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
285792413
label
President's Council of Advisors for Science and Technology: Meetings - 1/10/91-1/11/91
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285792413
contentType
document
title
President's Council of Advisors for Science and Technology: Meetings - 1/10/91-1/11/91
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
62079-001
collections
Records of the White House Office of Science and Technology (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Allan D. Bromley Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285792413
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
3dcad7659e3d933b
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:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
Organization Files - PCAST
OA/ID Number:
62079
Folder ID Number:
62079-001
Folder Title:
President's Council of Advisors for Science and Technology: Meetings - 1/10/91-1/11/91
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
0
0
0
0
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
January 9, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
ToM WELCH Tom
SUBJECT:
JANUARY PCAST MEETING
Enclosed is the draft agenda for this week's PCAST meeting.
Please note the hour set aside by Dr. Bromley for OSTP presentations, Thursday
morning.
Dr. Bromley has approved the following order, subjects, and times for presentations:
1. Maryanne Bach - FCCSET (10 min)
2. Tom Ratchford - Education (10 min)
3. Rachel Levinson - Life Sciences (10 min)
4. Nancy Maynard - Earth and Environmental Sciences (10 min)
5. Michelle Van Cleave - National Security (10 min)
Please note the times allotted are maximums and should allow for questions and
remarks.
Talking points for Dr. Bromley's use have been drafted and are attached for your
amendments. Please return (fax of pen changes is fine) no later than Wednesday,
3:00 PM.
Thank you.
Enclosures:
PCAST Agenda
Draft Talking Points
Distribution:
Tom Ratchford
Nancy Maynard
Michelle Van Cleave
Rachel Levinson
Maryanne Bach
CC:
Ken Yale
Sally Sherman
DRAFT
As of 4:00 PM
January 8, 1991
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS
ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
JANUARY 10-11, 1991
AGENDA
5750 -CÉQ
Conference
Room
THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1991
OPEN SESSION 9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON
CONFERENCE ROOM
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, NW
8:30 - 9:00
ARRIVAL - COFFEE AND PASTRIES
9:00 - 9:30
OPENING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
9:30 - 10:30
BIODIVERSITY
DR. WILSON
- AN INFORMATION BRIEFING
10:30 - 10:45
DISCUSSION
10:45 - 11:45
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
OSTP STAFF
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
- 1990 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
11:45 - 12:00
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
DRAFT
THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1991 Continued ...
CLOSED SESSION, 12:00 NOON - 5:00 PM
ROOM 248
OMB DIRECTOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
12:00 - 12:45
LUNCH
12:45 1:00
BREAK
1:00 - 4:30
ISSUES FOR PCAST CONSIDERATION
DR. BROMLEY
1:00 - 2:00
TO BE DETERMINED
2:00 - 3:00
DR. BERNTHAL
3:00 - 4:00
GENERAL SCOWCROFT
4:00 - 4:30
DEPUTY SECRETARY ATWOOD
4:00 - 5:00
ADMIRAL TRULY
- 4:30
OTHER BUSINESS
DR. BROMLEY
- 6:30
COCKTAILS AND DINNER
MAYFLOWER HOTEL
DRAFT
FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1991
CLOSED SESSION 9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON
ROOM 180
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
8:30 - - 9:00
ARRIVAL - COFFEE AND PASTRIES
(Dr. Bromley's Office, Room 360, OEOB)
9:00 - 10:00
DISCUSSION OF FEBRUARY AGENDA
DR. BROMLEY
AND OTHER ISSUES
10:00 12:00
ISSUES FOR PCAST CONSIDERATION
DR. BROMLEY
10:00 - 11:00
GOVERNOR SUNUNU
11:00 12:00
CHAIRMAN BOSKIN
- 12:00
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
TALKING POINTS
FOR
THURSDAY'S OPEN SESSION
I.
Welcome and Introductory Remarks
00
Introduce D. A. Henderson
00
Congressional Oversight Hearings on OSTP
00
Budget Submission to Congress (OSTP Press Conference)
00
State of the Union Address
00
Optional - Leon Lederman Talking Points (attached)
II. Introduce E. O. Wilson
00
It is important for PCAST to maintain its familiarity with the important
aspects of global change. At earlier meetings we received a briefing on a
White House conference related to this.
00
The purpose of the White House Conference was to focus international
thought by introducing the integrating concept of "Global Stewardship."
It also emphasized a new dimension of the international dialogue on
Global Change: that economic analysis and research on broad global
change policies and on the consequences of such policies must be
coordinated with the science of global change.
00
Without doubt, an important dimension of global change research is the
issue of biodiversity.
00
Among the preeminent investigators of biodiversity is Edward Osborne
Wilson, Mellon Professor of the Sciences, Harvard University.
00
Professor Wilson's contributions include the very well received article in
the Scientific American, "Threats to Biodiversity", September, 1989.
Copies of the article as well as recent OSTP presentations are available on
the wall shelf.
00
We are most pleased that Professor Wilson is with us today. We look
forward with great interest to his presentation.
III. Introduce OSTP Staff for 1990 Accomplishments
00
The Bush Administration's policies are designed to increase the
contribution of science and technology to the national goals of improved
quality of life for all Americans, continued economic growth, and a strong
national defense. This has been and will continue to be reflected in
annual Federal budgets.
00
The activities of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in support of
these and other Administration policies and goals include: 1) providing
access to authoritative science and technology information and expert
scientific and engineering advice for the President, Federal officials, and
Congress as input to the policy-making process; 2) participating in the
formulation, coordination and implementation of national, domestic,
economic, defense and foreign policy issues that involve science and
technology; 3) maintaining and fostering the health and vitality of the
U.S. science and technology base; and 4) coordinating research and
development efforts by agencies of the Federal Government, to maximize
the return on the nation's investment in R&D and to insure that the
resources involved are used efficiently and appropriately.
00
For PCAST to adequately advise the President, it is important that we
understand the activities and accomplishments of OSTP for 1990. I have,
therefore, asked members of the OSTP staff to provide us this morning
with a series of short information briefings. Because of time limitations,
only a portion of OSTP's accomplishments can be presented this morning.
FCCSET - Maryanne Bach
00
I would like to begin these briefings with an overview of the 1990
accomplishments of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science,
Engineering, and Technology.
00
The Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and
Technology (FCCSET) was established in 1976 by P. L. 94-282 to address
high priority science and technology policy issues affecting more than one
Federal agency. It is chaired me in my capacity as the Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy. During FY 1990, FCCSET was
restructured and revitalized. The full FCCSET was appointed for the
first time; the membership now includes the relevant Cabinet Secretaries
or Deputy Secretaries, and the Directors of the relevant science-and-
technology-related departments and independent agencies.
00
The FCCSET presentation will be given by Maryanne Bach, Executive
Director, FCCSET.
Educational and International - Tom Ratchford
00
The Education Summit led in FY 1990 to a set of national education goals
and objectives to be reached by the year 2000.
00
These goals form a national framework for Federal policy and strategic
investments in science, mathematics, technology, and engineering
education at all levels. OSTP worked closely with other EOP offices and
Federal agencies in support of achievement of the three national education
goals relating to science, mathematics, engineering and technology
education.
00
Let me now ask Dr. Tom Ratchford, my Associate Director for Policy
and International Affairs to speak to the 1990 OSTP accomplishments in
mathematics and science education.
Life Sciences - Rachel Levinson
00
During FY 1990 OSTP took the lead on a number of life science issues of
importance to the Administration including biotechnology, technology
transfer in the biomedical sciences, the need for guidelines for handling
misconduct in science, and the use of animals in biomedical research. A
central focus was the operation of the Biotechnology Science Coordinating
Committee, discussed under activities of the FCCSET Committee on Life
Sciences and Health earlier.
00
Dr. Rachel Levinson will describe our accomplishments in life sciences.
Earth and Environmental Science - Nancy Maynard
00
In FY 1990, the Global Change Working Group was established under
the Domestic Policy Council with me as its chairman. OSTP staff were
actively involved in the Working Group, in analyses of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, in preparations for
upcoming negotiations for a Framework Convention on climate change, in
preparations for the Second World Climate Conference, and in planning
for the White House Conference on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change.
00
To expand upon these and other accomplishments, let me call upon Dr.
Nancy Maynard, Assistant Director for the Environment.
National Security - Michelle Van Cleave
00
The OSTP participates in interagency efforts aimed at resolving critical
scientific and technical issues associated with national security and
supports the National Security Council in matters concerning science and
technology that are related to national security.
00
To describe our 1990 accomplishments in this area, let me call upon
Michelle Van Cleave, OSTP's Assistant Director for National Security.
January 10, 1991
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS
ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
JANUARY 10-11, 1991
AGENDA
THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1991
OPEN SESSION 9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON
CONFERENCE ROOM
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, NW
8:30 - 9:00
ARRIVAL -- COFFEE AND PASTRIES
9:00 - 9:30
OPENING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
9:30 - 10:30
BIODIVERSITY
DR. WILSON
- AN INFORMATION BRIEFING
10:30 - 10:45
DISCUSSION
10:45 - 11:45
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
OSTP STAFF
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
- 1990 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
11:45 - 12:00
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
Substantial progress made in recent months to
develop a coherent, integrated program in M+S Ed.
than FEESET
/ Interagency There efforts mmmory ed 1/3 report
Became of very limited time, call attn. to to highlights, invite you
2 Encouraged by President PL 101-589 5.8m stat
3 CEHR- Watkins Sanders, Williams
16 agencies participated ; 12 on WG
4 Scope of activities K - Grad
Order of priority
5 strategic or ectives
6 Implementation priorities
, Baseline
Categories FY90 FY 90
FY 92 F191 Feb 4
8 Year ahead Review. - Class Cross
9
FY93 under diseassion
1/10/91
PEAST
Presentation
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
January 3, 1991
Dear Madam Chair:
I am pleased to send you this progress report describing efforts underway by the
interagency Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology
(FCCSET) to address issues of mathematics and science education. These efforts to
develop a strategic plan for the Federal program on mathematics and science
education for FY 1992 are in support of the National Education Goals related to
these fields. Three of the six Goals address, directly or indirectly, science and
mathematics education. They are:
By the year 2000, American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve
having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter including
English, mathematics, science, history, and geography ... [Goal
3]
By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in the world in science and
mathematics achievement. [Goal 4]
By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess the
knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the
rights and responsibilities of citizenship. [Goal 5]
The President noted the importance of the interagency process recently when he
signed Public Law 101-589, the "Excellence in Mathematics, Science and Engineering
Education Act of 1990." The President stated:
"In developing the FY 1991 budget immediately following the Education
2.
Summit, the Administration took important steps to strengthen programs
of Federal agencies and to increase funding for science and mathematics
education. We intend to further develop that initiative through the work
of a new interagency committee which is developing a strategic plan and
priorities for the Administration's program in science and mathematics
education."
Senate Request
This progress report is submitted in response to the Senate Appropriation
Committee's request, as set forth in its Report No. 101-474 to accompany H.R. 5158.
The formal, complete report requested by the Committee will be submitted with the
President's FY 1992 budget. This progress report incorporates the multilevel priority-
setting framework, also called for in the Committee report.
2
FCCSET Committee on Education and Human Resources
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), through the
Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, established
the Committee on Education and Human Resources (CEHR). This Committee is
charged with addressing issues critical to:
Improving science, mathematics, and engineering education, and
technical training;
Ensuring an adequate supply of well-educated and trained
scientific and technical personnel;
Enabling the Nation to retain world leadership in science and
technology; and,
Ensuring a well-informed, scientifically literate citizenry.
To accomplish this, the Committee plays a central role in coordinating activities of
the Federal agencies related to science, mathematics, engineering, and technological
education and training.
The CEHR is chaired by Secretary of Energy James Watkins, with the Deputy
Secretary and Acting Secretary of Education. Ted Sanders, and the Assistant Director
3.
for Education and Human Resources of the National Science Foundation (NSF),
Luther Williams, serving as vice chairmen. The Committee includes senior policy-
level officials from all Federal agencies with significant responsibilities in the area of
science, mathematics, engineering, and technological education, including those with
jurisdiction over the education of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, as well as
those with responsibilities for technician training and science literacy for the general
public. The Committee also includes those agencies that are major users of scientific
and engineering personnel.
The Committee established a Working Group on the FY 1992 Federal Program Plan
for Education and Human Resources (EHR) to develop the first comprehensive
inventory of Federal EHR programs and to begin the process of developing options
for an FY 1992 multi-agency program for EHR activities. The members of the
Working Group include representatives from the:
Department of Energy
16 agencies
Department of Education
National Science Foundation
12 WG mbrs
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Defense
Department of Commerce
Department of the Interior
3
Department of Agriculture
Department of Labor
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
The focus of the Committee's effort is to develop recommendations for moving the
Nation toward achieving the three National Education Goals related to mathematics
and science education. Since the Goals relate primarily to precollege education, the
CEHR focused on those programs relating predominantly to grades K-12. The
Committee did, however, take into consideration all components of the educational
system, including both "formal" (in-the-classroom) and "informal" (out-of-classroom or
experiential) programs. The scope of activities includes (in descending order of
priority):
4.
Precollege, formal
Precollege, informal
up food chain
Undergraduate, formal
Undergraduate, informal
Graduate.
U.S. graduate education programs are in a clear and undisputed position of world
leadership. The priority placement of graduate education reflects an emphasis by the
CEHR on those elements of our educational system most in need of attention.
Priority Framework
The Committee developed a National Mathematics and Science Education Priority
Framework which lists both strategic objectives and implementation priorities. The
implementation priorities vary, depending on the particular educational level.
Strategic Objectives
The CEHR program's four strategic objectives, listed in descending order of priority,
5.
reflect the National Education Goals. These objectives relate to:
/ Improved student performance in science and mathematics;
2 Better prepared precollege teacher workforce:
4
3
Provision of an adequate workforce supply to all fields of science
and technology, including increased participation of
underrepresented groups; and,
4
Improved public science literacy.
6.
Implementation Priorities
The CEHR implementation priorities specify program areas that require emphasis to
accomplish the strategic objectives. Each implementation priority is dependent, to
some degree, on the others, and the mix of programs will be important to enhancing
the overall Federal effort. Emphasis in one area will necessarily influence the level of
accomplishment of the others. Likewise, neglect of an area associated with a
particular priority may affect overall success in meeting the Nation's education goals.
In descending order of importance, the implementation priorities recommended for
use in establishing the programmatic content of the Federal effort are:
/ Teacher preparation and retraining;
2 Curriculum reform, research and development in teaching and
learning, dissemination, and technical assistance;
3 Organizational and operational reform of the education delivery system;
4
Student incentives (support) and opportunities; and,
5 Scientific literacy activities directed toward the general public.
7.
FY 1990 and FY 1991 EHR Baseline
The Working Group developed a comprehensive inventory of Federal mathematics and
science education programs. As a tool for planning, while at the same time
recognizing differences in the character of EHR program activity across agencies, the
Federal inventory was divided into three categories to reflect the source of funding
and agency administrative control over EHR activities:
Category 1 programs are those whose budgets are directly appropriated
for mathematics, science, and technology education, or are funded from
research (or other) accounts and expressly managed as education
programs.
Category 2 programs are funded under research or other accounts that
do not fall under Category 1 (e.g., graduate research assistantships).
5
Category 3 programs are those whose purpose is general education (not
specifically mathematics and science education) but under which science
and technology education activities are supported (e.g., formula-driven
programs of which mathematics and science are an integral part).
In its initial work, the Working Group concentrated on Category 1 programs. The FY
1991 EHR Category 1 budget, which serves as the baseline for subsequent fiscal years,
is $1.72 billion, a 16% increase over FY 1990. Although graduate programs account
for the majority of the budget, precollege programs received by far the largest
absolute and percentage increases.
Although graduate education received the lowest priority, this ranking is not, in any
way, meant to diminish its importance or downplay the critical role played by the
Federal government in this area. Support of U.S. graduate education is essential to
maintaining the quality of U.S. scientific research and economic competitiveness. In
that graduate education also ensures adequate numbers of quality faculty to teach
future generations of college students, it has a long-term impact on both the
undergraduate and precollege education levels. The Federal government spends the
largest share of its Category 1 mathematics and science resources on graduate
education.
FEDERAL MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS
CATEGORY 1
FY 1990
FY 1991
% Increase
Precollege
$333 million
$526 million
58%
Undergraduate
$412 million
$422 million
3%
Graduate
$741 million
$769 million
4%
TOTAL
$1.49 billion
$1.72 billion
16%
NOTE: Percentage increases are based on unrounded figures.
AND
FY 92 - - Feb 4 STRATEGIC Busk- PRIORITIES PLANS
The above figures are those appropriated for FY 1990 and FY 1991. Although the
agencies have their appropriations at this time, minor modifications within budget
amounts can be expected as agencies complete their current plans. The figures in the
formal report may, therefore, vary slightly from those above.
Different agencies dominate program activities at each education level. For five
agencies, mathematics and science education programs comprise relatively small
6
portions of the budget yet fill important programmatic roles related to their missions.
Many of these activities support training of specialists; expand and support
traditional curricula; provide informal teacher enhancement programs; and make
students aware of important issues such as energy conservation, nutrition, health
education, aeronautics and space, and the environment. The list below includes only
those agencies that contribute significant percentages of the total Federal expenditure
by educational level.
MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION
PATTERN OF AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
FY 1991 CATEGORY 1 BUDGET
A. By educational level
Total $
Agency (% of total Federal support)
K-12
$526 million
ED (46%); NSF (40%)
Undergraduate
$422 million
DOD (42%); NSF (25%); HHS (14%)
Graduate
$769 million
HHS (52%); DOD (30%)
B. Formal and Informal
Precollege formal
ED (57%); NSF (39%)
Precollege informal
NSF (41%); DOI (22%); DOE (20%)
Undergraduate formal
NSF (37%); DOD (34%); HHS (19%)
Undergraduate informal
DOD (57%); NASA (15%); DOE (12%)
FCCSET/CEHR Activities in the Year Ahead
8.
With the CEHR program inventory and priority framework in place, the FCCSET
Committee on Education and Human Resources shortly will begin a more intensive
review of the effectiveness of current Federal programs. This review will look at
evaluations and other information on program outcomes, and will analyze program
designs to determine which strategies are most likely to be successful. The results of
this review will guide development of a coordinated strategy for reallocating resources,
needs. as appropriate, to programs that will be the most effective in addressing priority
Chris Cross
FY 93 plans under diseussion in
FCCSET, OSTP + DMB
7
The Future
The FY 1992 Budget which the President sends to Congress will be developed with the
FCCSET recommendations in mind and will be consistent with the overall
requirements of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508)
OSTP is committed to working with all elements of our society and all parts of
Federal, State, and local governments to achieve our National Education Goals. As
you are well aware, a coordinated, national effort is necessary to make American
students first in the world in science and mathematics achievement. The
Administration, the Congress, the States, local governments, teachers and other
educators, as well as parents, will all have to work together to attain the National
Education Goals. With your help and cooperation, we are convinced that these Goals
can be met.
Sincerely,
Alla
D. Allan Bromley
Director
The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Chair
Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs,
Housing and Urban Development,
and Independent Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. Senate
Washington, DC 20510
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
January 9, 1991
MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION
FROM:
TOM WELCH Tom
SUBJECT:
JANUARY PCAST MEETING
Enclosed is the draft agenda for this week's PCAST meeting.
Please note the hour set aside by Dr. Bromley for OSTP presentations, Thursday
morning.
Dr. Bromley has approved the following order, subjects, and times for presentations:
1. Maryanne Bach - FCCSET (10 min)
2. Tom Ratchford - Education (10 min)
3. Rachel Levinson - Life Sciences (10 min)
4. Nancy Maynard - Earth and Environmental Sciences (10 min)
5. Michelle Van Cleave - National Security (10 min)
Please note the times allotted are maximums and should allow for questions and
remarks.
