exclusive role, in the
development of technology. In particular, it has been a major catalyst for technology
development through its direct investment in research and through legislative and
regulatory actions that have facilitated the development and commercialization of new
insights.
New Ideas and New Understanding
Our diverse science and technology base can generate new ideas anywhere -- on
the production line, in industrial or government laboratories, and in the individual
laboratories of universities and research institutes. Many new ideas have come from
basic research, which has been supported largely by the federal government. The
federal government supports this research through diverse mechanisms in government
laboratories and in hundreds of universities and private research institutes throughout
the United States.
Continued strong investment in basic research, the recognition that basic
research is a high national priority, and the continued support of the principle of
diversity without federal control of research are all essential. The federal government
must also ensure that the large sums of money it is investing are invested well. Thus,
oversight must be balanced with control in ensuring that this broad and diverse
research base thrives.
Through its support of research and training programs, the federal government
3
has also played a major role in training the next generation of scientists. However,
many scientists, particularly young scientists, are discouraged about their future
prospects in science. Some of these problems may be based more on perceptions than
realities. Nevertheless, there needs to be a well-articulated federal position across
science and technology that the generation of scientific and technological talent is
essential to America's future and will be given high priority.
Finally, in partnership with the private sector, the federal government has a
role in revitalizing the research infrastructure. A modern infrastructuré is essential if
we are to create environments for talented people to generate new ideas.
Translation of New Ideas into Technologies
One of the greatest threats to continued improvements in our standard of
living is our relative weakness at translating basic knowledge into significant new
products and in generating steady improvement of those products that are already an
important part of our lives. Other countries now succeed at this process this much
more effectively than we do here in the United States.
The federal government has both a direct and an indirect role in translating
new ideas and new understanding into useable technologies. First, it can help create
an economic climate that stimulates the development of new products and encourages
the formation of new entrepreneurial companies. The federal government can also
support the development of generic, precompetitive technologies that have widespread
applications in the public and private sectors (examples include high performance
computing, biotechnologies, and materials science and engineering). The federal
government has often taken this role in the past, as in the cases of computer
technologies, aeronautical developments, and agricultural advances. It is important,
however, that such support not pull the federal government into an inappropriate
development role.
The federal laboratories are a major government resource that could, in some
cases, be marshalled to participate more effectively in technology transfer. In
particular, some federal laboratories could be given new missions focusing on generic,
precompetitive technologies, on manufacturing, and on technology transfer.
In general, the federal government needs to promote legislative and regulatory
actions that support and encourage appropriate technology transfer at the level of
individual scientists and institutions in both the private and public sectors. Concerns
about conflict of interest must be resolved so that they do not inappropriately retard
the entrepreneurial spirit.
4
Manufacturing
If America is to benefit from its own new ideas, this country must once again
become preeminent in manufacturing. This is largely the responsibility of industry,
but there are certain things that the federal government can do to make
manufacturing a high priority for this country. The President can recognize the
importance of manufacturing to the American standard of living. The Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award is an example that has been extremely successful.
Other programs that give manufacturing this kind of recognition need to be
established. The federal government can also support engineering education and
fellowships targeted for research and manufacturing technology.
SETTING PRIORITIES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
In times of limited financial resources, choices must be made. Investments to
support technology, and thereby increase the American standard of living, will not
necessarily be free. The federal government's priorities in science and technology may
have to shift to more explicitly recognize economic growth and a higher standard of
living as national goals. In any such evaluation, we feel that the three areas
discussed above basic research, the translation of new ideas into products, and
manufacturing technologies -- must have priority if this country is to continue to
increase its standard of living.
U.S.
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
E
ONLY UNITED SCIENCE POLICY THE OFFICE OF OF OF PREMISMA
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
SEPTEMBER 26, 1990
U.S. TECHNOLOGY POLICY
A nation's technology policy is based on the broad principles that govern the
allocation of its technological resources. Competitive market forces determine, for the
most part, an optimal allocation of U.S. technological resources. Government can
nonetheless play an important role by supplementing and complementing those forces.
Technology policy is not something that, once set in place, remains immutable. Broad
principles exist, but effective technology policy requires sufficient flexibility to permit
response to changing national and international situations. We are in an era marked
by increased international economic interdependency and increasingly stronger
technological capabilities in other industrial nations. These factors pose competitive
challenges for U.S. firms as well as opportunities. In formulating a national
technology policy, consideration must be given to a nation's traditions, its strengths
and weaknesses, and the international environment in which it exists.
In almost all respects the U.S. science and technology base remains the world's
strongest. The Nation's research universities and the ability of its people to innovate
remain the envy of the world. Nonetheless, industrial competitiveness depends on
many factors besides technology. Our strengths in technology and innovation have
not prevented an erosion in market shares of U.S. companies in many industries. As
new products mature, the advantage quickly shifts from the innovator to the efficient
producer. We have also seen the importance of high rates of capital investment for
the industrial competitiveness of Japan, Europe, and the Pacific Rim countries.
The competitive challenges American firms face are multifaceted and complex. There
will be no facile, short-term solutions. We, in this Administration, believe it is
essential that we recognize and use the strengths of our economic system more
effectively to help U.S. firms remain competitive. In order to do so, all elements of
our society must recognize that while we possess many strengths and assets, problems
do exist, and that we can mobilize our resources and solve them. At the same time,
we need to refrain from actions that might distort our basic system of free enterprise
- the Nation's ultimate strength.
In order to build on its strengths, U.S. society needs to focus on ensuring:
a quality workforce that is educated, trained, and flexible in adapting to
technological and competitive change;
a financial environment that is conducive to longer-term investment in
technology;
0
the translation of technology into timely, cost competitive, high quality
manufactured products;
an efficient technological infrastructure, especially in the transfer of
information; and
Federal laboratories, and industry all contribute to the science and technology base.
Industry makes the investments necessary to turn this knowledge base into
commercial products and processes. Federal, state, and local governments support
research both directly when they fund specific R&D projects, and indirectly through
tax and other incentives for private sector R&D investment. The Federal Government
also sets the overall macroeconomic and legal environment in which industry's
decisions about product and process development and commercialization take place.
In that context, the Administration's strategy to implement U.S. technology policy
includes the following major elements:
Role of the Private Sector
While the government plays a critical role in establishing an economic environment to
encourage innovation, the private sector has the principal role in identifying and
utilizing technologies for commercial products and processes. In particular, the
private sector has the responsibility to:
conduct research and development to advance industry-related knowledge and
technology;
identify and aggressively pursue potential commercial applications for technologies
developed by its own laboratories as well as by universities, Federal laboratories,
and foreign sources;
increase quality, output, and productivity by undertaking necessary investments in
physical capital;
improve the skills and abilities of its workforce to meet its specific needs; and
participate cooperatively in improving the quality of U.S. education.
Government policies can help establish a favorable environment for private industry
to conduct these activities but cannot substitute for aggressive private sector action.
Government Incentives for the Private Sector
Create an environment conducive to technological competitiveness by ensuring that
technology policy concerns are factored into the formulation of related policies (e.g.
fiscal, monetary, trade, environmental, etc.) with the overall objective of enhancing
U.S. economic growth.
0
Encourage private technology-related investment through Federal monetary and
fiscal policies. For example, reducing the capital gains tax differential and making
permanent as well as enhancing the tax credit for research and experimentation
will provide incentives for added investment. Incentives can also be provided
through appropriate tax policies.
3
Provide an appropriate legal environment at the Federal level that removes
unnecessary obstacles to innovation. Reducing the uncertainties about antitrust
enforcement related to inter-firm cooperation in research and technology
development encourages the pooling of limited resources and a rapid diffusion of
results while still protecting against anticompetitive practices. Reducing the
antitrust uncertainties about joint production ventures will also enable firms to
cooperate in the development and introduction of new products.
Revise Federal procurement regulations and practices to permit greater integration
of government and commercial production at the factory level, as well as encourage
greater innovation and efficiency in development and production. Also encourage
the use of commercial products, to the extent feasible, for defense, space, and other
government applications.
Improve opportunities for companies to commercialize technologies and computer
software developed during the performance of government contracts by allowing the
contractors to retain rights in technical data and by protecting their trade secrets.
Provide a stable regulatory environment in order to decrease risk for private
investment.
Seek greater harmonization of regulations and standards for products and
processes with our major trading partners.
Encourage increased U.S. participation in multi-lateral international
standardization efforts through the standards activities of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology.
Seek better international protection of intellectual property to allow more benefits
to be recovered from R&D investments.
Education and Training
Revitalize education at all levels including not only the training of scientists,
engineers, and the technical workforce, but also educating our population to be
sufficiently literate in science and technology to deal with the social issues arising
from rapid scientific and technical change. Achieving such a goal will require a
broad-based approach involving business, academia, and educational organizations,
as well as Federal, state, and local governments.
0
Develop a framework for Federal interagency coordination and collaboration in
mathematics, science, engineering, and technology education. The goal is to define
an effective and appropriate role for the Federal government in support of the
states, localities, and universities as they improve science and technology education
to build human capital in the U.S.
4
Encourage continuing education and training, recognizing that, particularly in
scientific and technological fields, education must be a lifelong activity.
Federal R&D Responsibilities
Increase Federal investment in support of basic research. Private industry does
not invest heavily in basic research because the payoffs are so unpredictable and
diffuse that individual firms cannot be confident of fully recovering their
investments. However, the long-term potential benefits of this research are so large
that society cannot afford not to make the investment, especially in university
research which, in addition to new knowledge, also produces trained scientists and
engineers of the future.
Participate with the private sector in precompetitive research on generic, enabling
technologies that have the potential to contribute to a broad range of government
and commercial applications. In many cases these technologies have evolved from
government-funded basic research, but technical uncertainties are not sufficiently
reduced to permit assessment of full commercial potential. In pre-competitive
research, which occurs prior to the development of application-specific commercial
prototypes, research results can be shared among potential competitors without
reducing the financial incentives for individual firms to develop and market
commercial products and processes based upon the results.
Continue the Federal government's development of products and processes for
which it is the sole or major consumer, such as national defense, provided that no
commercially available products can be substituted. The government, in such
cases, must rely principally on the private sector to undertake the development
process. Revise current Federal procurement regulations to strengthen the abilities
of companies involved in developing and demonstrating these products to use the
same research results and technologies for commercial purposes.
Maintain a strong Defense technology base to provide options for future weapons
systems development and to help avoid technological surprises by potential
adversaries. Special emphasis needs to be placed on shortening the time required
for transferring R&D results to production and on using commercial products.
Streamline Federal decision-making structures and mechanisms to eliminate
unnecessary and cumbersome regulations and practices that inhibit industrial
competitiveness.
Encourage international cooperation in science and technology, where mutually
beneficial, and inform U.S. researchers of opportunities to participate in R&D
initiatives outside the U.S.
5
Transfer of Federally Funded Technology
Improve the transfer of Federal laboratories' R&D results to the private sector.
Where appropriate, these laboratories should give greater consideration to potential
commercial applications in the planning and conduct of R&D, and these efforts
should be guided by input from potential users. To achieve this goal, there must
be a closer working relationship among these laboratories, industry, and
universities. Defense-related laboratories can make major contributions while still
providing adequate safeguards for classified information.
Promote increased industry-Federal laboratory-university collaboration, including
personnel exchanges, to help convert Federally-supported R&D into new
technologies that the private sector can then turn into commercial products and
processes.
0
Promote and encourage access by U.S. industry to Federal laboratories within the
guidelines established by the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-
502), other existing legislation, and Executive Order 12591.
Expedite the diffusion of the results of Federally-conducted R&D to industry,
including licensing of inventions and removal of barriers to commercialization of
Federally developed computer software.
0
Encourage direct laboratory-industry interaction within broad, flexible Federal
guidelines, since effective technology transfer occurs at the operational level.