Talking points for Dr. Bromley's use have been drafted and are attached for your
amendments. Please return (fax of pen changes is fine) no later than Wednesday,
3:00 PM.
Thank you.
Enclosures:
PCAST Agenda
Draft Talking Points
Distribution:
Tom Ratchford
Nancy Maynard
Michelle Van Cleave
Rachel Levinson
Maryanne Bach
CC:
Ken Yale
Sally Sherman
DRAFT
As of 4:00 PM
January 8, 1991
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS
ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
JANUARY 10-11, 1991
AGENDA
THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1991
OPEN SESSION 9:00 AM - - 12:00 NOON
CONFERENCE ROOM
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, NW
8:30 - 9:00
ARRIVAL -- COFFEE AND PASTRIES
9:00 - 9:30
OPENING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
9:30 - 10:30
BIODIVERSITY
DR. WILSON
- AN INFORMATION BRIEFING
10:30 - 10:45
DISCUSSION
10:45 - 11:45
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
OSTP STAFF
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
- 1990 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
11:45 - 12:00
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
DRAFT
THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1991 Continued ...
CLOSED SESSION, 12:00 NOON - 5:00 PM
ROOM 248
OMB DIRECTOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
12:00 - 12:45
LUNCH
12:45 - 1:00
BREAK
1:00 - 4:30
ISSUES FOR PCAST CONSIDERATION
DR. BROMLEY
1:00 - 2:00
TO BE DETERMINED
2:00 - 3:00
DR. BERNTHAL
3:00 - 4:00
GENERAL SCOWCROFT
4:00 4:30
DEPUTY SECRETARY ATWOOD
4:00 - 5:00
ADMIRAL TRULY
- 4:30
OTHER BUSINESS
DR. BROMLEY
- 6:30
COCKTAILS AND DINNER
MAYFLOWER HOTEL
DRAFT
FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1991
CLOSED SESSION 9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON
ROOM 180
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
8:30 - 9:00
ARRIVAL - COFFEE AND PASTRIES
(Dr. Bromley's Office, Room 360, OEOB)
9:00 - 10:00
DISCUSSION OF FEBRUARY AGENDA
DR. BROMLEY
AND OTHER ISSUES
10:00 - 12:00
ISSUES FOR PCAST CONSIDERATION
DR. BROMLEY
10:00 - 11:00
GOVERNOR SUNUNU
11:00 - 12:00
CHAIRMAN BOSKIN
- 12:00
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
TALKING POINTS
FOR
THURSDAY'S OPEN SESSION
I.
Welcome and Introductory Remarks
00
Introduce D. A. Henderson
00
Congressional Oversight Hearings on OSTP
00
Budget Submission to Congress (OSTP Press Conference)
00
State of the Union Address
00
Optional - - Leon Lederman Talking Points (attached)
II. Introduce E. O. Wilson
00
It is important for PCAST to maintain its familiarity with the important
aspects of global change. At earlier meetings we received a briefing on a
White House conference related to this.
00
The purpose of the White House Conference was to focus international
thought by introducing the integrating concept of "Global Stewardship."
It also emphasized a new dimension of the international dialogue on
Global Change: that economic analysis and research on broad global
change policies and on the consequences of such policies must be
coordinated with the science of global change.
00
Without doubt, an important dimension of global change research is the
issue of biodiversity.
00
Among the preeminent investigators of biodiversity is Edward Osborne
Wilson, Mellon Professor of the Sciences, Harvard University.
00
Professor Wilson's contributions include the very well received article in
the Scientific American, "Threats to Biodiversity", September, 1989.
Copies of the article as well as recent OSTP presentations are available on
the wall shelf.
00
We are most pleased that Professor Wilson is with us today. We look
forward with great interest to his presentation.
III. Introduce OSTP Staff for 1990 Accomplishments
00
The Bush Administration's policies are designed to increase the
contribution of science and technology to the national goals of improved
quality of life for all Americans, continued economic growth, and a strong
national defense. This has been and will continue to be reflected in
annual Federal budgets.
00
The activities of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in support of
these and other Administration policies and goals include: 1) providing
access to authoritative science and technology information and expert
scientific and engineering advice for the President, Federal officials, and
Congress as input to the policy-making process; 2) participating in the
formulation, coordination and implementation of national, domestic,
economic, defense and foreign policy issues that involve science and
technology; 3) maintaining and fostering the health and vitality of the
U.S. science and technology base; and 4) coordinating research and
development efforts by agencies of the Federal Government, to maximize
the return on the nation's investment in R&D and to insure that the
resources involved are used efficiently and appropriately.
00
For PCAST to adequately advise the President, it is important that we
understand the activities and accomplishments of OSTP for 1990. I have,
therefore, asked members of the OSTP staff to provide us this morning
with a series of short information briefings. Because of time limitations,
only a portion of OSTP's accomplishments can be presented this morning.
FCCSET - Maryanne Bach
00
I would like to begin these briefings with an overview of the 1990
accomplishments of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science,
Engineering, and Technology.
00
The Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and
Technology (FCCSET) was established in 1976 by P. L. 94-282 to address
high priority science and technology policy issues affecting more than one
Federal agency. It is chaired me in my capacity as the Director of the
Office of Science and Technology Policy. During FY 1990, FCCSET was
restructured and revitalized. The full FCCSET was appointed for the
first time; the membership now includes the relevant Cabinet Secretaries
or Deputy Secretaries, and the Directors of the relevant science-and-
technology-related departments and independent agencies.
00
The FCCSET presentation will be given by Maryanne Bach, Executive
Director, FCCSET.
Educational and International Affairs Tom Ratchford
Policy
00
This area of OSTP includer our mathematics education and science activities
00
The Education Summit led in FY 1990 to a set of national education goals
and objectives to be reached by the year 2000.
00
These goals form a national framework for Federal policy and strategic
investments in science, mathematics, technology, and engineering
education at all levels. OSTP worked closely with other EOP offices and
Federal agencies in support of achievement of the three national education
goals relating to science, mathematics, engineering and technology
education.
00
Let me now ask Dr. Tom Ratchford, my Associate Director for Policy
and International Affairs to speak to the 1990 OSTP accomplishments in
mathematics and science education.
Life Sciences - Rachel Levinson
00
During FY 1990 OSTP took the lead on a number of life science issues of
importance to the Administration including biotechnology, technology
transfer in the biomedical sciences, the need for guidelines for handling
misconduct in science, and the use of animals in biomedical research. A
central focus was the operation of the Biotechnology Science Coordinating
Committee, discussed under activities of the FCCSET Committee on Life
Sciences and Health earlier.
00
Dr. Rachel Levinson will describe our accomplishments in life sciences.
Earth and Environmental Science - - Nancy Maynard
00
In FY 1990, the Global Change Working Group was established under
the Domestic Policy Council with me as its chairman. OSTP staff were
actively involved in the Working Group, in analyses of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, in preparations for
upcoming negotiations for a Framework Convention on climate change, in
preparations for the Second World Climate Conference, and in planning
for the White House Conference on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change.
00
To expand upon these and other accomplishments, let me call upon Dr.
Nancy Maynard, Assistant Director for the Environment.
National Security - Michelle Van Cleave
00
The OSTP participates in interagency efforts aimed at resolving critical
scientific and technical issues associated with national security and
supports the National Security Council in matters concerning science and
technology that are related to national security.
00
To describe our 1990 accomplishments in this area, let me call upon
Michelle Van Cleave, OSTP's Assistant Director for National Security.
CEES ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
June 1, 1990
Committee on Earth
& Environmental
Sciences
Dallas L. Peck, USGS
Chairman
Staff Working
CES Executive
Group
Secretariat
Paul Dresler, USGS
Paul Dresler, USGS
Chairman
Executive Secretary
Working Group
Working Group on
on
Mitigation and
Global Change
Adaptation Research
Strategies
Robert Corell, NSF
John A. Knauss, DOC
Chairman
Chairman
Subcommittee on
Subcommittee on
Natural Disaster
Atmospheric
Reduction
Research
Bill Hooke, NOAA
Eugene Bierly, NSF
Chairman
Chairman
Subcommittee on
Subcommittee
Federal Oceanographic
on
Fleet Coordination
Ground Water
Council
Richard Pittenger, USN
Stephen Ragone, USGS
Chairman
Chairman
Working Group on Global Change
Robert Corell, NSF
Chairman
Science Element Task Groups
Climate & Hydrologic Systems
Mike Hall, NOAA - Chair
Earth Systems Measurement &
Data Management
Greg Withee, NOAA, Chair
Biogeochemical Dynamics
Robert Watson, NASA, Chair
Modeling
Jay Fein, NSF, Chair
Ecological Systems & Dynamics
Anthony Janetos, EPA, Chair
Congressional Outreach &
11
Communication
Eileen Shea, NOAA, Chair
Earth System History
Bill Curry, NSF, Chair
Education, Training, & Human
Resources Development
Gary Evans, USDA, Chair
Human Interactions
Roberta Miller, NSF, Chair
Private Industry -
Government Interaction (PIGI)
Jules Blake, OSTP, Chair
Solid Earth Processes
International Coordination &
Richard Williams, DOI, Chair
Development
Lou Brown, NSF, Chair
Solar Influences
Dennis Peacock, NSF, Chair
FCCSET Organizational Chart
July 10, 1990
Federal Coordinating Council for Science,
Engineering and Technology
(FCCSET)
Earth and
Education and
Environmental Sciences
Human Resources
Committee
Committee
Dallas L. Peck,
James D. Watkins,
Chairman
Chairman
Food Agriculture
Life Sciences and Health
and Forestry Research
Committee
Committee
James O. Mason,
Charles E. Hess,
Chairman
Chairman
Physical, Mathematical and
Engineering Sciences
Technology and Industry
Committee
Committee
J. Thomas Murrin,
Erich Bloch,
Chairman
Chairman
International Science,
Engineering and Technology
Committee
Reginald Bartholomew,
Chairman
ENVIRONMENT AND GLOBAL CHANGE
I. Formulation and Coordination of National Policy - Policy on Global Change
To insure development of a comprehensive and forward-looking U.S. policy on
global change based upon sound science and economic growth, President Bush
established the Domestic Policy Council Working Group on Global Change
Chairman = D. Allan Bromley
Provides Cabinet-level coordination on global change issues
Important source of information and advice to President
a. Studies by DPC GCWG:
Economic costs of global change and responses to it
Private sector activities and issues
Legal precedents for international agreements and conventions
b. Provided briefings for DPC GCWG Members by experts on scientific and
economic aspects of global change
c. Activities
1. White House Conference on Science and Economics Research Related
to Global Change
co-chairs: D. Allan Bromley, Michael Deland, Michael Boskin
concept for conference developed by DPC GCWG
Conference resulted in:
concept of "Global Stewardship" (US approach)
development of concept of integrated economic analysis on
consequences of global change policies with science
of global change - - useful to policy-makers
Specific Outcomes:
Regional Research Institutes
Coordination of research among nations funding global
change research
Communications network
2. Preparation for U.S. Participation and Negotiation at International
Meetings
For example:
Noordwijk
Bergen
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (3 Working Groups)
Second World Climate Conference
First Negotiating Session of the Framework Convention on Climate
Change
3. Review of IPCC Working Group Reports
Working Group I - Scientific Assessment
OSTP Coordinated Review
Working Group II - Impacts
Working Group III - Response Strategies U.S. Chair (Bernthal)
4. Preparations for the First Negotiating Session of the Framework
Convention on Climate Change
President Bush offered to host the First Session
Preparations presently underway
Meeting: February 4 - 14, 1991
Westfields Conference Center
UN-sponsored
Prior international meetings are backdrop for negotiations
5. Subgroup of DPC GCWG = Comprehensive/Incentives Task Force
Comprehensive approach addresses all greenhouse gases, their sources
and sinks.
In contrast to current "piecemeal" approach which focuses narrowly on
emissions of one gas, carbon dioxide, primarily from the energy and
transportation sector
Employs a measure, such as an index, of the comparative enviromental
impacts of the gases (e.g., global warming potential)
limitations measures should be market-based incentives
trading of emissions
II. Coordinating R & D Efforts by Agencies
1. Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences (CEES)
Committee = successful template for other FCCSET Committees
Reports:
1. "Our Changing Planet: The FY91 U.S. Global Change Research
Program"
To accompany the President's FY91 Budget
2. "Our Changing Planet: The FY 91 Research Plan"
provides budget information by agency for FY91
outlines an accelerated, focussed research strategy to reduce key
uncertainties
research strategy encompasses ground and space-based
efforts in:
research - data gathering - modelling
3. "Our Changing Planet: The FY 1992 U.S. Global Change Research
Program"
To accompany the President's FY 92 Budget
Due out February 4, 1991
4. Working Groups
(see diagrams)
5. Other CEES Activities:
a. Response to National Academy Review of USGCRP/EOS
b. S. 169
c. Ad Hoc Economics Subgroup
OMB request for recommendations for an agenda for
resource levels and organizational changes required to
support expanded research on the economics of global change
III. Other Activities
1. Bilateral and Multilateral S & T activities
2. NES - Environmental aspects
3. Panelists/speaker:
Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science and Math Teaching
AGU
Global Climate Coalition
EPC - EPRG
Brookings
Department of Education
Chemical Manufacturers ASsoc.
Congressional Forum
Industrial Energy Users Forum
4. Arctic Ocean Program Review
5. Forestry
6. EMF
7, Oil Pollution R & D
8. Budget
9. Ocean Principals
UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA
School of Arts and Sciences
Department of Economics
3718 Locust Walk
December 11, 1990
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6297
(215) 898-7701
Dr. Thomas Ratchford
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
OEOB 431
Washington, DC 20506
Attention: Virginia Rosell
Dear Dr. Ratchford:
In accord with your request, I am enclosing a copy of the proofs of
my forthcoming paper on "Academic Research and Industrial Innovation."
It is important to recognize that estimates of the social rate of return
in Table 4 are not meant to be more than highly tentative and incomplete
explorations. As stated on page 11, they are "at best a crude beginning,"
and should be treated as such. The material in Tables 1, 2, and 3 is the
heart of the paper. It constitutes some of the first evidence of a
detailed and comprehensive sort regarding the role of academic research
in industrial innovation. The results indicate that, particularly in
drugs, instruments, and information processing, the contribution of
academic research to industrial innovation has been considerable. This
is the major finding of the paper, and I hope that you find it of interest.
Sincerely,
Edwin Mansfield
Director, Center for
Economics and Technology,
and Professor of Economics
Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. P.O. Box 1991. Amsterdam
IN ALL CORRESPONDENCE
CONCERNING THIS PAPER
Northprint: RPY00575
REFER TO:
Page: 12
1st proof:
RESPOL 00575
Academic research and industrial
innovation
Edwin MANSFIELD
Department of Economics, University of Pennsvivania Philadeiphia, PA 19104-6297, U.S.A.
Final version received January 1990
1. Introduction
economists and others that study the process of
technological change.
The purpose of this study is to estimate the
At the outset. it should be noted that I am
extent to which technological innovations in vari-
concerned primarily with recent academic research
ous industries have been based on recent academic
-that is, academic research occurring within fif-
research, and the time lags between the investment
teen years of the commercialization of whatever
in recent academic research projects and the in-
innovation is being considered. A great many
dustrial utilization of their findings. Because no
new products and processes are based on rela-
attempt (to my knowledge) has been made to
tively old science that to some extent was due to
estimate the social rate of return from academic
academic research. In estimating the social rate of
research. 1 we also make some rough and tentative
return from academic research. I ignore such
estimates of this sort. While the results are subject
long-term effects of academic research because
to many limitations discussed below, they should
they are very difficult to measure. because benefits
be of interest to public policy-makers concerned
occurring many years after the relevant investment
with science and technology, as well as to
in research are so heavily discounted. 3 and be-
cause the effects of relatively old science may not
be a reliable guide to the present situation. This.
like many other features of my estimation proce-
1
Relatively few detailed studies of the contribution of
dure, tends to impart a downward bias to the
academic research to industrial innovation have been car-
estimated rate of return.
ried out. Most seem to have focused on the drug industry.
For example, see Mansfield et al. [15, ch. 8] and Schwartz-
man [24]. Also. Mushkin [26] estimated social rates of
return for biomedical research, much of which is carried out
2. New products and processes based on recent
at universities and colleges. In addition, Project Hindsight
academic research
and the Traces study dealt with about 20 weapons systems
and five major innovations, and Gellman [7] provided rele-
vant data bearing on this topic.
A random sample of 76 major American firms
.
The research on which this paper is based was supported by
in seven manufacturing industries-information
a grant from the Division of Policy Research and Analysis
processing, electrical equipment. chemicals. instru-
of the National Science Foundation. which of course IS not
go
responsible for the views expressed here. My thanks to
Leonard Lederman. who was the first to encourage me to
2
work on this project, and to Edward Denison, Rolf Piekarz,
By "recent". we mean recent in relation to the time when
and Eleanor Thomas for helpful comments. and to the 76
the innovation occurs. Some observers. particularly in the
add
firms that provided the basic data used in this paper. A
drug industry. have argued that 15 years is too short.
preliminary version of this paper was presented at the Na-
because it often takes longer than this for academic re-
tional Science Foundation at Economics Day at the Univer-
search to be applied. Our reason for using 15 years is to be
comma
sity of Pennsyivania. and at the 1988 annual meetings of the
very conservative. Results based on other time intervals
American Economic Association.
would. of course. be interesting and valuable.
3
For example. a dollar of benefits occurring 20 years hence
Research Policy 20 (1991) RPY00575
is worth now only about 3 cents if the interest rate equals
North-Holland
0.20.
0048-7333/90/$3.50 © 1990 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)
REQUEST
Author. please indicate
printer's errors in BLUE
author's changes in RED
E Manstieia Academic research and industrial innovation
Table 1
Percentage of new products and processes based on recent academic research. seven industries. United States. 1975-85
Industry
Percentage that could not have been
Percentage that were developed
developed (without substantial delay)
with very substantial aid
in the absence of recent academic research
from recent academic research
Products
Processes
Products
Processes
Information processing
11
11
17
16
Electrical
3
3
4
Chemical
4
4
4
Instruments
16
5
1
Drugs
27
29
17
8
Metals
13
12
9
9
Oil
1
1
1
1
Industry mean
11
9
8
6
Source: See section 2.
a Unweighted mean of industry figures.
ments. drugs, metals. and was chosen. 4 This
seems to be highest in the drug industry (which
sample accounts for about one-third of these in-
has an obvious interest in the large amounts of
dustries' total sales in 1985. Data were obtained
medical. biological, and pharmaceutical research
from each firm's top R&D executives concerning
carried out at universities) and lowest in the oil
the proportion of the firm's new products and
industry. To a considerable extent. these interin-
processes commercialized in 1975-85 that, accord-
dustry differences with respect to new products
(eleven
ing to these executives (and their staffs) could not
can be explained by differences among firms in
have been developed (without substantial delay) in
R&D intensity. A firm's percentage of new prod-
the absence of academic research carried out
ucts based in this way on recent academic research
within 15 years of the first introduction of the
seems to be directly related to the percentage of its
11
innovation. 5 As indicated in table 1, about
sales devoted to R&D. Holding R&D intensity
percent of these firms' new products and about 9
constant, interindustry differences are not statisti-
percent of their new processes could not have
been developed (without substantial delay) in the
absence of recent academic research. 6
5
While our initial requests for information and cooperation
The percentage of new products and processes
were made to the firms' chairmen. the respondents were
based in this way on recent academic research
often the top R&D executives who based their responses in
part on detailed data obtained from people at lower levels
of their organizations. (For further comments on the data.
4
The frame for this survey was the list of major firms in
see footnote 11.)
these industries in Business Week, 23 June, 1986. This list
By "substantial delay", we mean a delay of a year or
includes all firms spending over $1 million (or 1 percent of
more. Of course. it is always hard to rule out completely the
sales, if sales were at least $35 million) on R&D in 1985. A
possibility that. in the absence of the relevant academic
random sample of 76 of these firms was chosen. and data
research. industrial or government researchers might have
were obtained from all of them (sometimes after consider-
provided the necessary information: but according to the
able discussion and negotiation) through questionnaires and
firms, this would have been extremely unlikely for the
interviews. The number of firms included in each industry
innovations they included in this category. As pointed out
is: information processing, 25: electrical equipment. 14:
in section 5 below, they believe that, without the completion
chemicals. 15: metals. 6: instruments. 7; drugs. 6; oil. 3. An
of the academic research. it would have taken at least 9
attempt was made to allocate the sample optimally among
years longer, on the average, for these new products and
industries (that is, with sample size being proportional to
processes to have been introduced.
6
the total number in each industry times the relevant stan-
The figures in table 1 for each industry are weighted means
dard deviation). The sample size of 76 was chosen because
of the firm percentages, the weights being the 1985 sales of
it seemed large enough to result in the desired precision. See
the firms. The unweighted means of the firm percentages
Cochran (4, ch. 5]. The firms in our sample accounted for
tend to be higher than the weighted means in table 1. The
about one-third of the sales in the population of firms in
standard errors of the unweighted means are about 2 per-
these industries in 1985.
centage points.
IMPORTANT
1. Please correct the proofe carefully; the
for detecting errors rests with the author:
2
Restrict corrections to
leat verience with
3. Recheck all reference data
4. A charge will be made for extensive
Delete
E. Mansfield / Academic research and industrial innovation
cally significant. One of the most important rea-
sence of academic research. 9 For example,
sons why relatively &D-intensive firms are more
academic research often provides new theoretical
likely than others to carry out innovations based
and empirical findings and new types of instru-
on recent academic research is that they tend to be
mentation that are essential for the development
more closely abreast of such research.
of a new product. but does not provide the specific
In some cases, new products and processes
invention itself. Thus. academic studies by Profes-
could have been developed without the findings of
sors Kipping and Staudinger provided basic infor-
recent academic research. but it would have been
mation concerning organo-silicon chemistry which
much more expensive and time-consuming to do
laid the groundwork for industrial silicones. 10
so. 8 In table 1, such cases are designated as ones
where development occurred with very substan-
tial aid from recent academic research". About 8
3. Academic-research-based products and process-
percent of these firms' new products and about 6
es: Sales and savings
percent of their new processes during 1975-85 fell
into this category. Frequently, while it was techni-
While the previous section indicates that about
cally possible for the firm to have developed them
11 percent of the new products introduced in these
without the findings of recent academic research,
industries in 1975-85 could not have been devel-
it seemed economically undesirable to have at-
oped (without substantial delay) in the absence of
tempted it. Thus, in a practical sense. many of
recent academic research, it tells us nothing about
these innovations could not have been developed
the economic importance of these new products.
(without substantial delay) in the absence of re-
To help fill this gap, data were obtained from each
cent academic research.
firm concerning the 1985 sales of its new products
The percentages in table 1 are somewhat higher
first commercialized in 1982-85 that could not
than those based on Gellman's study [7] of 121
have been developed (without substantial delay) in
innovations occurring in these industries during
the absence of recent academic research. From
1953-73 in the United States, which indicated
these data, estimates were made of the total 1985
that about 7 percent were based on inventions
sales for all such new products first commercial-
conceived at universities. (Among innovations des-
ized in 1982-85 by all major firms in each of these
ignated as "radical breakthroughs", the per-
industries, the results being shown in table 2. 11
centage was 14 percent.) This would be expected
The total sales of such new products in 1985 in
since many innovations that are not based on
these seven industries seems to have been about
inventions conceived at universities could not be
$24 billion. Because there are large differences
developed (without substantial delay) in the ab-
among firms in the sample with regard to the 1985
sales of such new products. the estimated total
sales figures for individual industries contain large
7 Letting P, be the percentage of the ith firm's new products
sampling errors. Thus, although the drug, infor-
that could not have been developed (without substantial
delay) in the absence of academic research. and R, be the
ith firm's percentage of sales devoted to R&D in 1985, the
9
In the drug industry, table 1 shows that about 27 percent of
regression equation
the new products could not have been developed (without
P, = 7.11 + 2.18., (R² - 0.10).
substantial delay) in the absence of recent academic re-
search. This percentage is considerably higher than the
(2.73)
percentage of drug discoveries made by the universities.
where the /-statistic is shown in parentheses below the
According to / et al. [15] and Schwartzman [24], the
regression coefficient. Holding R, constant. both industry
latter figure may have been 10 or 15 percent. As noted in
dummy variables and firm size (as measured by 1985 sales)
the text. the reason why the figure in table 1 is higher than
are statistically non-significant.
the latter figure is that academic research often results in
8
Frequently, academic research results in new techniques
findings that are necessary but not sufficient for the dis-
that enable scientists and engineers in firms and elsewhere
covery or improvement of a drug. Industrial R&D must be
to carry out R&D in particular areas more cheaply, quickly,
carried out to extend. supplement. and focus the findings of
or accurately. For example, high resolution nuclear mag-
the academic R&D. (In addition, of course. some of the
netic resolution spectroscopy, which was based on research
differences may be due to sampling errors, which are dis-
at Stanford and Harvard Universities. has become indis-
cussed in footnote 34.)
pensable in many chemical laboratories.
10 Jewkes, Sawers and Stillerman [8, pp. 296-299].
Mansfield
4
E. Mansfield / Academic research and industrial innovation
mation processing, and electrical equipment in-
Turning to new processes. data were obtained
dustries seem to have the largest sales of new
from each firm in our sample concerning the
products of this sort. these differences could be
savings during 1985 from new processes first com-
due in substantial measure to sampling errors.
mercialized in 1982-85 that could not have been
Given our objectives. the important figures are the
developed (without substantial delay) in the ab-
seven-industry totals ($24 billion and $17.1 bi-
sence of recent academic research. From these
llion) which. although they have substantial sam-
data. estimates were made of the total savings
pling errors. are sufficiently precise to be useful.
during 1985 from such new processes for all major
(Note too that these totals are quite consistent
firms in each industry. 13 The seven-industry total
with McGraw-Hill [10] data.
was about $7.2 billion. as shown in Table 2. The
information processing industry seemed to have
11 To make this estimate, we muluplied the number of major
greater savings than the other industries, but the
firms in each industry by the mean 1985 sales of such
sampling errors in the figures for individual in-
products of the firms in the sample. A major firm is defined
dustries are very large. The important figures are
here as one that is big enough to be included in the Business
the seven-industry totals ($7.2 billion and $11.3
Week list cited in footnote 4. Many of the firms went to a
considerable amount of trouble to provide reasonably accu-
billion) which. while they contain substantial sam-
rate data. For other firms. the data are rough, but we tried
pling errors. are accurate enough to be useful.
in a variety of ways to make sure that the executives had
what seemed to be a solid basis for their estimates. Non-
etheless, data of this sort have obvious limitations, and
4. Time lags between academic research and in-
should be treated with appropriate caution.
12
dustrial innovation
The results in tables 1 and 2 seem to be quite consistent
with McGraw-Hill's survey of business plans for research
and development expenditures [10], which provides data for
To understand the relationship between
five of our seven industries. In its 1982 survey, McGraw-Hill
academic research and industrial innovation, we
asked the respondents what percentage of their 1985 sales
need data regarding the length of the time lags
would be in new products introduced for the first time in
1982-85. If this percentage for the kth industry is Lk, if the
between academic research findings and the com-
kth industry's 1985 sales equal Mₖ, if the percentage of
mercialization of the innovations based on these
new products in the kth industry that could not have been
findings. Information concerning these time lags
developed (without substantial delay) in the absence of
was obtained from the firms in our sample. For
recent academic research is Nₖ, and if the total sales during
each firm's new products and processes intro-
into
1985 of new products commercialized in 1982-85 that
duced in 1975-85 that could not have been devel-
could not have been developed (without substantial delay)
in the absence of recent academic research is Yₖ:
oped (without substantial delay) in the absence of
recent academic research. data were obtained con-
in
Inserting our estimates of Nₖ
table
1
this
cerning the mean time interval between the rele-
equation.
together with
estimates of Lk and the actual
vant academic research finding and the first com-
values of Mₖ, we find that the resulting estimates of Yₖ for
mercial introduction of the product or process. If
these five industries are close to our estimates of Yₖ. The
more than one such research finding was required
differences generally can be attributed to sampling errors.
for the development of the innovation, this time
The McGraw-Hill data cannot be used to check our
results for the drug and information processing industries,
interval was measured from the year when the last
because these data are not available for them. To obtain
of these findings was obtained. 14
data concerning Lk for these two industries, we contacted
leading firms in each industry, which provided us with
rough estimates. For the information processing industry,
the resulting estimate of Yₖ is reasonably similar to our
13 To make this estimate. we multiplied the number of major
estimate of Yₖ. But in the drug industry, it is much lower
firms in each industry by the mean 1985 savings from such
than our estimate of Yₖ. According to some leading R&D
processes of the firms in the sample. For some firms, these
executives in the drug industry, this is because our estimate
savings data, like the sales data discussed in footnote 11,
of Lk for this industry is too low. But if this is not the case,
are rough. Our comments at the end of footnote 11 apply to
and if our estimate of Yₖ for this industry is too high, our
these data as well.
14
final results will not be affected very much. For example,
Because not all of the firms could provide data of this sort,
even if this estimate were double what it should be, the
and because others sometimes could only approximate these
social rate of return in table 4 would be 26 percent. which is
dates, the results contain errors. but the averages in table 3
not very different from the figure of 28 percent given now.
should be reasonably accurate.
Mc-Graw-Hill's
E. Mansfield / Academic research and industrial innovation
5
Table 2
Estimated sales of new products based on recent academic research and estimated savings from new processes based on recent
academic research. seven industries. United States. 1985 a
Sales or savings
Innovations that could
Innovauons that were
not have been developed
developed with very
(without substantial
substantial aid
delay) in the absence
from recent
of recent academic
academic research
research
Total 1985 sales by major firms of new products
first commercialized in 1982-85 and based on
recent academic research:
Billions of dollars
24.0
17.1
Percent of total sales of major firms
3.0%
2.1%
Total 1985 savings by major firms due to new processes
first commercialized in 1982-85 and based on recent
academic research:
Billions of dollars
7.2
11.3
Percent of total costs of major firms
1.0%
1.6%
Source: See section 3.
a The seven industries that are included are listed in table 1.
As shown in table 3, the mean time lag in these
innovations that could not have been developed
industries was about 7 years. 15 In general, it
(without substantial delay) in the absence of re-
appears that the time lag tends to be longer in
cent academic research.
larger firms, which is consistent with the view that
It is interesting to note that Gellman [7] found
development often takes longer in larger firms.
almost precisely the same average lag for
Also, some small firms are formed to commercial-
academic-research-based innovations in 1953-73
ize the results of academic research. When size of
(his average was 7.2 years). Also, an analysis of
firm is held constant, the average lag tends to be
Gellman's data indicates that academic-research-
greater in the metals industry than in the others,
based innovations tend to be carried out by much
but the sample size in this industry is rather small,
smaller firms than other innovations. Whereas
so this finding should be viewed with considerable
about 20 percent of other innovations were carried
caution. Letting Dᵢ be the mean time lag (in years)
out by firms with under 100 employees, almost 60
for the ith firm,
percent of these innovations were carried out by
D₁ = 5.72 + 0.38S, + 5.68Y, (R² 0.30),
such small firms, some of which were probably
(1)
established to exploit the relevant academic re-
(2.25) (2.95)
search. 17
where Sᵢ is the 1985 sales (in billions of dollars) of
the ith firm and Y, is a dummy variable that
17 Of course, one should bear in mind that Gellman's data are
equals 1 if the ith firm is a metals firm and zero
in many regards not comparable with ours. Besides the
otherwise. 16
differences pointed out in the last paragraph of section 2. it
For each firm's new products and processes
is worth noting that. whereas the lag can be longer than 15
years for innovations in Gellman's sample, this cannot be
introduced in 1975-85 that were developed with
the case in ours, because we are concerned entirely with
very substantial aid from recent academic re-
innovations based on recent academic research. Also, in this
search, similar sorts of data were obtained. As
comparison (but not in that in the last paragraph of section
shown in table 3, the average lag for these innova-
2), his data pertain to all industries. not just to those
tions was 6.4 years, which is close to our result for
included here. Nonetheless, it is reassuring to find that his
results are so close to ours.
Note too that there is no contradiction between our
15 The standard error of each of the overall means in table 3 is
finding here that academic-research-based innovations tend
about 0.6 years.
to be carried out by small firms and our findings in foot-
16 In equation (1), the r-statistics are shown in parentheses
note 7. The latter are based entirely on data for major
below the regression coefficients.
firms.
Delete
without
6
E. Mansfield / Academic research and industrial innovation
5. The social rate of return from academic re-
Table 3
search: The basic model
Average time lag between a recent academic research finding
and the first commercial introduction of a new product or
process based on this finding. seven industries. 1975-85
To calculate the social rate of return from the
investment in academic research, we must com-
Industry
Innovations that
Innovations that
could not have
pare the stream of social benefits if this invest-
were developed
been developed
with very sub-
ment takes place with what it would have been
/ substan-
stantial aid from
without this investment. holding constant the
tial delay) in the
recent academic
amount invested in non-academic research. In
absence of recent
research (mean
other words, we are interested in what would
academic research
number of years)
(mean number
happen if the resources devoted to academic re-
of years)
search were withdrawn-and not allowed to do
the same or similar work elsewhere. 18 Specifically,
Information
processing
7.0
6.2
suppose that all academic research were to be
Electrical
5.3
4.9
terminated permanently at the end of year t - 1.
Chemical
6.8
7.3
Without the investment in academic research in
Instruments
4.2
4.2
year t, the findings of this research (on which new
Drugs
8.8
10.3
Metals
9.8
5.7
products and processes are based) would not be
Oil *
N.A.
N.A.
available, thus preventing or delaying the develop-
ment and introduction of the new products and
Industry meanᵇ
7.0
6.4
processes based on these findings. According to
Source: See section 4.
a
the firms in our sample, it would have taken at
Reliable data could not be obtained for a sufficiently large
least 9 years longer, on the average, for the new
number of innovations to allow us to present figures for this
industry.
products and processes in tables 1-3 (that were
b Unweighted mean of industry figures.
based on academic research) to have been intro-
duced. But since estimates of this sort obviously
are subject to large errors, we make the more
investment in academic research in year t. This is
conservative assumption that it would have taken
an incremental rate of return, since it is the rate of
8 years for this to occur. As we shall see, our
return from only the final installment of the total
findings change relatively little, even if we assume
investment required to bring forth the relevant
that this average delay is much less (for example, 3
academic research findings. Absent the investment
years).
in year i, the findings of this research would not
The social rate of return from the investment in
have been produced (without considerable delays),
academic research in year I is the interest rate that
but this investment is not the total investment
makes the present value in year t of the extra
required to elicit these findings. Because of the
social benefits due to the earlier introduction of
cumulative nature of science, this total investment
these new products and processes equal to the
may have extended over decades or centuries.
Nonetheless, for policy-makers who must decide
how much to invest next year in academic re-
18 Note that we focus on the rate of return from the entire
search. this incremental rate of return is of primary
investment in academic research, not the rate of return
significance. Past investments in academic re-
from an extra dollar spent on academic research. While the
search are sunk costs, and the social rate of return
latter rate of return is of great significance, we cannot
from next year's investment is what counts.
estimate it with the existing data. Our objective is not to
allocate the growth in output among various contributing
To calculate this rate of return. we assume,
factors, as in Edward Denison's pioneering work (for exam-
based on the average time interval in table 3, that
pie, Denison [5]). Instead. it is to estimate the extent of the
the new products and processes made possible by
social benefits which would have been forgone in the ab-
the investment in academic research in year I are
sence of recent academic research, which obviously is a
introduced 7 years later (that is, in year t', where
polar
extreme. In interpreting the results, it is important that
this be borne in mind (see section 7). For interesting discus-
= t + 7). The social benefits from the innova-
sions of other relevant considerations, see Kendrick [9]) and
tions commercialized in year t' that are based on
Neison (21).
academic research in year I are assumed to con-
0,note
Delet
E. Mansfieid / Academic research and industrial innovation
assumption is even more conservative.
40
The reason why the social benefits stop in year
INSUAL SOCIAL
OR COST
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR
1'+7 is that we make the conservative assumption
30
that. in the absence of academic research. the
20
relevant research findings would have been ob-
tained (through industrial. government. or other
AVERAGE SOCIAL
10
BENEFIT 1 M FIRST FOUR YEARS
COMMERCIALIZATION
research) in time to permit the introduction of the
new products and processes based on these find-
O
ings in year r'+8-that is, 8 years after they
would have been introduced if the investment in
-6 -4 -2 O 2 4 6 8 10 12
academic research in year I had been made. Hence,
YEAR
THE FIRST COMMERCIALIZATION OF THE
after year 1'+7, there are no social benefits in
INNOVATION OCCURS IN YEAR o
excess of those that would have accrued without
Fig. 1. Annual social benefit or cost. by year, from first
academic research in year t. 20 Note once again
commercialization of innovation. mean for 53 industrial in-
novations. Source: Foster Associates [6], Mansfield et al. [13],
that the firms in our sample regard this assump-
and Nathan Associates [17].
tion of a 8-year delay as being conservative (that
is, on the low side). 21
Thus, based on the very conservative assump-
tinue up to year r'+7 (and no longer) at their
tions described in this section, if we want to
average annual level in the first four years after
estimate the social rate of return from the annual
commercialization, and to be zero before year t'.
investment in academic research during 1975-78,
This, as explained in the following paragraphs, is a
we must find the value of i which satisfies the
very conservative assumption.
following equation:
Figure 1 shows the average annual stream of
social benefits and costs for the 53 industrial
innovations studied in Mansfield et al. [14], Foster
X 1 + 1 + . . . + 1
Associates [6], and Nathan Associates [17], the
three principal sources of data on this topic. 19
(2)
For the innovations based on academic research in
year t, we are replacing the time form of social
where C is the annual investment in academic
benefits and costs in fig. 1 with the dotted line
research during 1975-78, and X is the annual
shown there. This dotted line underestimates the
social benefit from this investment.
average social benefits in the years after the com-
mercialization of the innovation, as well as the
social costs (due to investment in applied R&D,
plant and equipment, and startup activities) prior
20 This assumes that the average social benefit during the first
to year t'. On balance, this a very conservative
four years after commercialization is about the same if the
assumption, if the time form of social benefits
innovation is delayed 8 years as if it is not delayed. Whether
(savings from new processes, profits from new
or not this is true will vary from case to case, but since
products, and benefits to those other than the
benefits 8 years or more after commercialization are so
innovator) and costs is at all similar to that of the
heavily discounted, the results are not influenced much by
this assumption. Moreover, it is a conservative assumption
53 innovations included in fig. 1. If the interest
so long as the delay does not increase the annual social
rate is 0.25, the discounted net social benefits
benefit from the innovation. which seems unlikely in most
based on this assumption are about half of their
cases.
21
actual value. If the interest rate is lower, this
In considerable part, this long delay occurred because in-
dustrial researchers often had little or no incentive to do the
kinds of work that academic researchers carried out.