Federal-State Activities
Recognize the importance of decentralization, and encourage states to develop
programs that take into account the individual characteristics of each state.
Federal programs in such areas as education, training, the national infrastructure,
and regional generic technology centers, should build upon state initiatives.
Programs To Implement U.S. Technology Policy
The Administration has undertaken a broad range of programs and initiatives
aimed at translating the technology policy into action. These programs and their
associated budget levels requested for Fiscal Year 1991, where applicable, are
summarized here.
6
Incentives for the Private Sector
The Administration has proposed improvements in incentives for private sector
innovation by:
Reducing the tax rate on capital gains permanently to spur entrepreneurial
activity.
The Administration has proposed restoring a capital gains tax differential such
as existed before the Tax Reform Act of 1986. A lower tax rate on. capital gains
will encourage investors and entrepreneurs to make the investments necessary to
be competitive.
Making the research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit permanent to reduce
uncertainty.
Under current law, the R&E tax credit is scheduled to expire on December 31,
1990. The Administration proposal to make the credit permanent would permit
businesses to establish and expand research facilities without fearing that the tax
laws will suddenly change.
Protecting intellectual property through international negotiations.
The Administration is aggressively pursuing improved international protection of
intellectual property. The current negotiations in the Uruguay Round of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) are an important forum for
developing better international rules. Negotiations on intellectual property rights
are also being conducted in the World Intellectual Property Organization and in
trilateral talks with the European Community and Japan. In addition, the U.S.
is pursuing bilateral negotiations on intellectual property rights under the
provisions of the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act.
Liberalizing export controls to enhance high technology product exports.
Dramatic changes in the Eastern European security environment have permitted
an Administration re-evaluation of U.S. export controls, and paved the way for an
expanded trade potential for U.S. high technology industries.
Reforming product liability laws to restore balance to the tort system.
The Administration supports the adoption of uniform product liability standards
across the 50 states based on three principles of fairness: the right of an
innocent person to fair compensation for actual damages; liability based on
responsibility for harm and not ability to pay; and encouragement of alternatives
to costly litigation. The proposed changes to product liability laws would
7
maintain incentives to produce safe products, but would restore balance to the
tort system and reduce uncertainty - particularly for new products.
Reforming the Federal procurement process.
The Administration supports continued efforts to streamline the procurement
process, reduce its complexity and paperwork burden, and provide contractors
with incentives to innovate and reduce costs. The Administration has proposed
changes in legislation and regulations to foster commercial style competitive
procedures for the acquisition of commercial products. A revision of the
Federal Acquisition Regulations is being drafted that will allow contractors to
retain commercial rights in technical data developed under Federal contracts.
The Administration is also developing a policy mandating increased agency use of
performance based contracting that gives contractors more freedom and incentive
to innovate.
Removing barriers to research, innovation, and development.
The Administration supports continued elimination of unwarranted regulation.
Deregulation can spur innovation as well as lower prices. It also requires a
continuous reexamination of existing regulatory policies to avoid unnecessary
stifling of new products and processes. The Administration has proposed
antitrust legislation that would reduce the legal uncertainties for companies to
enter joint production ventures while still protecting against anticompetitive
practices. Challengers would be required to prove that such ventures would
harm competition. The legislation would also eliminate punitive treble-damage
awards under certain circumstances.
Education and Training
In addition to the President's broad initiatives on education, there are a number
of programs directed at improving education in mathematics and science and at
training of the technical workforce. These include:
0 National Science Foundation: $463 million plus research assistantships proposed
in Fiscal Year 1991
The National Science Foundation has a broad range of programs dealing with
mathematics and science education and human resources at all levels. Major
programs are:
-
Research career development (graduate research fellowships and enrichment
activities for talented high school students).
- Teaching materials development and informal science education (aimed primarily
at the pre-college level).
8
Teacher preparation and enhancement (upgrading quality of faculty, providing
Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Mathematics Teaching, and
developing model programs for women, minorities, and the handicapped).
Undergraduate science, engineering, and mathematics education (includes
instrumentation grants, curriculum development, faculty revitalization,
comprehensive regional centers for minorities, and research experiences for
undergraduates).
In addition, almost 16,000 graduate students are supported by research
assistantships through regular research grants to universities.
Department of Education: $333 million proposed in Fiscal Year 1991
Eisenhower mathematics and science program (provides funds to help State and
local educational agencies carry out programs to train teachers and improve
instruction in mathematics and science).
Adult education program (aimed at skills needed to cope with new technologies
and providing for workplace literacy).
0
National Institutes of Health: $292 million plus research assistantships proposed
in Fiscal Year 1991
Almost 12,000 graduate students receive training grants.
Tens of thousands of graduate students are supported by research assistantships
through the $4.4 billion in extramural research grants.
0 National Aeronautics and Space Administration: $51 million proposed in Fiscal
Year 1991
Program activities cover informal K-12 science education, mobile presentations on
space to elementary and secondary schools, teacher workshops and internships at
NASA research centers, grants for undergraduate and graduate students, and
programs for minorities in science and engineering education.
Department of Energy: $25 million plus research assistantships proposed in
Fiscal Year 1991
Programs include science and mathematics exposure for middle and high school
students, research training of undergraduates, and graduate fellowships in science
and engineering.
An estimated 4,000-4,500 graduate students are supported by research
assistantships through research grants to universities.
9
0 Department of Defense: $364 million projected for Fiscal Year 1991 for
non-military personnel
Pre-college programs (summer programs for minorities).
Undergraduate programs (primarily ROTC scholarships in technical fields).
Graduate fellowships and research assistantships.
Post-doctoral and faculty research appointments.
Department of Agriculture: $125 million proposed in Fiscal Year 1991
Challenge grants to strengthen undergraduate education.
Capacity building grants to strengthen teaching and research programs in the
"1890 Land Grant" institutions.
National needs fellowships to recruit and train scientists in the most critically
deficient areas.
Graduate assistantships associated with research grants projects. About 13,000
graduate students are supported for graduate studies.
Ag-In-The-Classroom to support science strengthening in K-12 programs.
Research apprenticeships to bring high school students into university and
government laboratories to stimulate interest in science.
School enrichment program to function as a catalyst between schools and
community to strengthen science programs.
Postdoctoral program in Agricultural Research Service and Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service laboratories.
Federal R&D Responsibilities
The Fiscal Year 1991 budget proposes to allocate about $71 billion for research
and development. This is an increase of $4.5 billion, or 7 percent, over 1990 enacted
levels. Civilian R&D will increase by 12 percent, while defense-related R&D will
increase by 4 percent. Within this total, $12 billion will be allocated for basic
research, an increase of $1 billion or about 8 percent over 1990. The budget contains
a number of new and expanded programs that will contribute to the Nation's R&D
enterprise and competitive posture. These include:
10
A 13 percent increase in the National Science Foundation's budget request for
research and facilities, which account for over 75 percent of the NSF budget.
Support for basic science and engineering is the foundation on which U.S.
technology is built. Within the overall increases there are emphases on Science
and Technology Centers, networking and communications, Engineering Research
Centers, and major research equipment for universities.
Developing advanced technologies to meet Defense and civilian agency needs.
Based on the results of a special survey of the support for selected advanced
technologies that are funded by more than one Federal agency, the budget
proposals are:
- Robotics - The budget provides $192 million to six Federal agencies for support
of robotics R&D. The focus of this R&D is on the development of systems that
are more autonomous and capable of interacting with changing and uncertain
environments.
- High Performance Computing - The budget provides $469 million for Federal
support of R&D focused on high performance computing. This activity
includes the full range of advanced computing technologies as well as systems
and applications software, networking, and underlying research and human
resource infrastructure.
-
Semiconductors - The budget provides $537 million for research on
semiconductor materials, development and application of semiconductor
materials to meet agency mission needs, and support of R&D on semiconductor
manufacturing processes. The largest single Federal program is DOD funding
of $100 million per year for SEMATECH, a semiconductor industry R&D
consortium.
-
Superconductivity - The budget provides $215 million for superconductivity
R&D. Programs in five Federal agencies deal with both high temperature and
low temperature superconducting phenomena and materials.
Advanced Imaging Technologies - The budget provides $118 million for
advanced imaging R&D. Advanced imaging systems include interactive
graphics, high definition displays, advanced signal processing, and advanced
digital switching technologies.
Improving productivity and the quality of life through biotechnology. The budget
proposes $3.6 billion for biotechnology R&D. In pharmaceuticals, foods,
agriculture, waste management, and energy, biotechnical advances offer the
possibility of improvements that will make a real difference in people's lives.
Developing technologies for improved transportation. The budget proposes
funding for transportation R&D of $1,527 million. This R&D is aimed at
maintaining a modern, efficient transportation infrastructure, an essential factor
11
in being industrially competitive. Federal programs are focused on aeronautics,
highways, mass transit, railroads, maritime, water, aviation, and other
transportation areas.
Promoting alternate sources of energy. For conduct of energy R&D programs in
the Department of Energy, the budget proposes total funding of $2,450 million.
The R&D is aimed at maintaining abundant, reliable, and economic sources of
energy. Federal programs cover a broad spectrum of energy technologies
including solar, renewable, conservation, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, and fossil
energy, and supporting energy sciences.
Enhancing industrial productivity and development of standards. The budget
proposes $198 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology.
R&D in fundamental measurements and standards provides the foundation for
U.S. industry, commerce, and science to achieve levels of accuracy and
compatibility required to support technological development, efficient processing,
process control, and quality assurance. Special activities include R&D on
advanced manufacturing technologies. In addition, the Advanced Technology
Program provides grants to industry-led ventures to support research on pre-
competitive generic technologies.
Transfer of Federally Funded Technology
Many important steps have been taken, pursuant to the Federal Technology
Transfer Act and other legislation, to increase the degree to which Federal
laboratories collaborate with private industry in commercializing the results of
Federally-funded research and development. These activities include:
Establishment of over 200 active cooperative research and development
agreements between Federal laboratories and private companies.
Creation of the Precision Manufacturing Technology Program by the Department
of Energy to provide U.S. industry greater access to the extensive manufacturing
technology, expertise, and facilities available within the Department's Defense
Programs weapons complex.
Formation of the Biotechnology Research and Development Consortium, a joint
research effort between the Department of Agriculture's Northern Regional
Research Center, the University of Illinois, the State of Illinois, and six U.S.
companies.
Formation of a joint venture in high temperature superconducting materials and
applications by Du Pont, Hewlett-Packard, and Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Establishment of Regional Manufacturing Technology Centers. The budget
provides $5 million for this program. The approach is to reduce the barriers
12
faced by small- and medium-sized manufacturers in adopting new technology by
creating awareness and providing up-to-date, practical information and expertise
on manufacturing technologies and practices.
Federal-State Activities
Federal programs have already been initiated to build upon the advantages offered
by decentralized programs operating at the state and local level. These programs
include:
Department of Commerce Clearinghouse for State and Local Initiatives on
Productivity, Technology and Innovation:
The Clearinghouse gathers and analyzes information on the many technology
development centers at the state and local level. It will help to develop a
network of contacts among state and local officials and staff.
Small Business Development Centers:
Each Small Business Development Center (SBDC) serves as a one-stop assistance
center for businesses and provides services ranging from pre-business start-up
counseling to technical advice for existing businesses. The centers have a
legislative mandate to assist in technology transfer, make use of Federal
laboratories and equipment, and coordinate and conduct research they deem
worthwhile.
University Centers Program:
This program provides funds to involve the resources of universities in economic
development within the community.
NASA Industrial Applications Centers Program:
The centers offer clients access to a national data bank that includes over 100
million documents of accumulated technical knowledge, along with their expertise
in retrieving information and applying it in support of clients' needs. The
centers are backed by state-sponsored business or technical centers that provide
access to the technology transfer network.
Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers Program:
The centers provide trade-impacted small and medium-sized manufacturers
with in-depth technical assistance.
13
PCAST
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 10, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR DR. BROMLEY
FROM:
CHARLES KOLB camk
SUBJECT:
PCAST Background Papers
Thank you for the opportunity to review the two PCAST back-
ground papers on education and technology. Our detailed
editorial suggestions appear on the attached copy of the
documents.
More generally, I would recommend that the education paper
be recast to focus more on the specific actions that might
be taken by the scientific community in promoting education
reform. Much of the discussion in the current draft summarizes
ongoing efforts, many of which the President should be familiar
with already. Consequently, I'd look for areas in which new
ground might be broken. Among the possible areas are the
following:
* The scientific and corporate communities can set
education standards in their own laboratories and
workplaces. Efforts to promote ongoing literacy
activities are greatly needed.
* These communities can also work to promote education
reforms such as alternative certification, choice,
and magnet schools. To the extent that we need more
qualified math and science teachers, these communities
can join the effort to secure true alternative
certification programs in each State.
* The American Society of Engineering Societies is
working on a project to identify 100,000 volunteers
from among their members so that each elementary
and secondary school in America will have a math-
science "mentor" who can work with the school to
enhance math and science education activities.
* Careful review of existing Federal postsecondary
education programs should be undertaken to see in
what ways some of them can be targeted to deal with
math-science education at the undergraduate and
graduate levels, particularly with respect to
minorities.
-2-
As for the background paper on technology, I would offer a
couple of thoughts. George Gilder has written an excellent
little book entitled Life After Television which includes some
excellent examples about the need to improve our technology --
particularly the need to facilitate entry of new systems such
as the telecomputer. Gilder might offer some useful insights
to your discussion.
Second, I am concerned about the comment on page 2 concerning
a "revival of manufacturing and the production of goods." I
..
think this should be clarified somewhat, particularly in light
of an article in today's The Wall Street Journal (attached)
that indicates the percentage of our GNP attributed to manu-
facturing has dropped from 29% in 1950 to 21% in 1980 and 22%
in 1987. The article notes that "[t]he rest of the economy is
made up of the trade, transportation, financial insurance, real
estate and services sectors, as well as government services.
It is America's superior efficiency in the remaining 80% of its
economy that has yielded the higher standard of living in the
U.S." If this statement is, indeed, true, you might want to
reconsider the manner in which you call for preeminence in
manufacturing.
I hope you will find these suggestions helpful. You also might
want to share the draft document with OMB and the Vice
President's Council on Competitiveness for their thoughts as
well. As always, we stand ready to assist OSTP and PCAST in
whatever ways we can.
CC: Roger B. Porter
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 7, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES KOLB
DAB.
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
SUBJECT:
PCAST BACKGROUND PAPERS
Attached are two background papers -- one on meeting the National Education Goals
and the other on technology and the American standard of living. They were
prepared by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and will
be used to brief the President next Friday, December 14.
I would very much appreciate your comments on these papers by next Monday
evening, so that the members of PCAST may consider your thoughts before briefing
the President.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
cc:
Ken Yale
Tom Welch
[DRAFT: DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR QUOTE]
[December 6, 1990]
EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS:
MEETING THE NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS
The National Education Goals developed by the President and the nation's
Governors have helped to move education toward the top of the nation's agenda.
Following the lead of the President and the Governors, Americans in growing numbers
are committing their energies to efforts designed to improve basic education.
?
Achieving the national goals will require significant improvement in science and
mathematics education. However, revitalizing science and mathematics education will
not be possible without much broader reforms in American basic education. This
paper therefore examines some of the general reform strategies that will be needed to
meet the national goals. It then suggests several ways in which the President and the
federal government can anticipate and facilitate those reforms, with a particular
emphasis on science and mathematics education.
THE NATURE OF THE GOALS
The National Education Goals have revolutionary implications for basic
education. They are performance goals stated in terms of outcomes or levels of
achievement. In the areas of science and mathematics, they require "demonstrated
competency
in mathematics [and] science," sufficient to place U.S. students "first
in the world in science and mathematics achievement" by the year 2000, when "every
adult American will be literate and possess the knowledge and skills required in a
global economy." Moreover, the call for 90 percent of our young people to graduate
from high school requires that the goals extend to virtually all school-aged children,
even those for whom alternate educational strategies are required.
Previous efforts to improve education have often used input or process goals,
which prescribe the experiences that all students and teachers should undergo -- for
example, the amount and kinds of courses required of all students. Many of the new
approaches adopted in the 1980s were process reforms, and although there is some
evidence that these changes have contributed to modest progress in recent years, their
results have been generally disappointing.
2
REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL REFORM
Since the announcement of the National Education Goals, a consensus has
been emerging that achieving them will require fundamental restructuring of basic
education in America. Incremental improvements may be achieved by further
ineremental changes, but the magnitude of improvement needed to meet the goals
calls for massive change in the educational system.
(an "emphasion"
The emphasis on performance implicit in the goals is one of the most
IS not 0 refort
important educational reforms needed to meet those goals. This focus on results
rather than inputs must be accelerated and become pervasive throughout American
elementary and secondary education.
the hallmark of
However, performance can be emphasized only if achievement сап be reliably
measured. Today, we need greater confidence in assessment mechanisms and more
understanding of how assessments relate to actual learning. Without such
improvements many in the education community feel it will be difficult to reorder the
educational system on the basis of performance.
As assessment mechanisms are being improved, a complementary effort is
needed in the area of curricular reform. Much good work is being done in this area,
but mplementation of the results in schools will not be easy. Moreover, testing
standards should be coordinated with curriculum development, which is a major
challenge.
parental
pay for educational
One
A second fundamental change that will be required for the restructuring of
expenses
basic education is the introduction of choice in the selection of schools appropriate
the customers
for each child. Choice has many dimensions, ranging from permitting some children
of education,
to choose "magnet" schools within the public system to distributing government
arents and
vouchers for children to redeem for cash toward tuition at any school, public or
students
private. Whatever system is adopted, it is important to provide some measure of
-ith results-
academic quality to act as a basis for choice. Requiring nationally standardized tests
measures oriented of
and publishing their results would provide one of the indexes that parents could use
e
the quality
as consumers in the educational marketplace. Involving parents in education has
ot schools
great value, and giving parents some element of choice is often the beginning of a
greater deeper parental involvement. in their children's education and central to effectively
second
reforming Amenican education.
A -third promising strategy in the reform of basic education is rewarding
attracting
talented
exceptional teachers 9 Implementation often founders on the difficulty of assessing the
individuals
quality of a teacher, but improved assessments of teacher performance, along with
to the
other means of evaluation, including peer review, provide important opportunities for
teaching
improving the quality of the teaching force.
^
force through
Such efforts programs are especially important in science and technology. Unless
alternative
certification
teachers at both the elementary and secondary levels understand and appreciate
Alternative certification enables qualified professionals who want to teach
to education. enter the teaching force through rontes other than traditional teacher
3
science and technology, significant improvement will be difficult. Teacher training
programs to improve the quality of science and mathematics teaching will be an
essential element in meeting the national goals.
also
third
effective
impediments
A fourth requirement for reform is reducing bureaucracies tic by relying through on school-
to change
based management that empowers principals and their teachers However,
and
bureaucracies will relinquish control to teams of teachers and principals at individual greater providing
schools only if equity and accountability can be assured, which again raises the
question of educational assessment.
enhanced accountability for improved performance
use of Funds for education in exchange for
flexibility in the
Finally, underlying the needed reforms of basic education is the recognition
that school is only one of many critical influences in a child's development. Only bf
American
shifting our focus from our institutions to our children can we truly address the
homes must
challenges to our society. This strategy is particularly relevant for the retention of
students at risk of dropping out, who may require strategies beginning with prenatal be places of
Community- and child care even before formal school begins. If we are to strengthen our nation's learning where
school-
workforce children and and not build vice better versa. citizens, we must shape society's institutions to our parents recognize
and
home-
their role as
a
based strategies should involving be every encouraged. sector that influences a child's learning
child's first teacher.
THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
decentralized
The federal government cannot mandate reform in the distributed system of
basic education in America. It can, however, facilitate, and where appropriate
finance, the reform initiatives cited above, using incentives and appropriate leveraging
to accelerate the reform process. In particular, we believe that the following federal
actions warrant serious consideration:
0 The federal government can provide incentives to states or regions pursuing
any of the reforms described in the previous section, subject to constraints designed &
to ensure equity and equal opportunity. For example, federal funds might be used to
facilitate choice for needy students, thereby providing an inducement to states or
districts offering choice programs. Similarly, a national competition might be
established to recognize and reward exemplary programs for restructuring education
(just as the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award has recognized quality
improvements in industry).
0 The federal government can foster greatly intensified research on academic
achievement
assessment and the development of measurement instruments so that performance
standards can be set and the academie marketplace can function more rationally. e
measured.
validly
For example, federal funds could be used to pay for participating 10n in appropriate
achievement evaluation programs.
voluntary
leverage
work to reduce regulations that limit
0
and coordinate state and local programs, both public and private, to deal with the
The federal government can make a concerted, national effort to facilitate flexibility
school dropout problem. Successful drop out prevention programs could be
and seek
recognized by the President and rewarded for their achievement.
legaslation that
and schools use to seek regulatory warvers and 1 funds in order to enact strater
to consolidate
will permit states
that work.
4
The federal government can encourage private corporations, universities, and
national laboratories to work cooperatively with local schools, building on the many
excellent initiatives already under way.
In the areas of mathematics and science, the federal government can invest encourage
effective in programs to engage talented girls and minority students in science and
mathematics, where they are now underrepresented.
encourage states to enact alternative certification
and mathematics and use forgivable loans and other inducements to attract to ESTET
The federal government can invest in teacher education programs in science programs
SFET teaching young people with degrees in science, mathematics, and engineering.
The federal government can support programs using modern
communications technologies, including satellite technologies, to expand access of both
?
students and teachers to the most highly qualified teachers of science and
mathematics.
0 The federal government can initiate a cooperative demonstration project with
the school system of the District of Columbia.
THE PRESIDENT'S ROLE
Responsibility for our system of basic education in America rests fundamentally
on the general population, who shape the learning environments of their children,
elect their school boards and other influential politicians, and demonstrate their
priorities by their behavior toward teachers and schools.
Rewrite
However, our nation's leaders influence the attitudes and values of the
electorate. The President, in particular, has a personal role that reaches beyond his
or
authority as our nation's chief executive officer. In choosing his own priorities as a
omit
leader, he sets a standard for all to heed.
The President, in partnership with the Governors, has placed a great challenge
squarely on the national agenda. Now all of the resources of leadership must be
applied to meeting that challenge. Federal budget priorities must be set, the activities
of the federal agencies must be guided, and the President's personal commitment to
education must continue to be demonstrated. With timely actions, and with a
continuing and unremitting campaign of words, the President can secure his place in
the history of American education.
[DRAFT: DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR QUOTE]
[December 7, 1990]
TECHNOLOGY AND THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING
?
the surge or the standard.
Today most Americans take for granted a standard of warmth, cleanliness,
food, medical care, music and entertainment, and transportation that was undreamt of
150 years ago. This great surge forward in the standard of living can and will
continue. Furthermore it can encompass all Americans and the citizens of other
countries as well.
along flunkey
The foundation for dramatic increases in economic growth and improvement in
the standard of living has been technology. Basic research built a fundamental
econnizi
understanding of the physical world, including the laws of mechanics and gravity, the
Policy
atomic and molecular bases of chemistry, and the basic principles of electricity and
energy. Building on this knowledge, individuals brought forth one striking invention
after another, from the steam engine, railroads, and the telegraph to electric lighting,
the telephone, and radio. Over the years, the rate of technological progress
accelerated. Advances in agriculture liberated the vast farm population for other
pursuits; automobiles and airplanes provided unprecedented speed and accessibility
over vast distances; and the television and computerized communications linked the
world together. This remarkable surge in invention, which contributed to an equally
remarkable ability to produce goods and services in volume, did much to create the
modern world.