19 Three of Nathan's innovations had to be omitted because of
Whereas the academic research underlying the innovations
incomplete data. A fourth was excluded because the timing
in tables 1-3 was of interest to academic researchers (and
of the social benefits from this innovation was affected
to the federal agencies that financed much of it), it often
dramatically-and very atypically-by the outbreak of an
seemed to be of little or no direct use to firms; and even
epidemic. The costs and benefits in fig. 1 are in constant
when it did seem to be of use, there often was no effective
dollars.
means for the firms to appropriate the benefits.
8
E. Mansfield / Academic research and industrial innovation
6. Academic research during 1975-78: Estimated
recent academic research. if one accepts the very
rate of return
conservative assumption in section 5-that is, if
we assume that the annual social benefits equal
To solve equation (2) for 1. we need the values
their average annual level in the first four years
of C and X. With regard to C, we use the world-
after commercialization.
wide investment in academic research. since
Under this very conservative assumption. X
academic science is in many respects an interna-
equals the mean value of B(t') during 1982-85.
tional enterprise, and firms in all countries draw
on the findings of foreign as well as domestic
academic research. OECD data and Campbell [2,3]
are used to estimate the annual investment during
24 For a description of the OECD data. see OECD [22]. Data
1975-78 in academic research (other than the
for 1975-78 were provided by Allison Young of OECD.
social sciences and psychology) in the OECD
For the United States. the OECD figures exceed the NSF
figures. because they include capital spending and federally
countries and the Soviet Union (which, according
funded research and development centers administered by
to the National Science Foundation, 22 carry out
universities. Since work by the centers is not included in our
almost all of the world's scientific and technologi-
definition of academic research. the R&D performance of
cal activities). Because of the difficulties in dis-
these centers is deducted from the OECD figures.
tinguishing R&D from teaching (and for other
To estimate academic research expenditures in the Soviet
reasons), the resulting estimate of C (which is
Union. we use Campbell's figures (3) for 1975-78 and his
dollar-ruble conversion ratio for 1976 and 1977. See
expressed in 1985 dollars 23) is rough. 24 For-
Campbell [2].
tunately, our results are not very sensitive to rea-
There are several important problems in these data. For
sonable variations in this estimate.
one thing, unsponsored research by U.S. faculty members is
To estimate X, the first thing to note is that,
omitted. According to the National Science Foundation
since there is a 7-year lag, the investment in
[19], about 16 percent of engineering research in universities
was unsponsored in 1978, as well as about 22 percent of
academic research during 1975-78 results in new
research in the physical sciences, 13 percent in the life
products and processes commercialized in 1982-
sciences, and 16 percent in the environmental sciences.
85. Let b₁ⱼ be the social benefit during year t'
Thus, to take account of unsponsored research, the Ameri-
(where j = 0,...,3) from the ith new product or
can figure should be increased. Also, some spending by
process (based on academic research) commercial-
states on research at state universities, if it is not designated
as research. is omitted. On the other hand, Japan counts all
ized in year t'. If we define B(t') as E,E³,-ob,,/4,
of its university teaching budget as academic research,
where the first summation is over all of the new
which means that its figure for university R&D is too high.
products and processes commercialized in year t'
See Science, 2 October 1987. According to experts in the
that were based on academic research, it follows
field, there is no reason to believe that the OECD figures
for all member countries as a whole are biased downward.
that B(t') is the sum of the social benefits accru-
Martin and Irvine [16] have made a careful study of
ing annally from the new products and processes
academic research financed by government in France,
commercialized in year t' that were based on
Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom,
annually
and the United States. Including estimates of unsponsored
research by faculty members, they estimate the amount that
National Science Foundation [18, p. 4]. According to the
was spent on academic research financed by general univer-
National Science Foundation [18, p. 278] about 11 percent
sity funds and academic, separately budgeted, research in
of academic R&D in the United States in 1975-78 went for
these SIX countries in 1975. Since these countries account
the social sciences, psychology, and other research not
for about 86 percent of all OECD academic research,
concerned with engineering or the physical, environmental,
according to the OECD data, a reasonable estimate of the
mathematical, or life sciences. In other countries like Japan,
OECD total academic research supported by government in
this percentage may be higher [18, p. 206], but to be
1975 is their figure divided by 0.86. Including the Soviet
conservative, we assume that the U.S. percentage is true in
Union, the total (excluding psychology, social sciences,
all countries. This may tend to bias the estimated rate of
vocational studies, and humanities) provides no indication
return downward.
that our estimate of C is on the low side.
23 Like the National Science Foundation. we use the GNP
Nonetheless, even if our estimate of C were 25 percent
deflator to convert to 1985 dollars. As pointed out in
too low, our results would not be changed. except in detail.
Mansfield [11], this deflator has important weaknesses, but
The social rate of return is 25 percent (rather than 28
for present purposes it should be good encugh. While it
percent, as shown in table 4). Neglecting the benefits to
may result in some downward bias in C, this bias will be
users from new products, the social rate of return is 8
too small to affect the results materially.
percent (rather than 10 percent, as shown in table 4).
E. Mansfield / Academic research and industrial innovation
9
That is,
As is well known, the social benefits from a
1985
1985
3
new process consist of the savings to the innovator
X = Σ B(t')/4 = Σ Σ j)/16,
plus whatever net benefits accrue to others. and
i'-1982
1982
the social benefits from a new product consist of
(3)
the increased gross profits (cash flow adjusted for
effects on displaced products) of the innovator
where B(t', j) = E,b,,. (That is, B(t', j) is the
plus the net benefits to users. 26 To make a con-
sum of the social benefits in year i'+ 1 accruing
servative estimate of B₈₅, we begin by adding the
from the new products and processes commercial-
savings from the new processes in the left-hand
ized in year t' that were based on recent academic
column of table 2 to the gross profits (cash flow
research.) Under this conservative assumption, the
adjusted for effects on the profits of displaced
sum of the social benefits during 1985 of all of the
products) from the new products in the left-hand
Donot
new products and processes first commercialized
column of table 2. 27 However. this figure must be
in 1982-85 that were based on recent academic
adjusted for three reasons. First, we have assumed
capitalize
research is:
that the investment in academic research resulted
1985
in no social benefits from the new products and
B₈₅ = Σ 1985
(4)
processes developed "with substantial aid" from
we
i'-1982
recent academic research. In fact, it seems rea-
sonable to assume that at least half of these new
Assuming for simplicity that the effects of j on
products and processes would not have been de-
B(t', i) are independent of those of t' on
comma
veloped (without substantial delay) in the absence
B(t',
can approximate X by B₈₅/4.
not
of academic research. Thus, half of the savings
(Note that X, like C, is in 1985 dollars.)
from the processes and gross profits from the
period
products in the right-hand column of table 2 are
added to the above figure. 28
25 Put differently, we assume that the changes over time
Second, we have assumed that only American
(during the first 4 years) in the sum of the social benefits
firms enjoy savings and profits from innovations
accruing from the new products and processes commercial-
based on academic research. Even in the 1960s,
ized in year t' (that were based on recent academic re-
search) are the same, regardless of whether 1' 1982, 1983,
when America was far more dominant technologi-
1984, or 1985. In other words, if we constructed an annual
cally than in 1982-85, the National Science
social benefits curve (like that in fig. 1) for the sum of all
innovations commercialized in 1982. its slope (for number
of years=0,....,3) is assumed to be the same as for innova-
26 For a much more detailed and complete discussion of the
tions commercialized in 1983, 1984, or 1985. This assump-
delete
measurement of the social benefits from a new process or
tion seems to be a reasonable first approximation. Without
product, see Mansfield et al. [13].
much more detailed data (which do not presently exist),
27
parenthesis
As explained in Mansfield et al. [13], gross profit-that is,
some assumption of this sort must be made.
profit without depreciation being deducted-is the relevant
For a simple case where the effects of j are independent
concept here. To estimate gross profit, we multiplied the
of those of i', take the situation where B(f',j)-f(()+
estimated 1985 sales of the products that could not have
18(j). Under these circumstances, it follows from equations
been developed without recent academic research by the
(3) and (4) that
average ratio of gross profit (net profit plus depreciation) to
X-j+₈,
(5)
sales in 1985 in the relevant firms, the latter ratio being
obtained from the firms' accounting records. Next, a rough
and
adjustment was made to allow for the fact that the new
B₈₅-4(j+₈),
(6)
products' profits were partly at the expense of older prod-
where
ucts (sold by other firms as well as by the innovators) they
partially or entirely displaced [13]. Based on interviews with
1985
j Σ f(t')/4
company executives. the resulting gross profit figures are
i'-1982
reasonable, but rough.
28
Here too we assume that there would be an 8-year delay in
and
the absence of academic research. To see what the effects
3
would be if we made the even more extreme assumption
that academic research resulted in no social benefits from
j-0
the new products and processes developed "with substan-
Obviously, B₈₅/4, which is the point made in the text.
tial aid" from recent academic research, see table 4.
10
E. Mansfield / Academic research and industrial innovation
Foundation [20] estimated that American firms
ratio seems to be too low. 32 Nonetheless, we
carried out only slightly more than half of the
make the seemingly conservative assumption that
major innovations in the leading OECD countries.
this ratio prevails for new products. 33 For new
Based on this and more recent evidence. 29 it
processes. we ignore social benefits other than to
appears that a conservative estimate of the
the innovator.
worldwide savings and gross profits in 1985 from
The resulting estimate of X. together with our
new products and processes first commercialized
estimate of C. implies that the estimated social
in 1982-85 that were based on recent academic
rate of return- that is. the value of i in equation
research would be double the American figure
(2) 28 percent. Of course, the roughness of
obtained in the previous paragraph. (Note that,
this figure should be emphasized. but it is note-
even if we were to assume that they were only 1.5
worthy that the estimated rate of return is so high,
times the American figure, our results would
given the many ways in which it has been biased
change relatively little.)
downward. Among other things, we have ignored:
Third, we have assumed that new products and
(1) the social benefits from innovations based on
processes based on recent academic research result
academic research in all industries other than the
in no social benefits other than to the innovator,
seven in table 1; (2) the increases in annual social
which is ridiculously conservative. 30 For the
benefits from innovations based on academic re-
product innovations in Mansfield et al. [13], the
search after their first four years of commerciali-
benefit to users during the first four years after
zation; and (3) the social benefits from innova-
their introduction was about eight times as great
tions based on academic research findings that are
as the gross profit from these products, even
commercialized more than 15 years after the find-
though in some cases we must ignore the effects
ings or that are introduced by non-major firms.
on the profits of displaced products, thus reducing
Moreover, as shown in table 4, the estimated
the ratio of benefits to users to gross profit. 31
rate of return is 23 percent, even if we exclude all
(For the product innovations in Foster Associates
social benefits from innovations developed with
[6]) and Nathan Associates [17], the ratio was even
substantial aid from academic research. Going to
higher.) Based on a small random sample of
an even more conservative extreme, the figure is
academic-research-based innovations, this 8-to-1
32
Because the direct estimation of the benefits of an innova-
tion to users is a very laborious and expensive process, we
have had to limit this part of our study to ten new products
in these industries that were based on recent academic
29
According to the National Science Foundation (18, p. 203]
research. These products were randomly chosen. In every
the United States carried out 39 percent of the industrial
case, the ratio of the benefits to users to the innovator's
R&D in these industries in seven countries (Japan,
gross profit (in the first four years after the product's
Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Italy, and
introduction) exceeded 8. These results, taken in combina-
the United States). Since many countries, including the
tion with the findings of Mansfield et al. [13], Foster
Soviet Union, are omitted. the percent of world R&D must
Associates [6], and Nathan Associates [17], which provide
be well below 39 percent. According to Gellman's data [7],
detailed estimates for about 40 new products. seem to
the proportion of innovations based on academic research
provide substantial evidence that the 8-to-1 ratio is con-
in other countries (Canada, France, Germany, Japan. and
servative.
33
the United Kingdom) was an high as in the United States,
It would be preferable, of course, to make direct estimates
and the average time lag was not significantly different.
of the benefits to users, rather than to make crude estimates
30 For a description of methods to estimate the benefits to
based on this ratio, but existing resources do not permit
users, see Mansfield et al. [13]. Even without the work of
such an ambitious undertaking. In table 4. it is shown that
the past decade or so, it is obvious that the exclusion of the
the estimated social rate of return is 10 percent even if the
benefits to industrial and individual users results in a gross
benefits to users are assumed to be zero. Thus, even if this
under-estimate of the social benefits, since the benefits of
ratio were too high, the rate of return would still be sub-
new products are passed on (in substantial measure) to
stantial.
users (including consumers).
Note too that we ignore the benefits to imitators of new
31
This pertains to the first 4 years after commercialization,
products based on recent academic research. as well as the
which is the period used here to estimate benefits. One
benefits to customers of firms that carried out process
reason why the ratio is relatively high is that profits often
innovations based on recent academic research. These be-
are lower than in later years.
nefits can, of course, be considerable.
products
E. Mansfield / Academic research and industrial innovation
11
Table 4
presents, apparently for the first time, data con-
Estimated rate of return from worldwide investment in
cerning the percentage of new products and
academic research in 1975-78. based on alternative assump-
tions
processes that. according to the innovating firms.
could not have been developed (without substan-
Assumption
Rate of return
tial delay) in the absence of recent academic re-
(%)
search. Since these data were obtained from key
Including half of innovations developed
technical and managerial personnel of the innovat-
with substantial aid from academic
research
ing firms, they merit attention. although they, like
Including estimated benefits to users
other such survey data, are rough and contain
from new products
28
sampling errors.
Excluding benefits to users from
Our findings suggest that about one-tenth of
new products
10
the new and processes commercialized
Excluding all innovations developed with
during 1975-85 in the information processing,
substantial aid from academic research
electrical equipment, chemicals, instruments,
Including estimated benefits to users
drugs, metals, and oil industries could not have
from new products
23
Excluding benefits to users from
been developed (without substantial delay) without
new products
5
recent academic research. The average time lag
between the conclusion of the relevant academic
Source: See section 6.
research and the first commercial introduction of
the innovations based on this research was about 7
10 percent (not excluding all social benefits from
years (and tended to be longer for large firms than
innovations developed with substantial aid from
for small ones). A very tentative estimate of the
academic research) or 5 percent (excluding all
social rate of return from academic research dur-
social benefits from innovations developed with
ing 1975-78 is 28 percent, a figure that is based
substantial aid from academic research), even if
on crude (but seemingly conservative) calculations
we ignore all social benefits to users from new
and that is presented only for exploratory and
products based on recent academic research. 34
discussion purposes. It is important that this fig-
ure be treated with proper caution and that the
many assumptions and simplifications on which it
7. Conclusions
is based (as well as the definition of a social rate
of return used here) be borne in mind. While
Because the results of academic research are so
interesting, it is by no means a full or satisfactory
widely disseminated and their effects are so funda-
solution to the long-standing-and extraordin-
mental, subtle, and widespread, it is difficult to
arily difficult-problem of evaluating the payoff
identify and measure the links between academic
to society from academic research. It is at best a
research and industrial innovation. This paper
very crude beginning.
Nonetheless, our results provide convincing evi-
34
dence that, particularly in industries like drugs,
There are sampling errors in the estimated rates of return in
table 4. Since our sample was randomly chosen, rough
instruments, and information processing, the con-
estimates can be made of these sampling errors. Because
tribution of academic research to industrial in-
there is considerable variation among firms and because the
novation has been considerable. Needless to say,
sample size in some industries is quite small. the figures for
this does not mean that other inputs like industrial
individual industries in table 2 contain very large sampling
errors. However, what is important here is the sum of the
research, plant and equipment, labor and manage-
industry figures for savings from new processes plus gross
ment have not been important as well. But whereas
profits from new products. If we include half of the innova-
the contribution of these other inputs generally is
tions developed with substantial aid from academic re-
taken for granted, the role of academic research
search, as well as the benefits to users from new products.
sometimes has been regarded as far more ques-
the probability is 0.975 that the rate of return exceeds 15
tionable. Our results, while they do not address
percent, based on the assumptions in the previous section.
Note too that the estimates by Mushkin [26] of the social
the very difficult question of how to allocate the
rate of return from biomedical research are about 50 per-
social returns between academic and industrial
cent, which exceed those in table 4.
research, indicate that, without recent academic
12
E. Mansfield / Academic research and industrial innovation
research, there would have been a substantial re-
Technological Innovation, Report to the National Science
duction in social benefits. This really is what the
Foundation (1976).
estimated social rate of return. as defined above. is
[8] J. Jewkes. D. Sawers and R. Stillerman. The Sources of
Invention. 2nd edn. (W.W. Norton. New York. 1969).
saying.
[9] J. Kendrick. Total Factor Productivity-What It Does
Delet
To prevent misunderstanding, it may be
and Does Not Measure. Seminar on Science. Technology,
worthwhile to conclude by recognizing that the
and Economic Growth. OECD. Paris. 1989.
comm
rationale for academic research extends far be-
[10] McGraw-Hill. Business Plans for Research and Develop-
ment Expenditures. annual survey.
yond the sorts of narrowly defined economic be-
[11] Edwin Mansfield. Price Indexes for R and D Inputs.
nefits considered here. Obviously, knowledge con-
1969-83. Management Science (January 1987).
cerning the universe is important for its own sake,
[12] Edwin Mansfield. Basic Research and Productivity In-
and the education of students. which occurs in
crease in Manufacturing, American Economic Review 70
many academic research projects, is socially im-
(December 1980).
[13] Edwin Mansfield et al., Social and Private Rates of Re-
portant as well. Nonetheless. it is interesting to
turn from Industrial Innovations. Quarterly Journal of
find that, even if academic research is judged in
Economics (May 1977).
these relatively restricted terms, its role seems to
[14] Edwin Mansfield et al.. The Production and Application of
be substantial. 35
New Industrial Technology (W.W. Norton, New York,
1977).
[15] Edwin Mansfield et al., Research and Innovation in the
Modern Corporation (W.W. Norton, New York, 1971).
References
[16] Ben Martin and John Irvine, An International Comparison
of Government Funding of Academic and Academically Re-
[1] B. Bartocha, F. Narin and C. Stone, Traces-Technology
lated Research, University of Sussex (July 1986).
in Retrospect and Critical Events in Science, in: M. Cetron
[17] Nathan Associates. Net Rates of Return on Innovations,
and J. Goldhar (eds.), The Science of Managing Organized
Report to the National Science Foundation (July 1978).
Technology (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1970).
[18] National Science Foundation. Science Indicators: The 1985
[2] R. Campbell, Reference Source on Sovier R and D Statis-
Report (Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.,
tics, Report to the National Science Foundation, 1978.
1985).
[3] R. Campbell, Soviet R and D Statistics, 1970-1983, Report
[19] National Science Foundation. Activities of Science and
to the National Science Foundation (1983).
Engineering Faculty in Universities and 4-Year Colleges:
[4] W. Cochran, Sampling Techniques (Wiley, New York,
1978-79 (Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.,
1953).
1981).
[5] E. Denison, Trends in American Economic Growth, 1929-
[20] National Science Foundation, Science Indicators 1976
82 (The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1985).
(Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1977).
[6] Foster Associates, A Survey on Net Rates of Return on
[21] Richard Neison, Institutions Supporting Technical Ad-
Innovations, Report to the National Science Foundation
vance in Industry, American Economic Review 76 (May
(May 1978).
1986).
[7] Gellman Associates, Indicators of International Trends in
[22] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment, Selected Science and Technology Indicators, 1979-86
(OECD, Paris, 1986).
35 It should also be emphasized that our results do not rest on
[23] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
the so-called linear model of innovation, which assumes
ment, Gaps in Technology: Analytical Report (OECD, Paris,
that universities first perform basic research, the results of
1970).
which are transferred to industry, which in turn does the
[24] David Schwartzman. Innovation in the Pharmaceutical In-
development leading to the innovation. As is well known.
dustry (Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, 1976).
this linear model is often violated. For example, academic
[25] C. Sherwin and R. Isenson, First Interim Report on Project
research frequently occurs in response to R&D carried out,
Hindsight, Office of the Director of Defense Research and
and problems encountered, in industry. Our analysis in no
Engineering, Washington. D.C. (October 1966).
way assumes that the linear model is true. It is just as valid
[26]
Biomedical Research: Costs and Benefits
if the relevant academic research is in response to industrial
(Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 1979).
research.
Selma Mushkin
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
January 4, 1991
STATEMENT FROM D. ALLAN BROMLEY,
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Leon Lederman's report Science: End of the Frontier? raises important issues
that deserve, and are receiving, serious consideration. The view that activities of
individual scientists and engineers throughout the nation represent the backbone of
U.S. strength in science and technology is one that I have long shared. The anecdotal
evidence that Lederman has compiled emphasizes the fact that the number of such
investigators and the total of their requests for federal support of their research have
both grown more rapidly during the past decade than has the available funding. The
pain and concern expressed by the research community are very real.
However, it is important to note that overall support for academic research and
development has grown substantially -- from about $7 billion in 1968 (in 1988
dollars) to $13 billion in 1988, according to the Government-University-Industry
Research Roundtable. Within this total, federal support rose from $5 billion in 1968
(in 1988 dollars) to $8 billion in 1988. Funding for research and development at
America's colleges and universities has now reached 0.27 percent of the gross national
product, an all-time high.
The Bush Administration recognizes the vital contributions that individual and
small-group research makes to fundamental scientific understanding, economic growth,
an improved quality of life, enhanced national security, and the training of young
scientists and engineers for industry, government, and academia. The Administration
has therefore endorsed doubling the budget for-the National Science Foundation
within five years and has increased funding for research and development at the many
other federal agencies that support individual investigators.
The Administration is also taking other steps in this area. It is premature for
me to discuss the fiscal year 1992 budget, but support for individual investigators will
receive special attention in that budget.
At the same time, it is important to recognize that the recently concluded
budget agreement imposes spending caps on domestic discretionary funding that limit
spending growth. Nevertheless, there is widespread agreement in the Administration
and in the Congress that we, as a nation, are underinvesting in research and
development, and we will continue to strive for adequate support for individual and
small-group research.
public imagination. Following on the
nologies. Critics have downplayed it as
ESSAY
heels of consumer electronics, the se-
a technical advance that is limited to
quence of events seemed all too famil-
a narrow market. For many, the con-
iar. Invented in the U.S., semiconduc-
troversy has come to symbolize the
Technology and
tors spawned a vital American indus-
government's difficulty in developing a
try that captured a worldwide market.
coherent technology policy. Technical
competitiveness
In 1976, however, Japan launched the
feasibility, standards, market demand,
Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) pro-
military implications and the role of
gram. Ten years later the Japanese had
foreign industry are all hotly debated
captured 65 percent of the world mar-
issues. In addition, the HDTV contro-
ket for computer memory products.
versy has drawn attention to the fact
The lesson learned was a hard one:
that a solid manufacturing base is es-
even high-tech U.S. industry could be
sential to technological leadership. It
by B. R. Inman
devastated in short order by foreign
has also emphasized the close linkages
and Daniel F. Burton
competition. The decline of the U.S.
among several related technologies. As
semiconductor industry reaffirmed the
one government official stated, "The
fact that leading-edge product technol-
next generation of televisions is the
he once commanding U.S. advan-
ogy by itself is not enough; process
next generation of computers."
T
tage in technology has slipped
technology, world-class manufacturing
Taken together, these developments
away. The culprit? Internation-
capability and government-industry co-
have prompted recognition of the need
al competition. The consequence? U.S.
operation are also essential.
for a workable U.S. public policy frame-
Close on the tracks of the semicon-
work for technology. Although the de-
government and business relationships
have been fundamentally altered, with
ductor fiasco came the superconductor
bate is still unfolding, there is growing
breakthrough. The series of events that
awareness that action is essential in
major implications for U.S. science and
followed highlighted two key issues.
four areas: strengthening the U.S. man-
technology policy. Although the reper-
cussions are still being sorted out, the
First, these events demonstrated just
ufacturing base, upgrading the policy-
basic message is clear: when it comes
how quickly technical knowledge is dif-
making machinery for technology, re-
to technology, U.S. public policy can no
fused around the world. The finding at
building the technological infrastruc-
longer afford to be preoccupied with
the IBM laboratory in Switzerland set
ture and widening federal R&D efforts
off an international chain reaction of
to include more commercially relevant
basic research and military issues; eco-
nomic security and industrial competi-
intense verification efforts and new re-
technology. In each area, the need is
tiveness are also vital considerations.
search advances throughout Japan, the
clear; the means are less apparent.
Five technology stories illustrate the
U.S., Europe and China. Second, super-
The debate about technology and
changing public policy debate: consum-
conductors riveted U.S. government at-
competitiveness has enormous impli-
er electronics, semiconductors, super-
tention on one overriding issue: how to
cations for U.S. national security and
conductors, the FSX fighter airplane
translate basic research into products
economic growth. As such, it promis-
and high-definition television. Taken
and processes that yield the sought-af-
es to have a far-reaching impact not
together, they hold important lessons
ter military and economic benefits. The
only on the strategic objectives the na-
for U.S policymakers.
demise of the U.S. consumer electron-
tion pursues but also on the institu-
The decline of U.S. consumer elec-
ics and semiconductor industries was
tions that shape our policies. In the
tronics was the first shot across indus-
not lost on public officials.
past, U.S. policies have tended to im-
try's bow. American inventors pio-
In the spring of 1989 another techno-
pede rather than to assist efforts of
neered this field with such innovations
logical issue made headlines-the FSX
the private sector to bring new tech-
as the phonograph, radio broadcasting,
fighter. The debate revolved around
nology rapidly to market, because the
television receivers, the transistor, col-
a proposed joint venture between the
U.S. government has not addressed the
or television, portable radios and vid-
U.S. and Japan to produce a new tac-
commercialization of technology as a
eocassette recorders. Until 1970, Amer-
tical fighter based on General Dynam-
public policy issue. We can no longer af-
ican industry dominated the consum-
ics' F-16 aircraft. Critics feared it would
ford to ignore this issue. Arcane topics,
er electronics business. Since then, it
be a giveaway of American technol-
such as technical standards. patent law,
has lost virtually the entire market. The
ogy and would help Japan achieve its
R&D funding and intellectual property,
industry learned too late that techni-
long-standing goal of creating a civilian
that once were viewed as the respon-
cal breakthroughs must be relentless-
aerospace industry. Proponents argued
sibility of obscure bureaucrats will in-
ly followed up with manufacturing sys-
that it would actually keep Japan from
creasingly engage public officials at the
tems capable of high-quality, low-cost,
building its own plane and that the U.S.
highest levels. And government agen-
volume production. The federal gov-
would gain access to Japanese tech-
cies will have to be refocused to ad-
ernment contributed to the demise of
nology. Although a modified version of
dress the new priority of technology
the industry by allowing imports to
the agreement was eventually signed,
and competitiveness.
be dumped in the U.S. market while
the debate brought out a deeper policy
The broad contours of a responsive
foreign markets remained essentially
question: Should American economic
technology policy are beginning to take
closed to American producers.
interests be given as much weight as
shape. The challenge ahead is to imple-
If the collapse of consumer electron-
traditional security concerns in the for-
ment specific policies and programs
ics could be dismissed in some cir-
mulation of U.S. foreign policy?
that produce concrete results.
cles as a low-wage, commodity indus-
For the past two years, Washington
try without real importance to the U.S.
has been embroiled in a policy dispute
B. R. INMAN is president of Inman
economy, semiconductors could not.
over high-definition television. Backers
Associates. DANIEL F. BURTON is exec-
Semiconductors personified Silicon Val-
of HDTV hail it as the most significant
utive vice president of the Council on
ley high tech to many Americans, and
development since color television and
Competitiveness.
the trials of this industry captured the
think it will drive several related tech-
126
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN January 1991
Rx:
A Technology Policy
By B. R. INMAN, president of Inman Associates and member of the Executive Committee
of the Council on Competitiveness, and DANIEL F. BURTON, executive vice president
of the Council on Competitiveness.
T
he once commanding U.S. advantage in tech-
into products and processes that yield the sought-
nology has slipped away. The culprit? Inter-
after military and economic benefits.
national competition. The consequence? U.S.
In the spring of 1989 another technological issue
government and business relationships have been
made headlines-the FSX fighter. The debate re-
fundamentally altered, with major implications for
volved around a proposed joint venture between
U.S. science and technology policy. Although the
the U.S. and Japan to produce a new tactical fighter
repercussions are still being sorted out, the basic
based on General Dynamics' F-16 aircraft. Critics
message is clear: when it comes to technology, U.S.
feared it would be a giveaway of American technol-
public policy can no longer afford to be preoccu-
ogy and would help Japan achieve its long-standing
pied with basic research and military issues; eco-
goal of creating a civilian aerospace industry. Pro-
nomic security and industrial competitiveness are
ponents argued that it would actually keep Japan
also vital considerations.
from building its own plane and that the U.S. would
} The decline of U.S. consumer electronics was
gain access to Japanese technology. The debate
the first shot across the bow. American inventors
brought out a deep policy question: Should Ameri-
pioneered this field with such innovations as the
can economic interests be given as much weight as:
phonograph radio
traditions security concerns in the
ers, the transistor, color television, portable radios
U.S. foreign policy?
and videocassette recorders. Until 1970, Ameri
7
Finally, for the past two years, Washington has
can industry dominated the business. Since then, it
been embroiled in a dispute over definition
has lost virtually the entire market. The industry
television. The controversy symbolizes the govern
learned too late that technical breakthroughis must
ment's difficulty in developing a coherent technolo-
be followed up with manufacturing systems capa-
gy policy. The HDTV controversy also underscores
ble of high-quality, low-cost, volume production.
the fact that a solid manufacturing base is essentíal
If the collapse. of consumer electronics could be
to technological leadership.
dismissed as a low-wage, commodity industry with-
Taken together, these developments have prompt-
out real importance to the U.S. economy, semicon-
ed recognition of the need for a workable U.S. public
ductors could not. Semiconductors personified Sili-
policy framework for technology. Action is essen-
con Valley highttech to many Americans; and the
tial in four areas: strengthening the U.S. manufac-
trials of this industry captured the public imagina
turing base, upgrading the policy-making machin-
tion. Following on the heels of consumer electron-
ery for technology, rebuilding the technological in-
ics, the sequence of events seemed all too familiar.
frastructure and widening federal R&D efforts to
Invented in the U.S., semiconductors spawned a vi-
include more commercially relevant technology.
tal. American industry that captured a worldwide
The debate about tec chnology and competitiveness
market. In 1976, however, Japan launched the Very
has enormous implications for U.S. national securi-
Large Scale Integration (VLSI) program. Ten years
ty and economic growth. U.S. policies have tended
later the Japanese thad captured:65 percent of the
to impede rather than to assist efforts of the private
world market for computer memory products. The
sector to bring new technology rapidly to market,
decline of the U.S. semiconductor industry reaf-
because the U.S. government has not addressed the
firmed the fact that leading-edge product technol-
commercialization of technology as a public policy
ogy by itself is not enough; process technology,
issue. We can no longer afford to ignore this chal-
world-class manufacturing capability and govern-
lenge. Arcane topics, such as technical standards,
ment-industry cooperation are also essential.
patent law, R&D funding and intellectual property,
Close on the heels of the semiconductor fiasco
that once were viewed as the responsibility of ob-
came the superconductor breakthrough. The series
scure bureaucrats will increasingly engage public of-
of events that followed highlighted two key issues.
ficials at the highest levels. And government agen-
First, the incident demonstrated just how quickly
cies will have to be refocused to address the new
technical knowledge diffuses around the world.
priority of technology and competitiveness.
The finding at the IBM laboratory in Switzerland set
off an international chain reaction of intense verifi-
cation efforts and new research advances through-
SCIENTIFIC
out Japan, the U.S., Europe and China. Second, the
discovery riveted U.S. government attention on one
overriding issue: how to translate basic research
AMERICAN
THIS ADVERTISEMENT IS SPONSORED BY SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, INC., AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES, W.H. FREEMAN
AND COMPANY, SPEKTRUM DER WISSENSCHAFT, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN MEDICINE AND PRENSA CIENTIFICA, S.A.
Biodiversity
Biodiversity, as a topical concern, poses many problems that hinder efforts to bring order,
leadership and effective action toward solutions.
- Interpretation of meaning differs widely.
- Because it pervades the programs/missions of many agencies, the activities conducted
are diffuse and not coordinated.
- Because of disparate interpretations of definitions, there is neither a common 1)
understanding of substance, nor 2) agreement on technical/societal/economic importance.
Biodiversity has both scientific and economic components acting interdependently.
Scientifically, it spans the gamut from molecular biology to ecology and systematic biology.
In an economic context, biodiversity is integral to biotechnology, materials science,
pharmaceuticals, and a sustainable biosphere. This degree of complexity necessitates
treatment of biodiversity on its own as a science policy issue.
Writ large, biodiversity involves the following.
Direct Activities: -surveying/monitoring, -species/ecosystem management, -research, -
training, -protected areas (conservation), -germplasm banks.
Indirect Activities: -regulatory programs, -public education, -institution building, -
enforcement, -multi-purpose management (forestry, Bureau of Land Management, etc.), and
-museums
Based on the categories above, the reported federal expenditure on activities relevant to
biodiversity is very large (>$1.0 billion). Even with a 50% uncertainty, this would be a
major investment.
A significant problem is the inability to track exactly what is being accomplished, much less
to identify underfunded activities and specific needs.
Cooperative activities can be developed, with exciting results. For example NSF and US
AID are jointly supporting projects on biodiversity: NSF supports the participation of U.S.
scientists, while AID supports the participation of host country scientists. (Projects include:
ethnobotany/ethnopharmacology, biology of rare tropical species, etc.)
Current events
- NSF/AID/NCI(Fogarty International Center) workshop on "Drug Development,
Biodiversity and Economic Development" with industry, developing countries and agencies
in mid-March. One product is to be an action plan for further interagency cooperation.
This plan could be taken to a Biodiversity subcommittee or working group of FCCSET.
Finally, UNEP has tentatively scheduled the first round of negotiations of a biodiversity
convention (3/91). A difficult process and complex set of issues: funding, especially the
concept of "additionality" (funds above current foreign aid expenditures), and central
funding; politically linking preserving biodiversity, access to biotechnology, and rights to
germplasm.
National Science Board
Loss of Biological Diversity:
A Global Crisis Requiring
International Solutions
A Report to the National Science Board
Committee on International Science's
Task Force on Global Biodiversity
NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD
MARY L. GOOD (Chairman, National Science Board), Senior Vice President, Technology, Allied-Signal,
Inc.
THOMAS B. DAY (Vice Chairman, National Science Board), President, San Diego State University
PERRY L. ADKISSON, Chancellor, The Texas A&M University System
ANNELISE G. ANDERSON, Senior Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution
WARREN J. BAKER, President, California Polytechnic State University
ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., Vice President, Technical Resources, TRW, Inc.
CRAIG C. BLACK, Director, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History
ERICH BLOCH (ex officio), Director, National Science Foundation
FREDERICK P. BROOKS, JR., Kenan Professor of Computer Science, Department of Computer Science,
University of North Carolina
RITA R. COLWELL, Director, Maryland Biotechnology Institute and Professor of Microbiology, University
of Maryland
F. ALBERT COTTON, W.T. Doherty-Welch Foundation Distinguished Professor of Chemistry and
Director, Laboratory for Molecular Structure and Bonding, Texas A&M University
DANIEL C. DRUCKER, Graduate Research Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Mechanics
and Engineering Science, University of Florida
JAMES J. DUDERSTADT, President, The University of Michigan
JOHN C. HANCOCK, Retired Executive Vice President, United Telecommunications, Inc., Consultant
JAMES B. HOLDERMAN, President, University of South Carolina
CHARLES L. HOSLER, Senior Vice President for Research and Dean of Graduate School, The Pennsylvania
State University
K. JUNE LINDSTEDT-SIVA, Manager, Environmental Sciences, Atlantic Richfield Company
KENNETH L. NORDTVEDT, JR., Professor of Physics, Department of Physics, Montana State University
JAMES L. POWELL, President, Reed College
FRANK H. T. RHODES, President, Cornell University
ROLAND W. SCHMITT, President, Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute
HOWARD A. SCHNEIDERMAN, Senior Vice President for Research and Development, and Chief Scientist,
Monsanto Company
THOMAS UBOIS, Executive Officer, National Science Board
(Additional copies of this report (NSB-89-171) are available from Forms and Publications, National
Science Foundation, Washington, DC 20550 (202) 357-7861
MEMBERS OF COMMITTEE
Dr. Craig C. Black, Chairman
Dr. Perry L. Adkisson
Dr. Gardner Brown
Dr. Rita R. Colwell
Dr. Charles E. Hess
Dr. James B. Holderman
Dr. K. June Lindstedt-Siva
Prof. William A. Nierenberg
Dr. Peter H. Raven
Dr. Theodore M. Smith
Dr. E. O. Wilson
National Science Foundation
Staff Assistance
W. Franklin Harris, Executive Secretary
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Task Force wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the staff of the National Science
Foundation Science Board Office for their invaluable assistance in making this study and report possible.
Special thanks go to Dr. Mary E. Clutter, Assistant Director for Biological, Behavioral and Social Sciences,
and Dr. W. Franklin Harris, Executive Secretary for the Task Force.
Special acknowledgement is also given to all of the participants at the meetings who provided material
to the Committee. Their presentations represent the core of our study and this report. These include:
Dr. John Boright, Division of International Science, NSF, Washington, D.C.
Dr. John Brooks, Division of Biotic Systems and Resources, NSF, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Marc Dourojeanni, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Warren Eagner, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Dr. James Edwards, Division of Biotic Systems and Resources, NSF, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Donald Falk, Center for Plant Conservation, Jamaica Plain, MA
Dr. J. Frederick Grassle, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole, MA
Dr. Charles E. Hess, University of California, Davis
Mr. Bryan Houseal, Nature Conservancy International, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Phillip S. Humphrey, University of Kansas, Lawrence
Dr. Terry Irwin, Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Daniel Janzen, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Dr. Brian F. Kensley, Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Ms. Molly Klux, U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Timothy Lawlor, Department of Biological Science, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA
Dr. June Lindstedt-Siva, Atlanta Richfield Company, Los Angeles, CA
Dr. Tom Lovejoy, (then with the World Wildlife Fund), Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Edward MacDonald, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Daniel Masys, National Library of Medicine, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Douglas Miller, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Ralph Mitchell, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
Dr. James Patton, University of California, Berkeley
Dr. John Pino, National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Peter Raven, Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis
Dr. Robert Repetto, World Resources Institute, Washington, D.C.
Dr. William Robertson, Andrew Mellon Foundation, New York
Dr. James Rodman, Division of Biotic Systems and Resources, NSF, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Amy Rossman, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Jay Savage, University of Miami, Miami, FL
Dr. David Schindel, Division of Biotic Systems and Resources, NSF, Washington, D.C.
iii
Dr. Mark Shaffer, Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of International Affairs, Department of the
Interior, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Stanwyn G. Shetler, Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Dr. James Tyler, Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Edward O. Wilson, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
In addition to members of the National Science Board involved in this study, the work of the Task
Force benefited significantly from the contributions of Dr. Gardner Brown, University of Washington,
Seattle, Dr. Theodore M. Smith, Consultative Group on Biodiversity, New York, Dr. Peter Raven, Missouri
Botanical Garden, St. Louis, and Dr. E.O. Wilson, Harvard University, all of whom were appointed as
special members of the Task Force. Dr. Charles Hess, now Assistant Secretary for Agriculture for Science
and Education, and Professor William A. Nierenberg, Director Emeritus, Scripps Institution of Ocean-
ography, continued to work with the Task Force after completing their terms on the National Science
Board. Professor Nierenberg deserves a special acknowledgement because the Task Force began under
his leadership as Chair of the Committee on International Science.