America has led the world in science and technology for much of this century
-- resulting in a standard of living to which the rest of the world aspired. This paper
explores what will be necessary to continue to lead the world and thereby provide a
standard of living that will allow our children and grandchildren to live far better
than we do today.
REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP
Since World War II, basic scientific research has provided a new foundation on
which to build for the future. The molecules in a material can now be seen and
studied at the atomic level. The discovery of the structure of DNA and of the
immense complexity of the cell has opened up whole new areas of opportunity. New
materials are being developed that are lighter, stronger, and more durable than
2
anything known today. Advanced computers and new modes of communication, such
as optical fibers, are resulting in new ways to learn, new ways to work, new kinds of
intelligent machinery with virtually unlimited new capabilities. Furthermore, a better
understanding of the environment is making it possible for these advances to have far
fewer negative environmental impacts than did earlier technological advances.
Three basic things will be required if the United States is to continue to
benefit from the dividends of science and technology.
1. A continuing flow of new ideas and new understanding, which are the basis
of new materials, better health care, new information technologies, a cleaner
environment, and other technological advances.
2. The translation of new ideas and new technologies into significant new
products and into the steady improvement of those that are already an important
part of our lives.
3. A revival of manufacturing and the production of goods, which in the past
has provided both the material wealth and the jobs that built the American standard
of living.
THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The federal government has a role, although not the exclusive role, in the
development of technology. In particular, it has been a major catalyst for technology
development through its direct investment in research and through legislative and
regulatory actions that have facilitated the development and commercialization of new
insights.
New Ideas and New Understanding
Our diverse science and technology base can generate new ideas anywhere - on
the production line, in industrial or government laboratories, and in the individual
laboratories of universities and research institutes. Many new ideas have come from
basic research, which has been supported largely by the federal government. The
federal government supports this research through diverse mechanisms in government
laboratories and in hundreds of universities and private research institutes throughout
the United States.
Continued strong investment in basic research, the recognition that basic
research is a high national priority, and the continued support of the principle of
diversity without federal control of research are all essential. The federal government
must also ensure that the large sums of money it is investing are invested well. Thus,
oversight must be balanced with control in ensuring that this broad and diverse
research base thrives.
3
Through its support of research and training programs, the federal government
has also played a major role in training the next generation of scientists. However,
many scientists, particularly young scientists, are discouraged about their future
prospects in science. Some of these problems may be based more on perceptions than
realities. Nevertheless, there needs to be a well-articulated federal position across
science and technology that the generation of scientific and technological talent is
essential to America's future and will given high priority.
Finally, in partnership with the private sector, the federal government has a
role in revitalizing the research infrastructure. A modern infrastructure is essential if
we are to create environments for talented people to generate new ideas.
Translation of New Ideas into Technologies
One of the greatest threats to continued improvements in our standard of
living is our relative weakness at translating basic knowledge into significant new
products and in generating steady improvement of those products that are already an
important part of our lives. Other countries now succeed at this process this much
more effectively than we do here in the United States.
The federal government has both a direct and an indirect role in translating
new ideas and new understanding into useable technologies. First, it can help create
an economic climate that stimulates the development of new products and encourages
the formation of new entrepreneurial companies. The federal government can also
support the development of generic, precompetitive technologies that have widespread
applications in the public and private sectors (examples include high performance
computing, biotechnologies, and materials science and engineering). The federal
government has often taken this role in the past, as in the cases of computer
technologies, aeronautical developments, and agricultural advances. It is important,
however, that such support not pull the federal government into an inappropriate
development role.
The federal laboratories are a major government resource that could, in some
cases, be marshalled to participate more effectively in technology transfer. In
particular, some federal laboratories could be given new missions focusing on generic,
precompetitive technologies, on manufacturing, and on technology transfer.
In general, the federal government needs to promote legislative and regulatory
actions that support and encourage appropriate technology transfer at the level of
individual scientists and institutions in both the private and public sectors. Concerns
about conflict of interest must be handled judiciously so that they do not
inappropriately retard the entrepreneurial spirit.
4
Manufacturing
If America is to benefit from its own new ideas, this country must once again
become preeminent in manufacturing. This is largely the responsibility of industry,
but there are certain things that the federal government can do to make
manufacturing a high priority for this country. The President can recognize the
importance of manufacturing to the American standard of living. The Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award is an example that has been extremely successful.
Other programs that give manufacturing this kind of recognition need to be
established. The federal government can also support engineering education and
fellowships targeted for research and manufacturing technology.
SETTING PRIORITIES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
In times of limited financial resources, choices must be made. Investments to
support technology, and thereby increase the American standard of living, will not
necessarily be free. The federal government's priorities in science and technology may
have to shift to more explicitly recognize economic growth and a higher standard of
living as national goals. In any such evaluation, we feel that the three areas
discussed above -- basic research, the translation of new ideas into products, and
manufacturing technologies -- must have priority if this country is to continue to
increase its standard of living.
MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1990
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Europe, Japan Would Lose Trade War
By FRED GLUCK
chasing based on the enormous advances
The economic evidence is that a nation can
The disintegration of the GATT talks in
in information technology has led to the re-
Brussels on Friday is bad news for all
offer advantages to its corporations
placement of whole chains of stores, ware-
countries, but worse for some than for oth-
through managed or strategic trade, but
houses and transportation links with a tele-
ers. The casualties of a trade war will not
only at some sacrifice of the standard of
phone and computer network served by a
living of its own citizens. It costs more to
be evenly spread. The U.S. economy has
few large warehouses and nationwide ex-
always outperformed and continues to out-
travel, it costs more in the supermarket, it
press delivery services. The headlines are
costs more in taxes.
perform the economies of all other nations.
about the difficulties of big department
If world trade now slows, Japanese and the
It's not economists but politicians who
stores, not the success of L.L. Bean, where
Europeans will suffer more than Ameri-
one worker can sell more than a whole
determine international trade policies.
cans.
street of "mom and pops" in Tokyo.
Most politicians do not have a broad grasp
At the end of World War II, the U.S. en-
of the benefits of free trade at the macro
joyed a vast economic lead over Europe
The efficiency of the U.S. economy in
level, nor do they have tangible evidence
and Japan, both in terms of absolute out-
these sectors comes from more intense
of how jobs, capital and technology are
put and in terms of output per capita. The
competition, more déregulation and more
moved around by Adam Smith's invisible
Organization for Economic Cooperation
decontrol than in Europe or Japan. These
hand. Politicians react to what's concrete
and Development has created an index
efficiencies enable the U.S. to capture the
and what's concrete is loss of jobs.
that measures how much above or below
benefits from a more open market for
In that regard, it is unfortunate that
the average (for developed countries) a
trade. U.S. consumers have access to the
economists have not given us a better pic-
country's production per capita is. A per-
best skills in the world wherever they are.
ture of how comparative advantage works
fectly average country would score 100. In
Many of the goods acquired through direct
at the micro level through the movement
1950 the American index stood at 175, West
order catalogues are imported. The effi-
of labor, skills and capital. We all know it
Germany's at 72 and Japan's at slightly
ciency of the trade and distribution sectors
happens. The flexibility of the basic inputs.
above 20. Twenty years later, in 1970, Eu-
makes it easier, of course, for imports to
in economic performance, namely labor
rope and Japan had closed on the U.S.:
and capital, is considerably higher in the-
The American index had fallen to 142. West
U.S. than in Japan and Europe, not only
Germany had climbed to 98 and Japan had
If a trade war now
because of regulation, but also for cultural
zoomed to 80.
breaks out, developing
reasons. That very flexibility allows com-
It seemed obvious to most economists
parative advantage to work more quickly
in 1970 that Europe and Japan would con-
countries, as well as Japan
and more thoroughly. Political integration
tinue to close the gap, until production per
in Europe and increased mobility in cor-
capita in all the developed countries hov-
and Europe, are vulnera-
porate Japan could help those countries to
ered around the average of 100. In fact,
ble. The U.S. is much less
achieve that same flexibility.
however, Europe and Japan have made
Unlike any of history's other great
astonishingly little relative progress since
so. It is starting from a
powers, the U.S. believes that its interests
1970. Between 1970 and 1980, the U.S.
are in essential harmony with those of
ES
dropped to 134 from 142, West Germany
higher position.
other powers. The U.S. has clearly and
uij
inched up from 98 to 100 and Japan rose to
consistently supported European political
penetrate the U.S. market to the benefit of
integration and the emergence of Japan as
UI
89 from 80. Between 1980 and 1990, West
Germany dropped back to 97, Japan rose to
a political power. Now Europe and Japan
14)
U.S. consumers and U.S. distributors. But
and
98-and the U.S. remained at 134.
that doesn't mean the U.S. is "giving away
must show that they believe their interests
35% Advantage
the store." Notwithstanding the American
to be harmonious with those of the U.S.
reverence for making things and the dis-
and of the developing countries by adopt-
CC
In other words, the U.S. seems to have
trust of the "service" elements of busi-
ing more open economic policies. That
iq
a continuing advantage of approximately
11
35% over its leading trading partners in
ness, increasingly it is "downstream"
would be good for the world trading sys-
au
the output of goods and services per ca-
where the money is made because that's
tem, and also for European and Japanese
where most of the value is added.
citizens.
n
pita. (The output per worker numbers
N
show a similar picture.)
Failure of GATT
The implication of this analysis is that
11
How do we reconcile this comparison of
the current gap in per-capita gross do-
The failure of the GATT negotiations
]
overall economic performance with the
mestic product is the potential economic
comes at a particularly unfortunate mo-
doom and gloom about America's economy
gain to be achieved by Europe and Japan
ment. For the first time in the history of
one hears so frequently? The gloomsters
if they decontrol economic activity in their
GATT, many developing countries-Mex-
and doomsters usually concern themselves
countries. They will not close it by making
ico, for example, and Brazil-are voluntar-
exclusively with manufacturing. Manufac-
semiconductor chips more efficiently or by
ily trying to develop the competitiveness
turing is important, but in all advanced
protecting manufacturers. Because the gap
and efficiency of market economies and
economies it represents a relatively small
between the U.S. and the European coun-
are moving away from state participation
fraction of the economy. In the U.S., for
tries and Japan is still so large, it is very
and guidance. Eastern Europe is running
example, manufacturing accounted for
important for these latter nations to open
away from managed trade. These coun-
29% of gross national product in 1950, 21%
their economies for their own benefit. Fri-
tries must be allowed the opportunity to re-
in 1980 and 22% in 1987.
day was a big step backward.
alize their comparative advantage in sec-
The rest of the economy is made up of
tors such as agriculture and textiles. The
the trade, transportation, financial, insur-
The desirability of free trade is one of
best way to do better than aid-is
ance, real estate and services sectors, as
the few things that all economists basically
to give them access to markets.
well as government services. It is Ameri-
agree on. However, free trade has been
If a trade war now breaks out, these
ca's superior efficiency in the remaining
tested rather severely in the past decade
80% of its economy that has yielded the
and is certainly being challenged now.
countries. as well as Japan and Europe,
are vulnerable. The U.S. is much less so.
higher standard of living in the U.S.
Economists in the U.S. have examined the
The U.S. is starting from a considerably
This view is more than just one econo-
major cases where nations or regions have
mist's guess. Consider the efficiency dif-
practiced so-called managed or strategic
higher position and is by far the largest,
ferences that have resulted from deregula-
trade, such as the European subsidy of
most homogenous market in the world.
Airbus and Japan's protection of its 16K
Trade war is in nobody's interest, and the
tion of the U.S. airline industry. It costs
U.S. would lose significantly from it. But
about half as much to fly a mile in the U.S.
memory chip producers.
the U.S. market is more important to its
as in other industrialized countries. On the
The results of these analyses show that
trading partners than any one of their
East Coast, we complain about the cost of
strategic trade measures did significantly
markets is to the U.S. The direct implica-
the New York to Washington shuttle. now
disadvantage U.S. corporations. In the chip
tion is that Japan and Europe stand to
around $140. A similar trip between Lon-
case, U.S. consumers also lost. because
lose more from Friday's failure than their
don and Paris costs $260. Other examples
prices rose: in the Airbus case, American
policy makers seem to realize.
can be cited in trucking, securities broker-
consumers gained from the increased com-
age and long-distance telephone service.
petition in aircraft production. Neverthe-
Then there are the large increases in
less. the benefits to the subsidizing coun-
Mr. Gluck is managing director of
productivity in wholesale, retail and distri-
try's corporations from protection and sub-
McKinsey & Co. Bill Lewis, a principal in
bution, which may not be captured in na-
sidies were accompanied by damage to
McKinsey's Washington office, contributed
tional economic statistics. Mail order pur-
that country's consumers and taxpayers.
to this analysis.
Run an Onen Company
PCAST
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 7, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES KOLB
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
SUBJECT:
PCAST BACKGROUND PAPERS
Attached are two background papers one on meeting the National Education Goals
and the other on technology and the American standard of living. They were
prepared by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and will
be used to brief the President next Friday, December 14.
I would very much appreciate your comments on these papers by next Monday
evening, so that the members of PCAST may consider your thoughts before briefing
the President.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
cc:
Ken Yale
Tom Welch
[DRAFT: DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR QUOTE]
[December 6, 1990]
EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS:
MEETING THE NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS
The National Education Goals developed by the President and the nation's
Governors have helped to move education toward the top of the nation's agenda.
Following the lead of the President and the Governors, Americans in growing numbers
are committing their energies to efforts designed to improve basic education.
Achieving the national goals will require significant improvement in science and
mathematics education. However, revitalizing science and mathematics education will
not be possible without much broader reforms in American basic education. This
paper therefore examines some of the general reform strategies that will be needed to
meet the national goals. It then suggests several ways in which the President and the
federal government can anticipate and facilitate those reforms, with a particular
emphasis on science and mathematics education.
THE NATURE OF THE GOALS
The National Education Goals have revolutionary implications for basic
education. They are performance goals stated in terms of outcomes or levels of
achievement. In the areas of science and mathematics, they require "demonstrated
competency
in mathematics [and] science," sufficient to place U.S. students "first
in the world in science and mathematics achievement" by the year 2000, when "every
adult American will be literate and possess the knowledge and skills required in a
global economy." Moreover, the call for 90 percent of our young people to graduate
from high school requires that the goals extend to virtually all school-aged children,
even those for whom alternate educational strategies are required.
Previous efforts to improve education have often used input or process goals,
which prescribe the experiences that all students and teachers should undergo -- for
example, the amount and kinds of courses required of all students. Many of the new
approaches adopted in the 1980s were process reforms, and although there is some
evidence that these changes have contributed to modest progress in recent years, their
results have been generally disappointing.
2
REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL REFORM
Since the announcement of the National Education Goals, a consensus has
been emerging that achieving them will require fundamental restructuring of basic
education in America. Incremental improvements may be achieved by further
incremental changes, but the magnitude of improvement needed to meet the goals
calls for massive change in the educational system.
The emphasis on performance implicit in the goals is one of the most
important educational reforms needed to meet those goals. This focus on results
rather than inputs must be accelerated and become pervasive throughout American
elementary and secondary education.
However, performance can be emphasized only if achievement can be reliably
measured. Today, we need greater confidence in assessment mechanisms and more
understanding of how assessments relate to actual learning. Without such
improvements, many in the education community feel it will be difficult to reorder the
educational system on the basis of performance.
As assessment mechanisms are being improved, a complementary effort is
needed in the area of curricular reform. Much good work is being done in this area,
but implementation of the results in schools will not be easy. Moreover, testing
standards should be coordinated with curriculum development, which is a major
challenge.
A second fundamental change that will be required for the restructuring of
basic education is the introduction of choice in the selection of schools appropriate
for each child. Choice has many dimensions, ranging from permitting some children
to choose "magnet" schools within the public system to distributing government
vouchers for children to redeem for cash toward tuition at any school, public or
private. Whatever system is adopted, it is important to provide some measure of
academic quality to act as a basis for choice. Requiring nationally standardized tests
and publishing their results would provide one of the indexes that parents could use
as consumers in the educational marketplace. Involving parents in education has
great value, and giving parents some element of choice is often the beginning of a
deeper parental involvement.
A third promising strategy in the reform of basic education is rewarding
exceptional teachers. Implementation often founders on the difficulty of assessing the
quality of a teacher, but improved assessments of teacher performance, along with
other means of evaluation, including peer review, provide important opportunities for
improving the quality of the teaching force.
Such efforts are especially important in science and technology. Unless
teachers at both the elementary and secondary levels understand and appreciate
3
science and technology, significant improvement will be difficult. Teacher training
programs to improve the quality of science and mathematics teaching will be an
essential element in meeting the national goals.
A fourth requirement for reform is reducing bureaucracies by relying on school-
based management that empowers principals and their teachers. However,
bureaucracies will relinquish control to teams of teachers and principals at individual
schools only if equity and accountability can be assured, which again raises the
question of educational assessment.
Finally, underlying the needed reforms of basic education is the recognition
that school is only one of many critical influences in a child's development. Only by
shifting our focus from our institutions to our children can we truly address the
challenges to our society. This strategy is particularly relevant for the retention of
students at risk of dropping out, who may require strategies beginning with prenatal
and child care even before formal school begins. If we are to strengthen our nation's
workforce and build better citizens, we must shape society's institutions to our
children and not vice versa.
THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
stinudate
The federal government cannot mandate reform in the distributed system of
basic education in America. It can, however, facilitate, and where appropriate
finance, the reform initiatives cited above, using incentives and appropriate leveraging
to accelerate the reform process. In particular, we believe that the following federal
actions warrant serious consideration:
0 The federal government can provide incentives to states or regions pursuing
any of the reforms described in the previous section, subject to constraints designed
to ensure equity and equal opportunity. For example, federal funds might be used to
facilitate choice for needy students, thereby providing an inducement to states or
districts offering choice programs. Similarly, a national competition might be
established to recognize and reward exemplary programs for restructuring education
(just as the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award has recognized quality
improvements in industry).
0 The federal government can foster greatly intensified research on academic
assessment and the development of measurement instruments so that performance
standards can be set and the academic marketplace can function more rationally.
For example, federal funds could be used to pay for participating in appropriate
I'm
achievement evaluation programs.
0 The federal government can make a concerted, national effort to facilitate
and coordinate state and local programs, both public and private, to deal with the
school dropout problem. Successful drop-out prevention programs could be
recognized by the President and rewarded for their achievement.
4
0
The federal government can encourage private corporations, universities, and
national laboratories to work cooperatively with local schools, building on the many
good.
excellent initiatives already under way.
0
In the areas of mathematics and science, the federal government can invest
in programs to engage talented girls and minority students in science and
mathematics, where they are now underrepresented.
0 The federal government can invest in teacher education programs in science
and mathematics and use forgivable loans and other inducements to attract to
teaching young people with degrees in science, mathematics, and engineering.
0
The federal government can support programs using modern
communications technologies, including satellite technologies, to expand access of both
students and teachers to the most highly qualified teachers of science and
mathematics.
0 The federal government can initiate a cooperative demonstration project with
the school system of the District of Columbia.
THE PRESIDENT'S ROLE
Responsibility for our system of basic education in America rests fundamentally
on the general population, who shape the learning environments of their children,
elect their school boards and other influential politicians, and demonstrate their
priorities by their behavior toward teachers and schools.
However, our nation's leaders influence the attitudes and values of the
electorate. The President, in particular, has a personal role that reaches beyond his
authority as our nation's chief executive officer. In choosing his own priorities as a
leader, he sets a standard for all to heed.
The President, in partnership with the Governors, has placed a great challenge
squarely on the national agenda. Now all of the resources of leadership must be
applied to meeting that challenge. Federal budget priorities must be set, the activities
of the federal agencies must be guided, and the President's personal commitment to
education must continue to be demonstrated. With timely actions, and with a
continuing and unremitting campaign of words, the President can secure his place in
the history of American education.
PCAST
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 7, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES KOLB
DAB.
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
SUBJECT:
PCAST BACKGROUND PAPERS
Attached are two background papers -- one on meeting the National Education Goals
and the other on technology and the American standard of living. They were
prepared by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and will
be used to brief the President next Friday, December 14.
I would very much appreciate your comments on these papers by next Monday
evening, so that the members of PCAST may consider your thoughts before briefing
the President.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
cc:
Ken Yale
Tom Welch
[DRAFT: DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR QUOTE]
[December 6, 1990]
EDUCATION IN SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS:
MEETING THE NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS
The National Education Goals developed by the President and the nation's
Governors have helped to move education toward the top of the nation's agenda.
Following the lead of the President and the Governors, Americans in growing numbers
are committing their energies to efforts designed to improve basic education.
Achieving the national goals will require significant improvement in science and
mathematics education. However, revitalizing science and mathematics education will
not be possible without much broader reforms in American basic education. This
paper therefore examines some of the general reform strategies that will be needed to
meet the national goals. It then suggests several ways in which the President and the
federal government can anticipate and facilitate those reforms, with a particular
emphasis on science and mathematics education.
THE NATURE OF THE GOALS
The National Education Goals have revolutionary implications for basic
education. They are performance goals stated in terms of outcomes or levels of
achievement. In the areas of science and mathematics, they require "demonstrated
competency
in mathematics [and] science," sufficient to place U.S. students "first
in the world in science and mathematics achievement" by the year 2000, when "every
adult American will be literate and possess the knowledge and skills required in a
global economy." Moreover, the call for 90 percent of our young people to graduate
from high school requires that the goals extend to virtually all school-aged children,
even those for whom alternate educational strategies are required.
Previous efforts to improve education have often used input or process goals,
which prescribe the experiences that all students and teachers should undergo -- for
example, the amount and kinds of courses required of all students. Many of the new
approaches adopted in the 1980s were process reforms, and although there is some
evidence that these changes have contributed to modest progress in recent years, their
results have been generally disappointing.
2
REQUIREMENTS FOR EDUCATIONAL REFORM
Since the announcement of the National Education Goals, a consensus has
been emerging that achieving them will require fundamental restructuring of basic
education in America. Incremental improvements may be achieved by further
incremental changes, but the magnitude of improvement needed to meet the goals
calls for massive change in the educational system.
The emphasis on performance implicit in the goals is one of the most
important educational reforms needed to meet those goals. This focus on results
rather than inputs must be accelerated and become pervasive throughout American
elementary and secondary education.
However, performance can be emphasized only if achievement can be reliably
measured. Today, we need greater confidence in assessment mechanisms and more
understanding of how assessments relate to actual learning. Without such
improvements, many in the education community feel it will be difficult to reorder the
educational system on the basis of performance.
As assessment mechanisms are being improved, a complementary effort is
needed in the area of curricular reform. Much good work is being done in this area,
but implementation of the results in schools will not be easy. Moreover, testing
standards should be coordinated with curriculum development, which is a major
challenge.
A second fundamental change that will be required for the restructuring of
basic education is the introduction of choice in the selection of schools appropriate
for each child. Choice has many dimensions, ranging from permitting some children
to choose "magnet" schools within the public system to distributing government
vouchers for children to redeem for cash toward tuition at any school, public or
private. Whatever system is adopted, it is important to provide some measure of
academic quality to act as a basis for choice. Requiring nationally standardized tests
and publishing their results would provide one of the indexes that parents could use
as consumers in the educational marketplace. Involving parents in education has
great value, and giving parents some element of choice is often the beginning of a
deeper parental involvement.