The Task Force also wishes to acknowledge Ms. Mari Jensen for her editorial assistance in the
preparation of the final report draft.
Craig C. Black
Chair
NSB Task Force on Global Biodiversity
iv
PREFACE
The Committee began work on this report in October 1987. Over the course of two years' delibera-
tions, we heard from numerous individuals-practitioners of systematic biology and ecology, resource
economists, and information scientists to mention a few. We heard from researchers from the Smith-
sonian, several universities, USDA, USAID, and the National Library of Medicine. We heard about issues
in the tropics, the temperate zone, the marine environment, in the lakes and rivers and in the soils—
literally every corner of the Earth. The overriding theme that has come through to us, and which we
sought to convey in our recommendations, is that to investigate biological diversity and to understand
biological diversity we must realize that we are dealing with a transdisciplinary problem.
When considering biological diversity-the loss of species, and the environmental degradation and
changes taking place on the planet-we have been too quick to settle on the biological and environ-
mental sciences as sole sources for answers. However, the economics of development, as well as
sociological and cultural factors are central to understanding both the basis of the biodiversity crisis
and its eventual solutions. Information science and computational science will play a significant role in
any program designed to understand and to track environmental and biological changes. The amounts
of data to be collected, analyzed and archived are staggering. In fact, the eventual solutions to many of
the data issues are likely dependent on technologies yet to be developed in the computational sciences.
Overarching all of this is the undeniable fact that any approach to an understanding of biological
diversity-what it is now, how it is being affected through human activities as well as natural changes
in the environment-has to be done on an international basis. Biological diversity is not a research
project that is limited to a laboratory or a university campus in this country. It is a research program
that has to be carried out on an international scale with the full cooperation and participation of scientists
from a variety of countries around the world.
When discussing the international dimensions of biological diversity, we are speaking of the need to
develop structures and cooperative agreements, and cooperative research programs with individuals
in the developing countries of the world. When we speak of the European Common Market and Japan,
we are seeking a partnership with our developed world counterparts. Because to understand biological
diversity and develop workable means to manage, preserve and restore biological diversity, we are
going to have to invest cooperatively with countries in Central America, South America, Southeast Asia
and in Africa to develop within their own boundaries the research capabilities to understand and to
continue to pursue research programs in areas related to ecological change, species loss, ecological
restoration, and eventually sustainable natural resource development.
The biological diversity crisis is indeed that; there is but one Earth, one biota, and our actions in the
developed and developing world alike are destroying that which is irreplaceable. There are no quick
solutions-even the full dimensions of the resource are elusive-nor is there a second chance. The
actions needed are clear to us and are set forth in the report recommendations. Biological diversity has
been recognized for at least the past 15 years. Yet progress to mount a reasonable research program to
get not only the information that is being lost but to develop the basis with which to counteract that
loss has been slow to develop. Our choice of the word "crisis" is a very deliberate one because we are
rapidly running out of time where we can hope to understand and preserve the diversity of life on this
planet. It is with this motivation and conviction that we submit our findings.
Craig C. Black, Chair
September 1989
V
CONTENTS
I.
PROLOGUE: GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY-A VANISHING RESOURCE
1
II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1
III.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
3
IV.
SCOPE OF THE ISSUE
3
Current knowledge about the biodiversity crisis
3
Gaps in scientific understanding of biodiversity
3
The problem is global and the solution international
4
V.
GLOBAL PRESSURES ON BIODIVERSITY
4
Global population and economic pressures
4
Habitat degradation causes loss of biodiversity
5
VI.
THE SCIENCE OF BIODIVERSITY
6
Biodiversity of significant target groups
6
Microorganisms
7
Plants
7
Terrestrial/aquatic invertebrates
8
Marine biota
8
Future biodiversity studies
8
VII.
WHY SHOULD NSF BE INVOLVED IN THE BIODIVERSITY CRISIS?
9
The economic and social importance of biodiversity
9
Biodiversity studies in international science
10
Biodiversity and future trends in biological research
11
VIII.
THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
11
Within NSF
11
Among Federal agencies
12
With international scientific and educational organizations
13
IX.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
13
X.
CONCLUSION
17
XI.
REFERENCES
17
vii
I.
PROLOGUE: GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY-A VANISHING
RESOURCE
We are at a critical juncture for the conservation and
has been caused by a single species, one that we hope will
study of biological diversity: such an opportunity will never
act in its own self interest to stem the tide.
occur again. Understanding and maintaining that diversity
Unless the international community can, indeed, reverse
is the key to humanity's continued prosperous and stable
the trend, the rate of extinction over the next few decades
existence on Earth.
is likely to rise to at least 1000 times the normal back-
The extinction event that we are witnessing is the most
ground rate of extinction, and will ultimately result in the
catastrophic loss of species in the last 65 million years.
loss of a quarter or more of the species on earth.
Most importantly, it is the first major extinction event that
II.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Biological diversity refers to the variety and variability
the earth. Human prosperity is based very largely on the
among living organisms and the ecological complexes in
ability to utilize biological diversity: to take advantage of
which they occur. Diversity can be defined as the num-
the properties of plants, animals, fungi, and microorgan-
ber of different items and their relative frequency. For
isms for food, clothing, medicine, and shelter.
biological diversity, these items are organized at many
Scientific knowledge about the earth's biological diver-
levels, ranging from complete ecosystems to the chemi-
sity has huge gaps. This lack of information hampers soci-
cal structures that are the molecular basis of heredity.
ety's ability either to estimate the magnitude of the prob-
Thus, the term encompasses different ecosystems, spe-
lem or to prevent further losses. It is impossible to identify
cies, genes, and their relative abundance (OTA, 1987).
all the biological resources at risk, since there is no com-
There is an ongoing, unprecedented loss of the variety
plete inventory of all the life forms on earth. Approxi-
as well as absolute numbers of organisms-from the small-
mately 1.4 million species have been given scientific
est microorganism to the largest and most spectacular of
names, but estimates of actual numbers range from 5 mil-
mammals. Loss of tropical moist forests, which contain
lion to 80 million species. Although knowledge of some
over half the total species of organisms, has been well doc-
taxa is extensive, the vast majority of groups are largely
umented by scientists and is now widely reported in the
unknown. The current wave of extinction is destroying
both known biotic resources and those still undiscovered.
media. Many other ecosystems are also threatened; as
human populations and their support systems expand, nat-
As is proving to be the case with most environmental
ural ecosystems at all latitudes are altered or converted.
problems, neither the loss of biological diversity nor its
At its meeting on October 15, 1987, the National Science
solution is the exclusive province of any one nation. Inter-
Board concluded that the world's decreasing biological
national cooperation is necessary to develop both scientific
diversity is a critical scientific issue requiring immediate
knowledge and successful mitigation and management
attention. The National Science Board's Committee on
strategies. The root causes of the problem include socio-
International Science was asked to study the scientific and
logical and economic processes which operate on an
international aspects of the decline of biological diversity
global scale; a thorough understanding will require investi-
and to recommend a course of action. This report
gation and elucidation of both biological and non-biologi-
describes what the National Science Foundation (NSF) can
cal components.
do to influence the U.S. science and education base, articu-
There are several reasons for increasing National Sci-
lates where international scientific cooperation is needed,
ence Foundation (NSF) involvement in biodiversity studies:
and suggests roles for other agencies and organizations
the economic and social importance of biodiversity (and
(both national and international) which have scientific,
the risk of opportunity lost due to accelerating extinction);
educational, and management responsibilities.
the contributions such leadership can make toward to con-
The current disappearance of biota has several causes:
servation of biological diversity; the important role of such
the destruction or degradation of entire ecosystems; the
studies in the international growth of science, especially in
accelerating loss of individual species from communities
tropical countries; the potential impact of such studies on
or ecosystems as a result of human disturbance; and the
the future course of biology as a whole; and enhancing
loss of genetically distinct parts of populations due to
public awareness of the issues.
human-induced selective pressures. Although not all parts
NSF should assume a scientific leadership position with
of the planet are equally affected, the problem is global,
respect to agencies in the U.S. and throughout the world.
and human activities are the primary cause.
By insisting on the central importance of biodiversity, the
The loss of biological diversity is important because
NSF could encourage collaborative support for the actions
human existence depends on the biological resources of
recommended below.
1
The Committee's five recommendations are outlined
Specifically needed are opportunities for pre-
below.
doctoral and postdoctoral training in the fields
1. The Committee believes that the role of the
such as systematics, ecology, conservation biology,
NSF is clear-NSF should, as a matter of
and environmental management. Support of inter-
National Science Board Policy, provide leader-
national students studying these disciplines in U.S.
ship to undertake the inventory of the world's
institutions should be included. NSF has virtually
the full responsibility for the health of these fields
biodiversity.
of biology in the U.S.
We recommend that support of biotic inventories
be significantly expanded within the Division of
Although predoctoral and postdoctoral opportu-
Biotic Systems and Resources, with initial funding of
nities are vital at this time, primary and secondary
$5 million annually, climbing to about $20 million.
education should not be ignored. The present
mode of primary support for the K-12 level should
We specifically recommend significant expansion
include the development of materials pertinent to
of support of microbial systematics and ecology, with
systematics and ecology. These subjects are of
an initial funding of $8 million and a growth to
interest to most students, and it is increasingly
approximately $20 million annually. Although micro-
important that all citizens be educated about the
organisms are the basis for numerous advances in
global biodiversity crisis. Early education in these
molecular biology and genetics and are one of the
subjects is now as important to the national interest
bases for the rapidly emerging field of biotechnology,
as early education in mathematics and other sci-
microbiology is poorly known from the standpoint of
ences.
ecology, species diversity, and systematics. The study
and classification of these organisms is both difficult
4. The economic and social aspects of the biodiv-
and costly, because the methods used are primarily
ersity crisis need additional study.
molecular and require expensive technologies.
We recommend additional funding, initially at the
We additionally propose that the Biological
level of $1 million annually, for theoretical and
Research Resources Program be enhanced. Support
empirical studies of the economic and social causes,
for those institutions most active in the inventory
consequences, and remedies of the biodiversity cri-
should be funded at the rate of $5 million annually.
sis. These funds would be added to the budgets of
This will supply funding necessary to handle the
the appropriate programs in the Division of Social
increased numbers of specimens generated by the
and Economic Sciences.
inventory. A comparable sum will be needed for
5. Enhance support for developing country scien-
information management, e.g. data banks, Geo-
tists and institutions for biodiversity research
graphic Information Systems (GIS), to handle and
and conservation.
disseminate the data generated by the inventory.
We recommend that NSF, in concert with bilateral
2. The scientific basis for conservation biology,
and multilateral development assistance agencies,
restoration ecology, and environmental man-
devise new mechanisms to fund scientists and institu-
agement must be strengthened.
tions in developing countries working on biodivers-
We recommend increased support across the Fed-
ity. NSF leadership is critical, because NSF is in a key
eral government to develop the scientific base under-
position to mobilize the resources of the scientific
lying the emerging fields of conservation biology, res-
community. These activities will involve U.S. scientific
toration ecology, and environmental management.
collaboration, but their primary focus must be
Effective preservation and restoration must include
directed to improving institutional infrastructure,
social and economic considerations. This will involve
educational opportunities, and employment of syste-
multidisciplinary research in ecosystem restoration,
matists, ecologists, and environmental management
creation and enhancement, in development of envi-
specialists in the developing countries. Initial funding
ronmental planning and management methods, and
should be at the level of approximately $2 million.
in development of environmentally compatible tech-
This recommendation recognizes that the planet's
nology. These programs should be funded at a level
biodiversity is heavily concentrated in the humid
of $3.5 million the first year, building to a level of $10
tropics; that new forms of international funding part-
million per year.
nerships are essential to the advance of science; and
that NSF's future leadership role in biodiversity
3. Educational and public awareness programs
depends upon its securing an expanded international
related to biodiversity need increased support.
operating mandate. In the absence of this mandate
We recommend special emphasis on biological
and increased funding, NSF's capacity to provide
diversity education, including K-12 and informal sci-
international scientific leadership (especially collabo-
ence education.
rative initiatives) is likely to remain unrealized.
2
III.
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
Biological diversity is a multi-disciplinary, multi-
members and scientists at-large, was asked to undertake a
agency, multi-government issue. At its meeting on October
study of the scientific and international aspects of the
15, 1987, the National Science Board (NSB) concluded that
decline of biological diversity. To respond to that charge,
the world's decreasing biological diversity is a critical sci-
this report assesses the issues and sets forth a course of
entific issue which requires immediate attention. National
action. The report describes what the National Science
and international cooperation are needed to develop both
Foundation (NSF) can do to influence the U.S. science and
knowledge about and solutions to the problem. The
education base, articulates where international scientific
knowledge generated and the solutions undertaken will, in
cooperation is needed, and suggests roles for other agen-
turn, lead to important new opportunities in economic
cies and organizations (both national and international)
development.
which have scientific, educational, and management
Because of the global scope of the issue, the NSB's Com-
responsibilities.
mittee on International Science, augmented by other NSB
IV.
SCOPE OF THE ISSUE
Biological diversity refers to the variety and variability
CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE
among living organisms and the ecological complexes in
BIODIVERSITY CRISIS
which they occur. Diversity can be defined as the num-
ber of different items and their relative frequency. For
There is an ongoing, unprecedented loss of variety as
biological diversity, these items are organized at many
well as absolute numbers of organisms-from the smallest
levels, ranging from complete ecosystems to the chemi-
microorganism to the largest mammal. Loss of tropical
cal structures that are the molecular basis of heredity.
moist forest is only one example. Other ecosystems are
Thus, the term encompasses different ecosystems, spe-
also threatened, including coral reefs, inland and coastal
cies, genes, and their relative abundance (OTA, 1987).
wetlands, and other tropical forest types. Although not all
regions of the planet are equally affected, the problem is
The destruction of ecosystems throughout the world, but
global, and human activities are the primary cause.
especially in the warmer regions, has been well docu-
The decline in biological diversity is important not only
mented by scientists and is now widely reported in print
for reasons of aesthetics or scientific curiosity, but because
and on television. For example, tropical moist lowland for-
human existence depends on the biological resources of
ests, the biologically richest, most poorly known, and, until
the earth. The current wave of extinction is destroying both
recently, least disturbed of tropical communities, are being
known biotic resources and those still undiscovered.
decimated at a rapidly accelerating rate. Large areas of the
The current loss of biota has several causes. One is the
tropics potentially are affected. Left unchecked, most of the
destruction, conversion, or degradation of entire ecosys-
forests will be entirely lost or reduced to small fragments
tems, with the consequent loss of entire assemblages of
by early in the next century.
species. Another is the accelerating loss of individual spe-
Brazil has recently taken a positive step to combat the
cies within communities or ecosystems as a result of habi-
problem by issuing a management plan for Amazonian
tat disturbance, pollution, and over-exploitation. Third, and
tropical moist forest and establishing a new institute to
more subtle, is the loss of genetic variability. Selective pres-
study the issue (Secretaria de Assessoramento da Defesa
sures such as habitat alteration, presence of chemical tox-
Nacional, 1989).
ins, or regional climate change may eliminate some geneti-
The loss of tropical moist forests can have profound and
cally distinct parts of the population, yet not cause extinc-
far-reaching effects, including: changes in climate, espe-
tion of the entire species.
cially rainfall patterns; changes in biological productivity;
Estimates of species loss rates suggest that, unless cur-
soil erosion; and an increase in emissions of "greenhouse"
rent trends are reversed, from one quarter to one half of
gases, which further affects global climate. Destruction of
the earth's species will become extinct in the next 30 years
such biologically rich ecosystems also causes extinctions of
(Lovejoy, 1980; Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1981; Norton, 1986).
vast numbers of species. Most of the lost species are
unknown; their potential agricultural, pharmaceutical, or
GAPS IN SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING OF
silvicultural values vanish with them.
BIODIVERSITY
Although habitat loss in tropical regions has drawn the
most attention and are the most immediately threatened,
Our knowledge about the earth's biological diversity has
losses of natural ecosystems are occurring in nearly every
significant gaps. The lack of information hampers society's
part of the globe as human populations and their support
ability either to understand the magnitude of the problem
systems expand.
or to prevent further losses.
3
It is impossible to even identify all the biological
primarily as a result of the economic exploitation of spe-
resources at risk, since there is no complete inventory of
cies' habitats. Natural resource exploitation is in part a
all the life forms on earth. Current estimates range from 5
function of international markets and financial practices.
million to 80 million species (Erwin, 1983; Stork, 1988; Wil-
Trade in elephant ivory (mostly illegal) and tropical timber
son, 1988). Thus, incredibly, the amount of diversity on the
(legal) has important consequences for biodiversity main-
planet is not known even to within the nearest order of
tenance. Similarly, development agency policies to fund
magnitude.
(for example) dams, frontier roads, even agriculture, lead
Scientists have collected and named only 1.4 million spe-
directly to the demise of species. Moreover, developing
cies so far (Wilson, 1988). Although knowledge of some
country debt undoubtedly drives these countries to higher
taxa is extensive, the identity and natural history of other
levels of natural resource exploitation (and consumption)
groups are largely unknown. A more adequate knowledge
than would otherwise be the case.
base is needed to support the relatively new sciences of
If the causes of biodiversity loss are a part of the interna-
conservation biology, restoration ecology, and environmen-
tional financial fabric, so, too, are the solutions. Interna-
tal management. Better information will help develop the
tional cooperation and funding are necessary to develop
means to slow or reverse the losses.
both scientific knowledge and successful mitigation and
THE PROBLEM IS GLOBAL AND THE
management strategies. At the most elementary level, bio-
diversity funding needs are greatest-both in terms of sci-
SOLUTION INTERNATIONAL
entific inquiry and in terms of conservation-in poorer,
As is proving to be the case with most environmental
developing countries. If global and scientific objectives are
problems, neither the loss of biological diversity nor its
to be served, more effective mechanisms for North-South
solution is the exclusive province of any one nation. Loss
transfers of funding must be found; more productive
of species is taking place in both the North and the South,
mechanisms for scientific collaboration must be invented.
V.
GLOBAL PRESSURES ON BIODIVERSITY
This is a time of unprecedented extinction-the perma-
In addition, the world population will not stabilize for at
nent loss of many of the kinds of organisms that inhabit
least two or three more generations. A high proportion of
Earth. Several factors contribute to this crisis. They include
the people in developing countries have yet to reach child-
the explosive growth of a record human population; the
bearing age (typically, 38% to 45% are less than fifteen
existence of widespread and extreme poverty and malnu-
years old) (World Resources Institute et al., 1988). United
trition; and a notable lack of sustainable, productive agri-
Nations' projections from the early 1980's suggested that,
cultural and forestry systems in many regions where such
even if countries' current family-planning objectives were
systems are needed. The resulting economic pressures
continued, a stable world population of 9 to 12 billion peo-
force many people in developing countries to overexploit
ple would be achieved only in the latter portion of the next
natural resources, leading to ecosystem degradation and
century (World Resources Institute et al., 1988). However,
destruction. This is exacerbated by written and unwritten
that projection assumed a greater increase in worldwide
policies, both of developed and developing countries,
family planning than has occurred. The most recent projec-
which encourage such exploitation.
tions from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA),
based on the current rate of birth control use, indicate that
GLOBAL POPULATION AND ECONOMIC
the world's human population will reach 14 billion by the
PRESSURES
year 2100. Unless birth control use increases significantly,
The global human population, now 5.2 billion, has dou-
the world population will reach 10 billion by the year 2025
bled in size since the early 1950's. This record number of
(UNFPA, 1989).
people puts increasing pressure on the earth's biological
Although a smaller and smaller percentage (currently
resources.
about 25%) of the world's population lives in industrialized
The global distribution of people has been changing
countries, they control most of the world's wealth. The
drastically. For every person who lived in an industrial
people in developing nations base their standard of living
country like the U.S. in 1950, there were two people living
on no more than 15% of the world's total resources,
elsewhere; by 2020 (just 70 years later), there will be five.
although they represent 75% of the global population. This
At that time, approximately four times as many people will
unequal distribution of resources is true regardless of what
live in countries that are partly tropical (excluding China¹)
statistic is measured: money, industrial energy, metals, or
as did in 1950 (World Resources Institute et al., 1988).
industrial production (World Resources Institute, 1988).