A third promising strategy in the reform of basic education is rewarding
exceptional teachers. Implementation often founders on the difficulty of assessing the
quality of a teacher, but improved assessments of teacher performance, along with
other means of evaluation, including peer review, provide important opportunities for
improving the quality of the teaching force.
Such efforts are especially important in science and technology. Unless
teachers at both the elementary and secondary levels understand and appreciate
atternative certification
flexibility/acconsatity not included
3
science and technology, significant improvement will be difficult. Teacher training
programs to improve the quality of science and mathematics teaching will be an
essential element in meeting the national goals.
A fourth requirement for reform is reducing bureaucracies by relying on school-
based management that empowers principals and their teachers. However,
bureaucracies will relinquish control to teams of teachers and principals at individual
what?
schools only if equity and accountability can be assured, which again raises the
question of educational assessment.
Finally, underlying the needed reforms of basic education is the recognition
that school is only one of many critical influences in a child's development. Only by
shifting our focus from our institutions to our children can we truly address the
challenges to our society. This strategy is particularly relevant for the retention of
students at risk of dropping out, who may require strategies beginning with prenatal
and child care even before formal school begins. If we are to strengthen our nation's
workforce and build better citizens, we must shape society's institutions to our
children and not vice versa.
THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The federal government cannot mandate reform in the distributed system of
basic education in America. It can, however, facilitate, and where appropriate
finance, the reform initiatives cited above, using incentives and appropriate leveraging
to accelerate the reform process. In particular, we believe that the following federal
actions warrant serious consideration:
0 The federal government can provide incentives to states or regions pursuing
any of the reforms described in the previous section, subject to constraints designed
to ensure equity and equal opportunity. For example, federal funds might be used to
facilitate choice for needy students, thereby providing an inducement to states or
districts offering choice programs. Similarly, a national competition might be
established to recognize and reward exemplary programs for restructuring education
(just as the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award has recognized quality
improvements in industry).
o
The federal government can foster greatly intensified research on academic
assessment and the development of measurement instruments so that performance
standards can be set and the academic marketplace can function more rationally.
For example, federal funds could be used to pay for participating in appropriate
achievement evaluation programs.
o
The federal government can make a concerted, national effort to facilitate
and coordinate state and local programs, both public and private, to deal with the
school dropout problem. Successful drop-out prevention programs could be
recognized by the President and rewarded for their achievement.
4
0
The federal government can encourage private corporations, universities, and
national laboratories to work cooperatively with local schools, building on the many
excellent initiatives already under way.
0
In the areas of mathematics and science, the federal government can invest
encourage
in programs to engage talented girls and minority students in science and
mathematics, where they are now underrepresented.
0
The federal government can invest in teacher education programs in science
and mathematics and use forgivable loans and other inducements to attract to
teaching young people with degrees in science, mathematics, and engineering.
0
The federal government can support programs using modern
communications technologies, including satellite technologies, to expand access of both
students and teachers to the most highly qualified teachers of science and
mathematics.
0
The federal government can initiate a cooperative demonstration project with
the school system of the District of Columbia.
THE PRESIDENT'S ROLE
Responsibility for our system of basic education in America rests fundamentally
on the general population, who shape the learning environments of their children,
elect their school boards and other influential politicians, and demonstrate their
priorities by their behavior toward teachers and schools.
However, our nation's leaders influence the attitudes and values of the
electorate. The President, in particular, has a personal role that reaches beyond his
authority as our nation's chief executive officer. In choosing his own priorities as a
leader, he sets a standard for all to heed.
The President, in partnership with the Governors, has placed a great challenge
squarely on the national agenda. Now all of the resources of leadership must be
applied to meeting that challenge. Federal budget priorities must be set, the activities
of the federal agencies must be guided, and the President's personal commitment to
education must continue to be demonstrated. With timely actions, and with a
continuing and unremitting campaign of words, the President can secure his place in
the history of American education.
[DRAFT: DO NOT DISTRIBUTE OR QUOTE]
[December 7, 1990]
TECHNOLOGY AND THE AMERICAN STANDARD OF LIVING
?
Today most Americans take for granted a standard of warmth, cleanliness,
food, medical care, music and entertainment, and transportation that was undreamt of
150 years ago. This great surge forward in the standard of living can and will
continue. Furthermore, it can encompass all Americans and the citizens of other
countries as well.
The foundation for dramatic increases in economic growth and improvement in
the standard of living has been technology. Basic research built a fundamental
understanding of the physical world, including the laws of mechanics and gravity, the
atomic and molecular bases of chemistry, and the basic principles of electricity and
energy. Building on this knowledge, individuals brought forth one striking invention
after another, from the steam engine, railroads, and the telegraph to electric lighting,
the telephone, and radio. Over the years, the rate of technological progress
accelerated. Advances in agriculture liberated the vast farm population for other
pursuits; automobiles and airplanes provided unprecedented speed and accessibility
over vast distances; and the television and computerized communications linked the
world together. This remarkable surge in invention, which contributed to an equally
remarkable ability to produce goods and services in volume, did much to create the
modern world.
America has led the world in science and technology for much of this century
-- resulting in a standard of living to which the rest of the world aspired. This paper
explores what will be necessary to continue to lead the world and thereby provide a
standard of living that will allow our children and grandchildren to live far better
than we do today.
REQUIREMENTS FOR TECHNOLOGICAL LEADERSHIP
Since World War II, basic scientific research has provided a new foundation on
which to build for the future. The molecules in a material can now be seen and
studied at the atomic level. The discovery of the structure of DNA and of the
immense complexity of the cell has opened up whole new areas of opportunity. New
materials are being developed that are lighter, stronger, and more durable than
2
anything known today. Advanced computers and new modes of communication, such
as optical fibers, are resulting in new ways to learn, new ways to work, new kinds of
intelligent machinery with virtually unlimited new capabilities. Furthermore, a better
understanding of the environment is making it possible for these advances to have far
fewer negative environmental impacts than did earlier technological advances.
Three basic things will be required if the United States is to continue to
benefit from the dividends of science and technology.
1. A continuing flow of new ideas and new understanding, which are the basis
of new materials, better health care, new information technologies, a cleaner
environment, and other technological advances.
2. The translation of new ideas and new technologies into significant new
products and into the steady improvement of those that are already an important
part of our lives.
3. A revival of manufacturing and the production of goods, which in the past
has provided both the material wealth and the jobs that built the American standard
of living.
THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The federal government has a role, although not the exclusive role, in the
development of technology. In particular, it has been a major catalyst for technology
development through its direct investment in research and through legislative and
regulatory actions that have facilitated the development and commercialization of new
insights.
New Ideas and New Understanding
Our diverse science and technology base can generate new ideas anywhere -- on
the production line, in industrial or government laboratories, and in the individual
laboratories of universities and research institutes. Many new ideas have come from
basic research, which has been supported largely by the federal government. The
federal government supports this research through diverse mechanisms in government
laboratories and in hundreds of universities and private research institutes throughout
the United States.
Continued strong investment in basic research, the recognition that basic
research is a high national priority, and the continued support of the principle of
diversity without federal control of research are all essential. The federal government
must also ensure that the large sums of money it is investing are invested well. Thus,
oversight must be balanced with control in ensuring that this broad and diverse
research base thrives.
3
Through its support of research and training programs, the federal government
has also played a major role in training the next generation of scientists. However,
many scientists, particularly young scientists, are discouraged about their future
prospects in science. Some of these problems may be based more on perceptions than
realities. Nevertheless, there needs to be a well-articulated federal position across
science and technology that the generation of scientific and technological talent is
essential to America's future and will given high priority.
Finally, in partnership with the private sector, the federal government has a
role in revitalizing the research infrastructure. A modern infrastructure is essential if
we are to create environments for talented people to generate new ideas.
Translation of New Ideas into Technologies
One of the greatest threats to continued improvements in our standard of
living is our relative weakness at translating basic knowledge into significant new
products and in generating steady improvement of those products that are already an
important part of our lives. Other countries now succeed at this process this much
more effectively than we do here in the United States.
The federal government has both a direct and an indirect role in translating
new ideas and new understanding into useable technologies. First, it can help create
an economic climate that stimulates the development of new products and encourages
the formation of new entrepreneurial companies. The federal government can also
support the development of generic, precompetitive technologies that have widespread
applications in the public and private sectors (examples include high performance
computing, biotechnologies, and materials science and engineering). The federal
government has often taken this role in the past, as in the cases of computer
technologies, aeronautical developments, and agricultural advances. It is important,
however, that such support not pull the federal government into an inappropriate
development role.
The federal laboratories are a major government resource that could, in some
cases, be marshalled to participate more effectively in technology transfer. In
particular, some federal laboratories could be given new missions focusing on generic,
precompetitive technologies, on manufacturing, and on technology transfer.
In general, the federal government needs to promote legislative and regulatory
actions that support and encourage appropriate technology transfer at the level of
individual scientists and institutions in both the private and public sectors. Concerns
about conflict of interest must be handled judiciously so that they do not
inappropriately retard the entrepreneurial spirit.
4
Manufacturing
If America is to benefit from its own new ideas, this country must once again
become preeminent in manufacturing. This is largely the responsibility of industry,
but there are certain things that the federal government can do to make
manufacturing a high priority for this country. The President can recognize the
importance of manufacturing to the American standard of living. The Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award is an example that has been extremely successful.
Other programs that give manufacturing this kind of recognition need to be
established. The federal government can also support engineering education and
fellowships targeted for research and manufacturing technology.
SETTING PRIORITIES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
In times of limited financial resources, choices must be made. Investments to
support technology, and thereby increase the American standard of living, will not
necessarily be free. The federal government's priorities in science and technology may
have to shift to more explicitly recognize economic growth and a higher standard of
living as national goals. In any such evaluation, we feel that the three areas
discussed above -- basic research, the translation of new ideas into products, and
manufacturing technologies -- must have priority if this country is to continue to
increase its standard of living.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 7, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES KOLB
DAB.
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
SUBJECT:
PCAST BACKGROUND PAPERS
Attached are two background papers -- one on meeting the National Education Goals
and the other on technology and the American standard of living. They were
prepared by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and will
be used to brief the President next Friday, December 14.
I would very much appreciate your comments on these papers by next Monday
evening, so that the members of PCAST may consider your thoughts before briefing
the President.
Thank you in advance for your assistance.
cc:
Ken Yale
Tom Welch
PEAST
:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
July 20, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES KOLB
THROUGH: FROM: J. THOMAS RATCHFORD ofn
CHARLES DICKENS
SUBJECT: Materials about PCAST
Attached are background materials about PCAST that we discussed:
1.
Executive Order 12700, dated January 19, 1990;
2.
PCAST Charter;
3.
PCAST membership;
4.
Proposed PCAST panels for 1990-1991;
5.
Minutes for February and March PCAST meetings;
6.
PCAST Memoranda for the President;
7.
Proposed agenda for the July PCAST meeting.
Attachments
1939
office of the Press Secretary
(Miami, Florida)
For Immediate Release
January 19, 1990
EXECUTIVE ORDER
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in
order to establish, in accordance with the provisions of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 21,
an advisory committee on science and technology, it is hereby
ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment. There is established the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
("Council"). The Council shall be composed of not more than
15 members, one of whom shall be the Director of the office
of Science and Technology Policy, and 14 of whom shall be
distinguished individuals from the private sector to be
appointed by the President. The Director of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy shall serve as Chairman of the
Council. The Vice Chairman shall be appointed by the
President from among the 14 private sector members. The
Chairman shall report directly to the President.
Sec. 2. Functions. (a) The Council shall advise the
President on matters involving all areas of science and
technology.
(b) In the performance of its advisory duties the
Council shall conduct a continuing review and assessment of
developments in science and technology, and shall, through the
Chairman, report thereon to the President whenever requested.
(c) The Chairman may, from time to time, invite experts
to investigate and report to the Council on specific issues of
national consequence.
Sec. 3. Administration. (a) The heads of Executive
agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law, provide the
Council and its panels such information with respect to
scientific and technological matters as required for the
purpose of carrying out its functions.
(b) Members of the Council shall serve without any
compensation for their work on the Council. However, members
appointed from among private citizens of the United States may
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving
intermittently in the Government service (5 U.S.C. 5701-5707).
(c) Any expenses of the Council shall be paid from the
funds available for the expenses of the Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
(d) The Office of Administration shall, on a
reimbursable basis, provide such administrative services
as may be required.
2
Sec.4. General. (a) Notwithstanding any other
Executive order, the functions of the President under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, except that of
reporting to the Congress, which are applicable to the
Council, shall be performed by the Office of Administration
in accord with the guidelines and procedures established by
the Administrator of General Services.
(b) The Council shall terminate on June 30, 1991, unless
sooner extended.
GEORGE BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 19, 1990.
# # #
-
accounts
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
CHARTER
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
1. Committee's Official Designation:
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST). The Council was established by Executive Order
Number 12700, dated January 19,1990.
2.
Objective and Scope of Activities and Duties:
The purpose of the PCAST is to advise the President on
all matters involving science and technology.
In furtherance of this mission the PCAST shall conduct
a continuing review and assessment of developments in
science and technology and the chairman may invite
panels of experts to investigate and report to the
Council on specific issues of national importance.
3. Duration
The Council will have continuing responsibility for advising
the President. The Council will terminate on June 30, 1991,
unless sooner extended.
4. Official to Whom the Council Reports:
The PCAST will report to the President, through the Chairman
of the Council.
5. Agency Council: Responsible for Providing Necessary Support for this
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
6.
Description of Duties:
The Duties of the Council are solely advisory and are stated
in paragraph 2 above.
7. Costs:
The estimated annual operating cost of the Council is
$375,000, including 2 man years of support staff activity.
8.
Estimated Number and Frequency of Meetings:
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology shall normally meet twelve times each year at
regular intervals, and at such other times as may be called
by the President or the Director, OSTP. In addition, 10-15
meetings each year by Panels are anticipated.
9. Panels:
Panels may be formed to conduct studies on specific issues
assigned by the President or the Director, OSTP.
10. Members:
PCAST members shall be appointed by the President from the
private sector. The PCAST shall consist of no more than 14
members and the Chairman. The Director, OSTP shall serve as
Chairman of the Council, and the Vice Chairman shall be
appointed by the President from the members of the Council.
The Council may utilize additional technical experts as
needed to constitute its panels and study groups. These
technical experts shall be appointed by the Chairman and
shall serve at the pleasure of the Chairman.
This Charter for the Advisory Committee named above is
hereby approved:
Signed:
Dyluan Broml Randay
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, and
Chairman, President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology.
Date signed:
January 23, 1990
Date filed:
January 24, 1990
THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(PCAST)
NORMAN BORLAUG, Distinguished Professor, Department of Soils and Crop Sciences,
Texas A&M University
ALLAN BROMLEY, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Executive Office
of the President (Chairman)
SOLOMON BUCHSBAUM, Senior Vice President, Technology Systems, AT&T Bell
Laboratories
CHARLES DRAKE, Albert Bradley Professor of Earth Sciences and Professor of Geology,
Dartmouth College
RALPH GOMORY, President, The Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
BERNADINE HEALY, Chairman of the Research Institute, The Cleveland Clinic Foundation
(Vice-Chairman)
PETER LIKINS, President, Lehigh University
THOMAS LOVEJOY, Assistant Secretary for External Affairs, Smithsonian Institution
WALTER MASSEY, Vice President for Research and for Argonne National Laboratory,
University of Chicago
JOHN McTAGUE, Vice-President-Technical Affairs, Ford Motor Company
DANIEL NATHANS, Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Johns Hopkins University
School of Medicine
DAVID PACKARD, Chairman of the Board, Hewlett-Packard Company
HAROLD SHAPIRO, President, Princeton University
Dr. Norman E. Borlaug
011-525-954-2100
International Maize and Wheat
011-525-954-1069 FAX
Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Mrs. Eva Viesca
Apartado, Postal 6-641
Delegacion Cuauhtemoc
06600 Mexico D.F.
Dr. Solomon J. Buchsbaum
(201) 949-5564
Senior Vice President
(201) 949-7183 FAX
Technology Systems
Julie Lehnert -
AT&T Bell Laboratories
(201) 949-5566
Crawfords Corner Road
Holmdel, New Jersey 07733
Professor Charles L. Drake
(603) 646-2373 (after three
Albert Bradley Professor of Earth Sciences
rings, switches to
and Professor of Geology
Dept. line)
Dartmouth College
(603) 646-3520 FAX
228 Fairchild
Grace
Hanover, New Hampshire 03755
Dr. Ralph E. Gomory
(212) 649-1649
President
(212) 757-5117 FAX
The Sloan Foundation
Beverly (212) 649-1623
530 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10111
Bernadine P. Healy, M.D.
(216) 444-3900
Chairman, The Research Institute
(216) 444-3279 FAX
The Cleveland Clinic Foundation
Kathleen Vaughn
9500 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44106
Dr. Peter W. Likins
(215) 758-3155
President
(215) 868-6560 FAX
Lehigh University
(215) 691-5420 FAX, Likins's
Alumni Building No. 27
ofc. (may have to dial "9-1 +
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015
#)
Molly Malone, Laurie Gannett
Dr. Thomas E. Lovejoy
(202) 786-2263
Assistant Secretary for External Affairs
(202) 786-2304 FAX
The Smithsonian Institution
Carmen Thorndike
1000 Jefferson Drive, S.W. ROOM SI-230
Washington, D.C. 20560
Dr. Walter E. Massey
(312) 702-6021
Vice President for Research
(312) 702-0934 FAX
and for Argonne National Laboratory
Janice Stroud
The University of Chicago
5801 Ellis Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60637
Dr. John P. McTague
(313) 322-7105
Vice President, Research
(313) 845-0512 FAX
Ford Motor Company
Katie
Scientific Research Laboratories Building
20000 Rotunda Drive
Dearborn, Michigan 48121
Professor Daniel Nathans
(301) 955-8445
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
(301) 955-4857 FAX
725 North Wolfe Street
Lilly Mitchell (301) 955-2382
Baltimore, Maryland 21205
Janet Libonate
The Honorable David Packard
(415) 857-3327
Chairman of the Board
(415) 857-4012 FAX
Hewlett-Packard Company
Margaret Paull
1501 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Dr. Harold T. Shapiro
(609) 258-6100
President
(609) 258-1294 FAX
Princeton University
Marcia Snowden
One Nassau Hall
Rosemary
Princeton, New Jersey 08544-0015
PCAST PANELS UNDER CONSIDERATION
Proposed Panels 1990-1991
High Performance Computing and Communications
Chairman:
Sol Buchsbaum
Vice Chairman:
Ralph Gomory
Education and Human Resources
Chairman:
Peter Likins
Vice Chairman:
Charles Drake
International Economic Competitiveness
Including Subset issue: Materials Science and Engineering
Chairman:
Ralph Gomory/John McTague
Vice Chairman:
Harold Shapiro/Peter Likins
Proposed Panels 1991-1992
Bioscience and Biotechnology
Chairman:
Dan Nathans
Vice Chairman:
Bernadine Healy
Global Environment and Natural Resources
Chairman:
Tom Lovejoy
Vice Chairman:
David Packard
Norman Borlaug
7/19/90
MINUTES
PRESIDENTS COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (PCAST)
FEBRUARY 3, 1990
CAMP DAVID, MARYLAND
10:30 A.M. - 1:00 P.M.
CLOSED SESSION
PCAST Members Attending: Dr. Norman Borlaug; Dr. Solomon Buchsbaum; Dr.
Charles Drake; Dr. Ralph Gomory; Dr. Bernadine Healy; Dr. Peter Likins; Dr.
Thomas Lovejoy; Dr. Walter Massey; Dr. John McTague; Dr. Daniel Nathans; Mr.
David Packard; Dr. Harold Shapiro.
Government Attendees: President George Bush; Mr. John Sununu, Chief of Staff and
Assistant to the President; Mr. Richard Darman, Director of the Office of
Management and Budget; Dr. Michael Boskin, Chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers; Mr. Michael Deland, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality;
Dr. D. Allan Bromley, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and
Chairman of PCAST.
The meeting began with an introduction by Dr. Bromley, followed by brief
opening remarks by the President. The President stressed the importance of science
and technology to the nation and his desire to have a strong science advising
mechanism. Dr. Bromley then introduced each member of the PCAST and asked
them to briefly comment on some of the issues that they saw as important to
American science and technology.
The introductions were followed by a discussion of three specific topics of
particular interest to the President.
1.
Science and technology and economic growth: The importance of science
and technology to the economic strength and growth of the country, as well as to
social welfare, was discussed at length. Issues covered included innovation in
manufacturing technology; examples of successful translation of scientific
developments to economic good, such as the semiconductor industry and
biotechnology; the impact of the variety of federal policies on the R&D base; and the
role of government laboratories and research-intensive universities in the innovation
process.
2.
Mathematics and science education: The President expressed great
concerns about education in mathematics and science. The need for a well-educated
work force, well-grounded in analytical and logical capabilities developed through
mathematics and scientific training was stressed by several members of PCAST. Also
discussed was the importance of maintaining a talent base of scientists and engineers,
who make the discoveries in the basic research laboratories and serve as major agents
of technology transfer. Concerns were expressed about a declining interest in careers
in science and technology, including biology and medicine, and some of the factors
that may be contributing to this declining interest. Although it was recognized that a
number of specific programs are being undertaken by the federal government,
particularly within the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education,
it was also noted that Mr. Bush's identification of education as a presidential issue
elevated its importance and visibility at a broad national level.
3.
Environmental science and global change: The President expressed his
concern about the environment and the issue of global change. Uncertainties
regarding the extent and the timing of possible future climate changes, as well as
some of the reasons for the diversity of opinion among the scientific community on
the magnitude of the problem at the present time, were discussed. Comments were
made about the models that are the basis of many of the predictions, the need for
further research and direct data acquisition. Other aspects of global change, such as
the problems of biological diversity were mentioned. The kinds of action that might
be taken to address these problems, on a national and multinational basis, will
require considerable and careful evaluation.
Finally, there was a general discussion on science advising to the President and
the importance of a mechanism for coordination of science and technology initiatives
and policies across the many government agencies involved in science. The role of
Dr. Bromley and the members of PCAST in this process were commented upon.
The President adjourned the meeting at approximately 1:30 p.m.
Minutes
Approved: Dowan D. Allan Bromley
Date: Maya, 1990
MINUTES
PRESIDENTS COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (PCAST)
MARCH 22-23, 1990
WASHINGTON, D.C.
PCAST Members Attending:
Dr. Allan Bromley; Dr. Bernadine Healy; Dr.
Solomon Buchsbaum; Dr. Charles Drake; Dr. Ralph Gomory; Dr. Peter Likins; Dr.
Thomas Lovejoy; Dr. Walter Massey; Dr. John McTague; Dr. Daniel Nathans; Mr.
David Packard.
Government Attendees:
President George Bush; Gov. John Sununu; Mr.
Richard Darman.
OSTP Staff: Dr. William Phillips; Dr. Thomas Ratchford; Dr. Eugene Wong; Dr.
James Wyngaarden; Dr. Judith Bostock; Dr. Karl Erb; Dr. Nancy Maynard; Ms.
Michelle Van Cleave.