Developing countries have more agrarian economies
¹Because of the unavailability or unreliability of data for China
and are more directly dependent on natural resources. At
(PRC), these data are not included.
present, humans are using between 20% and 40% of the
4
net terrestrial primary productivity (Vitousek et al., 1986;
Such species extinctions may not have immediate effects
Wright, 1987). Larger populations will require even greater
on human well-being. However, as forests are removed,
use of natural resources.
profound effects on regional and global climates result. For
More than one billion of the roughly 2.8 billion people
example, at least half of the rainfall in the Amazon is associ-
now living in the developing world, exclusive of China, are
ated with the forest cover (Salati et al., 1983; Salati and
living in a substandard condition that the World Bank
Vose, 1984). By stripping the Amazon Forest (an action that,
defines as absolute poverty. This widespread poverty drives
until very recently, was heavily subsidized by the Brazilian
the overexploitation of natural resources, such as clearing
government) Brazil may be ruining its own productive
tropical forest for agricultural uses.
agriculture. Clear-cutting the Amazon may cause regional
For these reasons, political and economic instability are
temperatures to rise more than 5°C in the agricultural
widespread, and the scientific and technological infrastruc-
lands of southern Brazil (Salati et al., 1983; Salati and Vose,
ture of developing countries is tragically inadequate.
1984).
Unless changes are made, prospects for stable develop-
Destruction of tropical moist forest is a dramatic exam-
ment in the tropics in the near future are poor.
ple of how human activities are causing species loss and
other undesirable environmental effects. However, such
HABITAT DEGRADATION CAUSES
habitat degradation and concommitant species loss is not
limited to the tropics or to terrestrial environments.
LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY
Terrestrial ecosystems in every latitude are being
Habitat destruction throughout the world, especially
destroyed, degraded or converted. In addition, virtually any
tropical regions, is directly related to the population and
perturbation of the terrestrial environment has a corre-
economic factors described above. Humans have always
sponding effect on aquatic habitats, though the effect may
altered their habitat. However, as human numbers and
be separated in time and space. Destruction or degradation
human technological abilities increase, anthropogenic
of aquatic habitat causes both changes in species abun-
changes in ecosystems cause environmental degradation
dances and outright extinctions. Consider the following
and species extinctions.
examples.
Much discussion has centered on tropical terrestrial hab-
-Emissions from power plants in the midwestern
itats because of the immediate threat and direct connection
United States cause acid rain in Canada and in the
to human causative factors. Over half the world's species
northern United States. Acid rain has been linked to
are associated with tropical forests. These forests are being
forest dieback and to the reduction or loss of many
cut at an increasing rate. Ten years ago, the United Nation's
aquatic species in northern lakes and ponds. Similar
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that
observations have been made in Europe.
70,000 square kilometers of tropical moist forest were
-Almost 35% of all rare and endangered species in the
destroyed per year: a loss rate of 100 acres every three
United States are either located in or dependent on
minutes. The current rate of loss is estimated at 100 acres
wetlands, although wetlands constitute only about 5%
of forest per minute-the equivalent of losing an area the
of the nation's lands (Kusler, 1983). However, wet-
size of a football field every second. In addition to outright
lands are often converted to other uses. The current
destruction, estimates are that at least another 100,000
rate of wetlands loss in the United States is probably
square kilometers are significantly disturbed annually
greater than 275,000 acres per year (Conservation
(Myers, 1988).
Foundation, 1988).
The theory of island biogeography states that when natu-
ral communities have been reduced to less than 10% of
-In the United States' Pacific Northwest, logging prac-
tices have been linked to reductions in the salmon
their original area, half of the original species are at risk
(MacArthur and Wilson, 1967). For example, when forests
runs. Logjams have blocked streams, preventing
in Central and South America are reduced to patches of
salmon from traveling upstream to spawning grounds.
twenty square miles or less-a common occurrence-10%
In addition, soil erosion from clear-cutting forests has
or more of the bird species are lost within 10 years (Ter-
caused siltation of salmon spawning grounds, either
preventing salmon from spawning or killing eggs
borgh, 1974; Willis, 1979; Simberloff, 1984; Wilson, 1988)
already laid.
A 90% reduction in habitat area has already occurred in
several regions of the world, including western Ecuador,
-Catastrophic flooding in Thailand has been linked to
Madagascar, and the Atlantic forests of Brazil. In these
the logging and conversion of forests.
regions, the surviving biota clings to life in islands of vege-
Freshwater ecosystems are not the only aquatic habitats
tation. These small populations are subject to climatic
affected by alteration of terrestrial habitat. Marine and
change associated with edge effects; frequent human-
coastal environments are also affected by changes made on
induced disturbance; and inbreeding effects. In these cases,
land.
local environmental disasters can easily extinguish entire
A large proportion of the world's people live in coastal
species.
regions. In many areas, the ocean biological resources are
5
a significant economic resource for the region's inhabit-
altered algal species abundances. Increased algal blooms
ants. Therefore, reduction or destruction of the marine
may cause the increased frequency and duration of the sea-
coastal habitat may have severe economic impact on local
sonal anoxia in the Bay. These changes probably have
people.
reduced numbers of benthic organisms and thereby con-
Coastal bays and estuaries serve many important func-
tributed to reducing the productivity of the Bay (Officer et
tions. For example, estuarine systems are sites of high den-
al., 1984).
itrification and are important in reducing eutrophication.
Biological diversity in other marine systems can also be
In addition, these regions are nursery areas for many
affected by human activity. For example, coral reefs are
marine species. Such "ecosystem services" may be lost as
among the most diverse, biologically, of any assemblage of
the system is overstressed. Degradation of coastal areas
organisms and are often a significant source of protein for
may reduce populations or even eliminate some species of
the people of the region. However, coral reef ecosystems
fish, crustaceans, and mollusks.
are fragile and extremely vulnerable to disturbance. Eutro-
Human-induced eutrophication can reduce species
phication and sedimentation affect coral reefs. In Hawaii's
diversity in coastal regions. For example, eutrophication of
Kaneohe Bay, sewage effluent and siltation from terrestrial
Chesapeake Bay from agricultural runoff and sewage has
runoff had devastating effects on the coral reefs (Smith et
probably increased the production of algal biomass and
al., 1981).
VI. THE SCIENCE OF BIODIVERSITY
Scientists who collect, describe, and classify organisms
Of the estimated 1.4 million kinds of organisms which
and evaluate their phylogenetic relationships are tradition-
have been assigned names, only about 400,000 occur in the
ally called taxonomists or systematists. Such scientists study
tropics and subtropics; yet scientists agree that no fewer
a group, or groups, of related species, often on a regional
than three million species actually occur in these regions,
basis, and may attempt to determine the phylogeny (pat-
and the eventual total may be as much as ten times greater
tern of evolutionary descent) of the members of that
(Erwin, 1983). Even for the named species, detailed
group. To determine phylogenetic relationships, systema-
descriptions of their biology is known for very few species.
tists use characteristics ranging from gross morphology to
In other words, current scientific knowledge is inadequate
gene sequences. Systematists also study other aspects of
for estimating even the most general characteristics of the
the group's natural history (for example, the pollination
abundance and distribution of the plants, animals, and
and dispersal biology of plants).
microorganisms.
Systematists prepare monographs of particular groups of
An NSF-sponsored study on research priorities in tropi-
organisms, e.g., the palms of the world or the mammals of
cal biology, completed a decade ago and published in
North America. In a complementary fashion, they also con-
1980, advocated a worldwide survey of plants, vertebrates,
duct biotic surveys of a variety of organisms in a particular
butterflies, mosquitoes, and a few other relatively well-
area, for example, the flora of Puerto Rico. Studies of both
known groups of organisms (NRC, 1980). The report
kinds-monographic treatments of particular groups of
argued that such information would provide an index to
organisms and the faunistic or floristic accounts of the
patterns of distribution and the nature of communities
organisms that occur in a particular region-are important
throughout the tropics. To identify valuable biological
elements in building up a more complete account of the
resources before they are irretrievably lost, such a survey
world's biodiversity.
should be conducted soon; the population, economic, and
Systematic studies provide the necessary underpinnings
political factors outlined previously are generating increas-
for further biological research. Such basic biological
ing pressures on the world's remaining biodiversity.
knowledge is essential for productive investigation into the
In addition, there are other groups of organisms which
deserve special attention-ecologically significant groups
organisms' natural history, ecology, and genetics: the scien-
such as free-living nematodes, ciliates, mites, filamentous
tific information needed to formulate scientifically-based
fungi, and bacteria. Present knowledge of these groups is
policies for environmental management.
very limited, both from a systematic and from an ecological
Biologists are still very far from a complete inventory of
point of view. Current specialists, younger scientists, and
all the species of animals, plants, and microorganisms,
students must be encouraged to pursue this area of sci-
although Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus founded the
ence.
science of plant and animal taxonomy over two hundred
years ago. In most cases, answers are unavailable for the
BIODIVERSITY OF SIGNIFICANT TARGET
seemingly simple but important questions, such as: How
GROUPS
many species are there? Where do they occur? What is their
ecological role? What is their status: common, rare, endan-
Biologists have targeted certain major groups of organ-
gered, extinct?
isms-microorganisms, plants, terrestrial and aquatic
6
invertebrates, and marine biota-as ecologically significant
In the past, there has been little funding for microbial
and consequently deserving special attention. In some
systematics and microbial ecology. However, money alone
cases, even the most basic natural history of these organ-
is not the answer. Like other areas of systematic biology,
isms is poorly known.
the human resource base is thin. Rectifying this situation
will require education at all levels and attention to training
Microorganisms
and retraining opportunities.
Although the basis for numerous scientific advances in
Plants
molecular biology and genetics, microbiology is poorly
known from the standpoint of species diversity and system-
In this report, "plants" refers to vascular plants (ferns,
atics, because of the inherent difficulties in classification.
conifers, and flowering plants) plus bryophytes (mosses,
This lack of knowledge about the types and abundance of
liverworts, and hornworts). Because of their capacity to
microorganisms is a major limitation for microbial ecology.
convert radiant energy into chemical energy through the
Microorganisms constitute "biological bridges" between
process of photosynthesis, plants, along with algae and
trophic levels, between abiotic and biotic factors, and
photosynthetic bacteria, are the basis for all food chains.
between the biogeosphere and the level of gaseous atmo-
There may be as many as 250,000 species of vascular
spheric constituents. These linkages assume importance far
plants, approximately two-thirds of which are found in the
beyond the microscopic realm in which they operate. For
tropics. The New World tropics are particularly species-
example, mycorrhizal hyphae mediate interactions in plant
rich; for example, one-sixth of the global diversity of
communities by transferring nutrients between plant spe-
plants, 45,000 species, is found in just three Latin American
cies (Chiariello et al., 1982). Other microorganisms are an
countries: Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia. Although esti-
important source of the greenhouse gases which have a
mates of the number of plant species are available, more
crucial effect on earth's climate-but little is known about
specific biological knowledge is lacking.
that aspect of their ecology.
Much of the diversity of life is threatened by the destruc-
Many types of microorganisms cause disease in plants
tion of plant diversity, because plants provide both food
and animals. Although diseases are usually considered in
and habitat for other organisms. One-half of the biological
light of their economic and medical consequences for
diversity of the earth is associated with tropical forests and
humans, microbial and parasitic diseases may play a signifi-
is, therefore, threatened by their degradation or destruc-
cant role in population regulation within natural communi-
tion. Many as yet unknown plant species will probably
ties. Human-induced changes in ecosystems and the result-
become extinct by the year 2000, since all forests will be
ing alteration in host species abundances may have unfore-
severely damaged or entirely removed within the next 25
seen and undesirable effects on the epidemiology of those
years (Raven, 1988).
diseases.
Plants provide food, clothing, medicine, and shelter for
The current tendency in microbial ecology is to focus on
humans. Tropical regions of the world probably harbor
function, rather than on specific species. Because chemical
many as yet undiscovered plant species which have benefi-
methods for studying microorganisms are more advanced
cal uses for humans. For example, the legume family, a
than taxonomic methods, it is easier to study the reactions
plant family with about 18,000 species, contains many well
that microorganisms catalyze, rather than a specific species
known foods, forage plants, and a large number of impor-
of microorganism. For example, sulfur deposition in rain-
tant tropical timber trees. Both the winged bean (Psopho-
fall enhances microorganisms which can reduce inorganic
carpus tetragonolobus), a new food plant whose use has
sulfur. This, in turn, stimulates the methylation of inorganic
spread widely through the moist tropics over the past 15
mercury and results in toxicity in aquatic food chains. Yet,
years, and the "wonder tree" (Leucana leucocephala),
surprisingly, the precise taxonomy and community ecology
hailed as the solution to problems of soil erosion and fire-
of these microorganisms is unknown. Improving scientific
wood shortages, are legumes (NRC 1975, 1979). Legumes
understanding of microbial ecology will require increased
are, obviously, of great economic importance and have sig-
knowledge of microbial systematics.
nificant potential as genetic raw material for agricultural
Humans have derived many benefits from scientific
biotechnology. However, most of the legumes now utilized
knowledge about microorganisms. Actinomycetes alone
in productive human systems were discovered quite by
have been the source of 3000 antibiotics since 1950
chance. Little is being done to investigate the enormous
(Demain and Solomon, 1981). Biotechnology promises to
numbers of legume species that exist in the tropics. Six
increase the utilization of microorganisms in solving medi-
thousand legume species are found in Latin America
cal, agricultural, and environmental problems. The two
alone-and 3,000 to 4,000 of those are in danger of
foundations for this "biological revolution" are the tech-
extinction.
niques and fundamental understanding of molecular biol-
Although there are ongoing efforts, at this time there is
ogy and genetics, and the diversity of naturally occurring
no comprehensive survey of plant distribution. The dearth
organisms. For biotechnology to fulfill its promise, more
of scientists trained for systematic studies in tropical
knowledge is needed about the microorganisms which will
countries and the lack of financing means progress is slow.
form one of the bases for this new technology.
As is the case with microorganisms, insufficient numbers of
7
adequately trained scientists makes the preparation of even
Very little is actually known about the marine biota. Fish,
simple inventories very difficult.
molluscs, and corals are the best-known groups. However,
major groups of organisms and new habitats are still being
Terrestrial/Aquatic Invertebrates
discovered. The phylum Loricifera was described only in
After microorganisms, invertebrates are, numerically and
1983 (Kristensen, 1983), and an entirely new habitat was
functionally, the dominant group of organisms on earth.
revealed by the discovery of ocean vent systems. The bot-
They are slso by far the most diverse in numbers of spe-
tom of the ocean is still largely unexplored; assaying and
cies. However, again like microorganisms, most inverte-
understanding its biological diversity requires a commit-
brate groups in most parts of the world are poorly known;
ment of resources like that committed for exploring the
overall, far fewer than 50% are actually described. The
Moon. Funding for ships and associated sampling tools is
same processes which cause extinction of higher plants
the limiting factor; such research requires costly and spe-
and vertebrates also operate on invertebrates. Many species
cialized equipment.
are highly specialized with respect to food, habitat, or
Current estimates of the total number of species on the
other environmental requirements.
planet assume that approximately 80% of species are ter-
The statistics about invertebrates are impressive. For
restrial. However, some research suggests that deep sea
example, ants comprise 5% to 15% of the biomass of the
fauna may rival tropical forests in species diversity (Gras-
entire fauna of most terrestrial ecosystems. Approximately
sle, pers. comm. in Ray, 1988). The processes maintaining
two-thirds of the 1.4 million described species are inverte-
biological diversity in oceans are similar to those seen in
brates (Wilson, 1988). Estimates of the total number of spe-
terrestrial ecosystems: gap formation and patch dynamics.
cies on earth have been revised sharply upward based
However, exactly how these processes operate in marine
largely on recent collections of arthropods from tropical
ecosystems remains largely unknown, because few long-
term studies have been undertaken.
forest canopies (Erwin 1982, 1983).
Invertebrates have key functions in ecosystems, includ-
Inventories and ecological studies are needed in all
ing pollination, decomposition, disease tranmission, and
oceans, with special emphasis on those habitats most
population regulation of other species. For example, the
immediately threatened. So little is known about the
marine biota that rates of extinction are difficult to esti-
interactions of soil mesofauna (e.g. nematodes, collembola,
and mites) and soil microorganisms are crucial in main-
mate; however, Ray (1988) suggests that disturbance and
taining the plant-soil system. Nematodes both feed on and
degradation of coastal zones is occurring as rapidly as trop-
act as dispersal agents for soil bacteria. In turn, predaceous
ical forest destruction. Just as with terrestrial systems,
fungi capture live nematodes for use as energy sources.
marine biological diversity is highest in the tropics-and
The activities of invertebrates can have major economic
those are also the regions at risk. For example, coral reefs
impacts on humans. For example, agriculture depends on
are both highly diverse and extremely fragile.
crop pollination by bees, yet can suffer greatly from herbi-
vory by other insects. As another example, consider some
FUTURE BIODIVERSITY STUDIES
of the major human diseases mediated by invertebrates:
malaria, schistosomiasis, bubonic plague, encephalitis. The
For all groups of organisms, sampling those that occur in
recent spread of Lyme disease in the United States has
threatened regions is of special importance now, because
been linked to ticks of deer and mice.
natural communities are being destroyed so rapidly. Large
However, invertebrates are not studied in proportion to
numbers of endemic species are being lost in specific
their number or importance in ecosystems. For example,
areas that Norman Myers has called "hot spots" (NRC, 1980;
there are perhaps 20 ant taxonomists worldwide, and
Myers, 1988). Particularly in these areas, but increasingly
fewer who can identify tropical species. For animals like
throughout the tropics, inventory work and preservation
nematodes, collembola, and mites, the number of special-
are crucial. The fine details of classification can be left until
ists is even smaller (Wilson, 1985). Knowledge of inverte-
later.
brate systematics is crucial for productive scientific investi-
Nonetheless, in practice it is often impossible even to
gation into other aspects of invertebrate biology.
recognize the numbers of species present in a given sam-
ple without having a specialist's knowledge of that particu-
Marine Biota
lar group. For that reason, both monographic studies,
which constitute the principal activity of many systematic
Over two-thirds of the Earth's surface is ocean. The biota
biologists, and regional inventories are of primary
of Earth's oceans are essential to the structure and function
importance.
of the global ecosystem. For example, marine phytoplank-
To achieve an acceptable standard of knowledge about
ton play an important role in the maintenance of the atmo-
the world's biota, the following actions are needed:
sphere. Much of the Earth's human population depends on
the oceans, especially marine coastal systems, for food.