Department of Defense: Honorable Don Atwood
CIA Staff: Dr. Gordon Oehler; Dr. John Weiss
Public:
Approximately 10 people attended the open session.
1.
The meeting agenda is at Enclosure 1.
Open Session: 9:00 A.M. - 12:00 NOON, MARCH 22, 1990
2a.
Dr. Bromley called the meeting to order and made introductory remarks. He
noted that selected OSTP speeches and testimony, biographical material for
presenters, and other information were available to those attending.
b.
Dr. Bromley briefly discussed the need of the science and technology (S&T)
community to get behind the President's S&T budget submission. He also
pointed to the future need of achieving the best possible balance between very
large S&T projects and small S&T investigators. He sketched the status of the
revitalization of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and
Technology (FCCSET). Dr. Bromley noted that PCAST, where appropriate,
may want to parallel certain FCCSET efforts.
c.
Dr. Bromley discussed the upcoming White House Conference on "Science and
Economics Research Related to Global Change." A brief discussion on this
followed.
1
d.
Drs. Wong and Phillips were then introduced to the PCAST and other
attendees.
3.
Dr. Wong presented a briefing on High Performance Computing (HPC). (His
viewgraphs and papers that he circulated to PCAST members are at Enclosure
2).
a.
Dr. Buchsbaum noted the importance of standards in HPC. A discussion on
this followed.
b.
Dr. Bromley noted the importance of involving schools in HPC in order to meet
the President's education goals. He noted the President would like to hear
from the PCAST on HPC. All agreed that computer education and education
in areas using or related to computers need emphasis. Dr. Gomory stressed
that the need involves all levels of education, including technical schools. Dr.
Likins pointed out that business majors and others are important users of
computers. Dr. Healy said that here is an issue that might gain good response
if portrayed to students as a "grand challenge."
Dr. Massey said that first year business students might use computers more
than first year physics students use them.
c.
Dr. Bromley concluded this HPC session by asking the members for comments,
especially those pertaining to the need for a PCAST HPC panel. A discussion
followed, and agreement was reached on recommending establishment of a
panel.
4.
Dr. Phillips then presented a briefing on Materials Science and Engineering
(his viewgraphs are attached as Enclosure 3). Dr. Gomory stated the need for
industry to make its needs known before proceeding. Dr. Likins noted that
high school teachers and counselors do not see materials as an area of study.
Dr. Healy pointed out the importance of biomaterials. More discussion
followed.
5.
Dr. Bromley departed for a noontime presentation, and Dr. Healy assumed the
chairman's duties. After a discussion, all agreed that PCAST and FCCSET
work in materials science and engineering was needed.
Closed Session: 1:00 P.M. - 5:00 P.M., MARCH 22, 1990
6a.
PCAST panel structure and personnel to serve on the panels were discussed at
length.
b.
Preparations were made for the PCAST session with the President (see below).
2
c.
Drs. Oehler and Weiss, Central Intelligence Agency, then presented a briefing.
A discussion followed.
Closed Session: 9:00 A.M. - 12:00 NOON, MARCH 23, 1990
7a.
Deputy Secretary of Defense Don Atwood presented the DoD's future R&D
plans and budget required to meet expected threats to national security. He
described the probable threats over the next decade and pointed out the
importance of a strong S&T program. A discussion followed including DoD's
view of increased funding for universities and dual-use technologies.
b.
Mr. Atwood and the members discussed the China Lake experiment and the
future of the DoD laboratory system.
c.
Following Mr. Atwood's departure, a discussion began on the role of Federal
agencies in mathematics and science education. All agreed that M&S
education should be part of all panel work and that all panel draft terms of
reference should be "scrubbed" to be certain education is addressed. Dr.
Bromley noted the decreasing percentage of NSF and NIH grant applicants
that are supported.
d.
Dr. Bromley next led a discussion of PCAST panel structure and the persons
who might best serve on those panels. He commented on parallel work
underway in FCCSET.
e.
Dr. Bromley led a discussion on agenda issues for future meetings. He called
on all to think about long-term needs that PCAST could address. Dr. Healy
suggested a PCAST panel could be helpful in the problem of drug abuse. Dr.
Bromley stated his intention to have cabinet secretaries and heads of agencies
address future PCAST meetings.
8a.
President Bush arrived and greeted the PCAST. He recounted the Camp David
PCAST meeting. Dr. Bromley recalled the President's interest in education and
human resources, global warming and the environment, and the impact of
science and technology on economic well-being. Some of the members told the
President they were pleased to read his position on supporting generic and pre-
competitive technologies.
b.
Dr. Bromley asked Dr. Gomory to lead a discussion in areas where the
President had indicated an interest. One issue was materials science and
technology, and Dr. McTague carried this topic further. Dr. Buchsbaum
presented PCAST views on high performance computing and communications.
The President asked about the issue of networking, and Drs. Buchsbaum and
Gomory responded.
c.
Dr. Gomory then asked Dr. Massey to present PCAST views on mathematics
and science (M&S) education. Dr. Massey congratulated the President on his
3
education goals. He underlined the importance of improving M&S education
across the board. Dr. Massey pointed out the contribution of science and
technology to existing industries. He noted that PCAST believes there is a
special need for science and technology to support manufacturing processes.
Mr. Packard stressed the need to see science and technology as long-term
efforts if they are to be helpful to industry.
d.
The President asked Mr. Darman to comment. Mr. Darman said he would
greatly value the advice of the PCAST while he was in OMB. He discussed the
S&T areas of agreement with Dr. Bromley and Gov. Sununu.
9.
Dr. Bromley closed the meeting at 12:00 noon.
Minutes Approved:
Date: Maya, 1990
4
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 21, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES CICCONI
FROM: D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Au-
SUBJECT: PCAST MEMORANDA
Enclosed herewith, on behalf of the President's Council of Advisers on Science and
Technology, are two memoranda that the Council has requested that I send one to
the President and a second to Dick Cheney, with a copy to the President.
These two memoranda have been substantially revised from the earlier versions sent
to you on May 31 (see the enclosed copy of my memorandum and your handwritten
note). Comments and changes suggested by OMB (Bob Grady, Bob Howard) and by
Legislative Affairs have largely been incorporated in the revised versions.
The third PCAST memorandum on the National Institutes of Health is being worked
on further -- based on the advice and suggestions of Ede Holiday and Tom Sculley. I
will get back to you later on this matter.
PRESIDENTS COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
WASHINGTON
June 20, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
D. Allan Bromley, On Behalf of the President's Council of Allan
Advisors on Science and Technology
SUBJECT: Your Fiscal Year 1991 S&T Budget
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has stated
its strong support of your overall Science and Technology (S&T) budget for Fiscal
Year 1991. Within the fiscal constraints you face, your budget proposal provides
appropriate balance between investing in the future and meeting our current national
needs. The Administration proposals provide a strong start in revitalizing our
education system and maintaining our nation's strong S&T base.
PCAST believes that your Science and Technology budget proposals are critical
to the future of this country. The Council members pledge to convey their support
for your FY 1991 request to leaders in the academic and industrial communities, as
well as to political leaders at the grass roots. We urge the Administration to
continue to convey to Congress the importance of the Science and Technology budget
proposals.
Should the Congress not act to maintain strong support for Science and Technology,
we risk erosion of our S&T base in this country. Of particular concern are the many
individual and small-group researchers; in the aggregate, these researchers produce
the stream of new knowledge that is science and becomes technology. Thus, it is vital
that we protect those programs which provide support for investigator-initiated
research programs.
One of the PCAST concerns is that federal support for various "big science" projects,
in the context of constrained budgets, could crowd out support for these individual
investigators. As Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, I will strive
to continue the Administration's attentiveness to this concern as we work with OMB
in the preparation of the Fiscal Year 1992 budget.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 21, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Anan
SUBJECT:
DOD-ACADEMIC RELATIONS
.
I am enclosing herewith a copy of a memorandum that I have sent, at the request of
PCAST, to Dick Cheney concerning the desirability of rebuilding, even under current
budgetary stringencies, the DOD-university bridges that served the nation so well during
the post World War II decades.
Enclosure
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 19, 1990
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
FROM:
D. Allan Bromley, On Behalf of the President's Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology
Aucur
SUBJECT: DOD-UNIVERSITY RELATIONSHIP
The pace of political change around the globe is so fast and so profound that our
defense-related research must be both broad and deep. As you are only too well
aware, we must prepare for the unexpected. This means searching for new ideas
whose application is not immediately obvious and investing in our most flexible
resource, people. Accordingly, I would like to convey that the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology was pleased to learn from Mr. Atwood that the
Department places high priority on maintaining the strength of its technology base
especially the so-called 6.1 and 6.2 programs. PCAST applauds the wisdom of such
long-term strategic planning.
In this regard, PCAST would like to draw your attention to an opportunity and a
need: the strengthening of the DoD-University partnership. The DoD has over the
years supported science and technology emphasizing both new knowledge and the
education of scientists and engineers. New interdisciplinary programs were created at
research universities, helping to advance new fields such as artifical intelligence,
computing and materials science and engineering. The latter, for example, produced
whole new classes of materials, including polymer composites, rapidly solidified
metals, sensor materials and new laser materials.
An important by-product was the training of thousands of graduate students. Indeed,
a large portion of the nation's technical leaders received their graduate education
through DoD support. This support of research and education has been a wise
investment. The new technologies that have emerged have become essential to DoD
and to the nation as a whole in ways not anticipated at the time.
In this changing world, PCAST urges that DoD continue its important role in
stimulating more Americans to become scientists and engineers and in creating new
knowledge even under the stringent budgetary limitations that you currently face.
Such an effort would be fully consistent with the President's initiatives in education
and basic research. We believe that strong DoD-academe bridges that served the
nation so well in the past will prove equally important in the decades ahead.
attend EATR min
DRAFT
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
JULY 26-27, 1990
AGENDA
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1990
OPEN SESSION, 9:00 - 11:15 a.m.
CONFERENCE ROOM, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, N.W.
8:30-8:50
ARRIVAL -- COFFEE AND PASTRIES
8:50-9:00
OPENING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
9:00-10:00
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY:
HON. MICHAEL DELAND
TWENTIETH ANNUAL REPORT
OF CEQ
10:00-11:00
GLOBAL CHANGE - CEES UPDATE
DR. ROBERT CORELL
BRIEFING AND DISCUSSION
11:00-11:10
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 1990 continued
CLOSED SESSION, 12:00 Noon - 5:00 p.m.
ROOM 208, CORDELL HULL CONFERENCE ROOM
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
12:00-2:15
PCAST UPDATE DURING
DR. BROMLEY
WORKING LUNCH
OSTP ASSOC. DIRECTORS
2:15-3:00
INITIATIVES IN EASTERN EUROPE
LTG. BRENT SCOWCROFT
3:00-3:15
BREAK
3:15-4:15
EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES
PANEL -- DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
DR. LIKINS
AND DIRECTION
DR. RATCHFORD
4:15-4:30
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
6:30
DINNER HOSTED BY THE INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
at La Chaumiere
2813 M Street, N.W. (Georgetown)
FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1990
CLOSED SESSION, 9:00 A.M. - 12:00 NOON
ROOSEVELT ROOM, THE WHITE HOUSE
9:00-10:00
THE ROLE OF SCIENCE AND
DR. MICHAEL BOSKIN
TECHNOLOGY IN U.S. ECONOMIC
POLICY
10:00-10:30
DISCUSSION
10:30-11:30
RECRUITMENT FOR FEDERAL
DR. MARY GOOD
SERVICE - INFORMATION BRIEFING
CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
AND DISCUSSION
SCIENCE BOARD
(201) 455-4729
FAX: (201) 455-2956
11:30-11:45
OTHER PCAST ISSUES
11:45-12:00
THE NEXT MEETING
AND CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
DRAFT