(1) Complete a global biological inventory. This is
Approximately 80% of the marine species of commercial
urgent; without a reversal in current rates of habitat
importance occur within 200 miles of a coast.
destruction and species extinction, a comprehensive
8
systematic survey will be possible only for the next
tematic Biology Training and Personnel reports that,
10 to 20 years. To ensure the protection of natural
although the surveyed institutions listed 55 faculty
resources before they are irretrievably lost, creation
vacancies in systematics, only 20 new hires were
and maintenance of protected natural areas is essen-
likely to be in systematics (Higher Education Panel,
tial.
1989). If systematics faculty are not replaced, how
Whereas some environmental problems are on
will new systematists be trained?
the horizon, species extinction is here and now. It is
In 1987-88, only 3% of the biology PhD's granted
not reversible. In systematics research, there must
were in systematic biology (Edwards et al., 1985;
be a balance between hypothesis testing, descrip-
NSF, 1989). The number of systematics graduate stu-
tion, and stewardship.
dents has declined substantially within the past 10
years. An NSF-commissioned survey done in 1985
(2) Obtain comprehensive knowledge of representative
reported 1298 doctoral students in systematics
and threatened regions. For example, study 200
(Edwards et al., 1985). In contrast, the forthcoming
locations in great depth; concentrate resources of
Higher Education Survey on Systematic Biology
time and of expertise, to avoid dilution of effort.
Training and Personnel reports that, doctoral and
Study locations need to be chosen carefully, in order
master's students combined, there were only 1,154
to devote sufficient effort to poorly known areas,
systematics graduate students in 1987-88 (Higher
those which are being rapidly destroyed, and those
Education Panel, 1989). Anectodal evidence suggests
with a high level of endemism, e.g. Madagascar (see
that although college students are interested in natu-
NRC, 1980; Myers, 1988). Even 200 sites reflects only
ral history studies, lack of professional opportunities
a portion of the locations currently under some type
discourage students from pursuing systematics in
of protection. The number of locations at risk is
graduate school.
much higher.
A "climate of opportunity," consisting of training
(3) Conservation is extremely important. Providing an
funds for aspiring systematists, tenure track slots in
improved scientific basis for conservation of species
colleges and universities and support for research
and habitats requires investigations into organisms'
grants, is needed to attract scientists to these fields.
natural history, ecology, and genetics. In addition,
(6) International programs of research cooperation
there should be more emphasis on the application
need more attention. The focus should be the reju-
of technology to seed banks and other types of
venation of cooperation with developing countries.
genetic reservoirs.
Ten years ago, it was estimated that as few as 1,500
(4) Develop comprehensive databases on biological
(NRC, 1980) systematists worldwide were competent
diversity. Computerized data banks are the most
to deal with even one group of tropical organisms.
effective means of disseminating the data collected
The situation has scarcely improved in the 1980's.
and making it available for scientific and societal
The lack of scientists in developing countries makes
purposes.
the overall personnel problem particularly acute,
since the vast majority of species inhabit precisely
(5) Human resource development is critical. Several fac-
these regions, and they are by far the most poorly
tors have contributed to the paucity of trained per-
known on earth.
sonnel, including the lack of research and/or teach-
Systematists are indispensible for advances in all
ing positions for systematists, lack of training grants,
fields of biology, including ecology, agriculture, and
and competition from other areas of biology.
conservation biology. These areas of research are
The forthcoming Higher Education Survey on Sys-
especially important for developing countries.
VII.
WHY SHOULD NSF BE INVOLVED IN THE BIODIVERSITY
CRISIS?
There are several reasons for increasing National Sci-
for conservation and enhancing public awareness of the
ence Foundation (NSF) involvement in biodiversity studies:
issues.
the economic and social importance of biodiversity (and
the risk of opportunity lost due to accelerating extinction);
THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL IMPORTANCE
the important role of such studies in the international
OF BIODIVERSITY
growth of science, especially in tropical countries; and the
potential impact of such studies on the future course of
Human prosperity is based very largely on the
biology as a whole. NSF leadership in this area can make
ability to utilize biological diversity: to take advan-
significant contributions by providing the scientific bases
tage of the properties of plants, animals, fungi, and
9
microorganisms as sources of food, clothing, medi-
Basic biological information is needed to protect current
cine, and shelter.
systems against destructive organisms and to develop sus-
Human beings are placing increasing demands on global
tainable systems based on wise use of natural resources.
natural resources. Therefore, it is especially important to
Often, very little is known about pest species. For instance,
understand how to build sustainable systems, and ecologi-
despite the economic threat posed by leafhoppers as plant
cally sound sustainable development requires knowledge.
pests, there are no more than a handful of specialists
Surprisingly few kinds of organisms are either domesti-
worldwide capable of identifying them or describing them
cated or harvested from the wild.
scientifically. As a result, when the brown rice leafhopper
For example, forestry and agriculture are two productive
(Niloparvata lugens) suddenly became an agricultural pest
systems based on individual kinds of plants and animals.
and ravaged rice crops throughout the warmer parts of
Undisturbed tropical moist lowland forest is characterized
Asia in the late 1970's, it was virtually unknown. Although
by a moderately high primary productivity. Yet the agricul-
its biology became the subject of crash programs, almost
tural and forestry systems with which people have replaced
nothing was known initially. Lack of basic biological knowl-
it often fail after only a few years of productivity. Under-
edge about the brown rice leafhopper impeded the devel-
standing the forest depends directly on both ecological and
opment of methods to combat the new pest (Yanchinski,
systematic knowledge: how many kinds of organisms are
1978).
there, what are their characteristics, and how do they
Nearly half of the drugs now in use were developed
interact?
from substances initially found in nature; these substances
The changes correlated with forest clearing have gener-
were the products of plants, fungi, and microoganisms. At
ated a collective interest in re-vegetating major portions of
present, no more than 1% of all plant species have been
the world. Restoration ecologists attempt to return
examined in laboratories for their chemical properties;
degraded or destroyed ecosystems to many of the eco-
even less is known about bacteria and fungi, especially
nomic and aesthetic purposes originally served. Replanting
those found in the world's oceans. These organisms, often
and reforesting tropical areas would slow global warming.
natural biocontrol factories, have untapped pharmacologi-
It would also supply food and fuel for many people who
cal potential. For example, vincristine and vinblastine,
live in the tropics, thus reducing the economic pressures
drugs used in treating childhood leukemia and Hodgkin's
to cut intact forests. Conservation of the uncut areas will
disease, were derived from the Madagascan periwinkle
lead to watershed and soil protection, a slowdown in
plant (Catharanthus roseus). The tropical regions of the
regional climate change, and the preservation of a substan-
earth harbor tens of thousands of unnamed plants and
tial amount of biodiversity. Detailed knowledge of the
microorganisms. When surveyed, such plants and microor-
plants and the ecological systems of those regions is
ganisms are likely to be sources of new products useful for
needed to successfully accomplish the goals of restoration
industry, such as gums, latex, resins, dyes, waxes, oils,
and reforestation.
sweeteners, and new sources of energy.
Scientists estimate that there may be tens of thousands
Modern methods of genetic technology offer bright pos-
(Meyers, 1983; Plotkin, 1988) of plant species that could be
sibilities for agriculture, pharmacology, and medicine.
used as food, yet little effort is being made to identify and
These methods depend on the discovery and utilization of
cultivate them. The few plants now used for agriculture
particular genes. Each organism represents a collection of
were selected by our Stone Age ancestors as particularly
tens or even hundreds of thousands of genes, some of
easy to gather and to harvest by hand; nearly all of them
them unique; extinction is not only the loss of an unique
have been in cultivation for 2,000 years or more. Methods
kind of organism, but also the permanent loss of a collec-
of selecting new crops have not evolved as human needs
tion of genes.
and capabilities have changed.
Finally, and of fundamental importance in a world of
Many of the world's important crop species originated in
depleted energy potential, many products can be produced
the tropics. As much as 98% of U.S. crop production is
in low-energy-input systems simply by allowing organisms
based on species which originated elsewhere (Caufield,
to grow: yet little effort is being made to improve knowl-
1982). Therefore, wild relatives and regional varieties of
edge of these systems or to encourage the studies on
current crops are important sources of genetic diversity.
which such an improvement could be based.
Such genetic resources are being lost as wild relatives
become extinct and as the use of regional varieties is dis-
BIODIVERSITY STUDIES IN
continued. For example, maize is the world's third most
INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE
important crop. The recent discovery of Zea diploperennis,
a perennial, virus-resistant, wild relative of maize, has signif-
Current international cooperation in science is heavily
icant agricultural implications. However, this new species
directed toward the European Community and Japan, and
of Zea could easily have been one of the many plant spe-
to a lesser extent other developed countries such as the
cies lost to extinction; it is known only from a single six
Soviet Union. This current emphasis neglects the decisive
hectare site in the Mexican state of Jalisco (Iltis et al., 1979;
future role of developing countries in the economy and
Vietmeyer, 1979).
environmental health of the world as a whole. The effects
10
of destroying tropical forests in enhancing the greenhouse
tionships between them, and described their natural his-
effect have begun to make the interconnections between
tory. During the 1950's, the revolution of molecular and
environment and economics clear, as have ill-advised
cellular biology forced a thematic shift in the study of biol-
efforts to dispose of toxic and radioactive waste products in
ogy-with enormous benefit. At present, the principal dis-
countries that desperately need foreign currency. The sus-
ciplinary orientation stresses levels of organization, such as
tainable management of the global ecosystem for common
cellular and molecular, rather than taxonomic groups of
benefit must involve the people of all nations.
organisms.
Because the great bulk of biodiversity occurs in tropical
However, investigations in cellular, developmental, and
countries, especially those with forests and fringing reefs,
even molecular biology reveal phenomena which often
tropical regions are the highest priority for both protection
concern only particular species or, at most, limited groups
and research. Studies of diversity are labor-intensive and
of species. To determine degrees of generality, investiga-
require less expensive apparatus and materials than most
other scientific research. It follows that such research can
tors map these phenomena onto phylogenetic groups.
and should be a major part of the scientific agenda in
There is an informal rule in the conduct of biological
developing countries. Tropical countries will gain increas-
research that, for every problem, there exists a species
ideal for its solution. Enteric bacteria are valuable for
ing benefit from their biological resources in the improve-
ment of agriculture, the development of new pharmaceuti-
genetic mapping, but inappropriate for studies of meiosis.
cals and industrial products, and the promotion of tourism.
Langurs and lions were the key to understanding infanti-
Working in isolation, scientists in industrial countries
cide, but would have been an unsatisfactory choice for
will not be able to adequately address the problems of bio-
genetic mapping.
logical diversity in the tropics and subtropics: these goals
Extinction of species will thus constrain the discovery of
can be achieved only with major participation from scien-
unifying biological principles. Furthermore, new emphasis
tists living in those countries.
is being placed on the uniqueness of each species. While
Therefore, the Committee holds the preoccupation with
biologists will continue to think in terms of levels of orga-
scientific and technical interchange between advanced,
nization and chains of causation, more and more will com-
industrial countries to be ill advised. We strongly recom-
mit themselves to studying a particular group of organisms
mend that the National Science Foundation, for reasons of
across all the levels of organization. This trend promises a
national and international interest, embark on a reinvigo-
new and productive pluralization of biology, with systemat-
rated program of scientific and technical interchange with
ics returning to prominence in biological research. The
developing countries throughout the world. To be success-
current biological revolution has helped unite the two
ful in such a leadership role, the National Science Board
approaches: systematists now routinely compare proteins,
must recognize this essential international role and assume
while molecular biologists construct phylogenetic trees.
its broader responsibilities.
The future of basic biological research lies substantially
in the exploration of diversity. The surest path to discovery
BIODIVERSITY AND FUTURE TRENDS IN
will be systematics of a new kind, in which expanded
BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH
knowledge of organisms is promoted by research which
Classical biology contained a large component of system-
shuttles between all levels of organization, with an empha-
atics: biologists named species, tried to establish the rela-
sis on diversity and its uses.
VIII.
THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
NSF is the dominant Federal agency responsible for
Japan, and Switzerland, the NSF could develop partner-
research and training in organismal biology. For example,
ships to support the actions recommended here.
the Foundation currently provides 90% of the Federal sup-
The National Science Foundation can, indeed, must act
port for systematics work at colleges and universities and
in three interconnected spheres to address the scientific
75% of the support for ecolgical sciences. Research and
and educational issues at stake in the biodiversity crisis:
education are the "stock in trade" of the Foundation. Given
within NSF; among Federal agencies; and in the interna-
NSF's prominent role nationally and globally in support of
tional community of scientific and educational organiza-
organismal biology, it is now entirely appropriate that the
tions.
Foundation, in its leadership position, stimulate the study
of biodiversity.
WITHIN NSF
NSF should take the initiative with respect to similar
agencies throughout the world. By insisting on the central
NSF must increase funding to support research and
importance of biodiversity in meetings with corresponding
training in systematics and ecology, focusing specifically
bodies in such industrialized countries as West Germany,
on: biotic inventory; phylogenetic analysis; physiological
11
and genetic mechanisms; and ecological structure and
to coordinate scientific consensus on the issue of biodiv-
function. Biological inventories and systematic studies are
ersity. The Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engi-
necessary underpinnings for investigations into more com-
neering, and Technology (FCCSET) could provide such a
plex aspects of organisms' natural history, physiology, ecol-
forum for the various federal agencies by establishing a
ogy, and genetics. Support for natural history museum
committee, similar to the Committee on Earth Sciences, on
operations and for education and training are necessary
the global loss of biodiversity.
components of this activity.
Among development-oriented agencies in particular,
Conservation biology, restoration ecology and environ-
concern over biotic impoverishment must be transformed
mental management, although applied disciplines, depend
into active stewardship of species and community
on basic biological knowledge. By funding more research
resources. Better knowledge of those resources would
in systematics, ecology, and other disciplines that contrib-
enhance the effectiveness of such stewardship. For exam-
ute to the underlying scientific base, NSF can broaden the
ple, the U.S. Agency for International Development (AID)
knowledge base for these applied fields.
mission should enable NSF to forge partnerships with AID
In addition, some recent research by resource econo-
to develop the scientific and technical infrastructure in
mists highlight the imperative of increasing interaction
many countries. AID, with now very limited resources, is
between and among economists and biologists. Prices for
now devoting considerable attention to the preservation of
non-timber tropical forest products have only recently
biodiversity and to other environmental problems in its
been compared (favorably, it turns out) to timber harvest
client countries. Establishment of protected areas is
prices. National tax and credit policies have, in the recent
increasingly an integral part of regional development
past, contributed directly to and extraordinary amount of
schemes. AID and similar development agencies could
rainforest conversion in Brazilian Amazonia and to forest
assist materially in supporting national museums and simi-
conversion in the United States (Repetto, 1988). United
lar institutions, in the establishment of regional and
Nation economic growth indicators such as Gross Domes-
national data banks, in education, and in the develop-
tic Product (GDP)-indicators used by planners, bankers,
ment of more effective environmental planning and
and economists throughout the world-do not include
management.
information on reductions in stocks (e.g., timber, soil, fish-
Science must form the basis for identifying policies and
eries, etc.). Natural resource balance sheets do not exist,
actions which will most effectively preserve biodiversity.
nor are there other clear indicators to encourage policy-
The single most effective step would be the creation and
makers to invest in a country's natural resource base
international funding of an extensive system of interna-
through (e.g.) reforestation. Further, there are troubling
tional parks and reserves. However, in many parts of the
questions as to whether neoclassical economic theory, as
understood and practiced at the close of the 20th Century,
world, natural systems are becomingly increasingly frag-
adequately addresses natural resource depletion (hence
mented, simplified, and perturbed; the preservation of
biodiversity loss) issues.
pristine ecosystems is becoming less and less possible. In
Because public policy land-use decisions which directly
addition, park boundaries are insufficient barriers to many
affect biodiversity conservation are often made in the
sources of environmental degradation, e.g. acid rain,
idiom of economics (based on the evaluation of costs and
greenhouse warming, and air and water pollution. There-
benefits), the Committee urges that NSF initiate the devel-
fore, developing methods to maintain biodiversity in
opment of research agendas which necessitate increased
"altered" habitats is critically important; it will not be suffi-
collaboration among economists and biologists.
cient only to maintain biodiversity in "untouched"
reserves. More research is needed to develop effective
methods to restore and enhance damaged ecosystems.
AMONG FEDERAL AGENCIES
Creation of global networks of seed banks, botanical gar-
The NSF should promote awareness of biological
dens, zoos, and microorganism culture collections would
resource issues in the policy deliberations of Federal orga-
preserve biotic resources on another level. An additional
nizations. The mission of all natural resource agencies
part of the solution is development of an international con-
touches on the preservation of biological diversity, both
vention (similar to that on the protection of the ozone
nationally and internationally. The Department of Agricul-
layer) which treats biodiversity as a common property
ture, for example, currently concerns itself with crops and
resource and funds its preservation internationally. In
their improvement. All productivity in agriculture and for-
response to the World Commission on Environment and
estry is ultimately based on biodiversity. The Department
Development (the Brundtland Commission), the United
of Interior's land management agencies are charged with
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is taking the lead
managing land for multiple use, which includes harvesting
in the development of such a convention, with substantial
both mineral and biotic resources, all the while maintain-
assistance from non-governmental organizations such as
ing those natural resources for future generations.
the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
In this environment of multiple needs and demands,
(IUCN) and World Resources Institute (WRI) (World Com-
there is a clear need for leadership to provide a forum and
mission on Environment and Development, 1987).
12
In all cases, the NSF, by demonstrating the importance of
full financial participation in binational research schemes
biodiversity for science and for economic development,
will alter that.
could help strengthen the positions of its sister agencies.
Therefore, new formulas must be found for NSF to help
The cooperation of other agencies would greatly increase
maintain the developing countries' museums and universi-
the available funding for the solutions proposed here.
ties which provide education in the ecological sciences and
systematic biology. These sciences form the basis for sound
conservation and environmental management. For these
WITH INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC AND
reasons, such institutions are clearly a resource for Ameri-
EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
can science and are bound to become increasingly impor-
tant to international science and developing countries' eco-
International collaboration is required to solve the prob-
nomic well-being in the years to come.
lems of biotic degradation and loss. NSF, by expanding the
NSF should collaborate with AID, the World Bank and
activities of its International Programs (INT), can assume a
their international counterparts to support these key insti-
leadership role in promoting bilateral and multilateral
tutions. The Committee emphasizes the need to stabilize
research in systematics and ecology, environmental plan-
the financial and physical condition of museums and other
ning and management, museum development, and educa-
institutions which house collections. In addition, education
tional training.
in systematic biology, ecology, and environmental planning
What can the NSF do to lead the U.S. scientific commu-
and management in developing countries, and the provi-
nity into productive interactions with institutions and indi-
sion of adequate, permanent positions for those educated,
viduals in developing countries? Resources in these
are essential. Sustainable development requires sound nat-
countries are usually inadequate for the kinds of partner-
ural resource planning and utilization. Development agen-
ship agreements envisioned in NSF-INT for Japan and the
cies can make contributions to biodiversity maintenance in
European Community countries. Consider that the budget
many ways: through training programs, support for
of the University of California is larger than the national
research, projects to establish and maintain biological
budgets of many Latin American and most tropical African
reserves, funding for policy analysis, and through their
countries. No amount of discussion about the necessity of
own conditions for economic assistance.
IX.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee's recommendations fall into five catego-
of human necessity. NSF has been the prime source of
ries:
funding for systematic and ecological research in the U.S.,
(1) the global inventory of biodiversity, including the
and even on a world scale. The dimensions of the problem
demand a new kind of thinking about funding patterns for
management of related information and specimens;
the Foundation.
(2) the scientific basis for conservation biology, restora-
The biotic inventory program recommended would con-
tion ecology, and environmental planning and man-
duct surveys of the plants, animals, and microorganisms of
agement;
the world. The criteria for funding should go beyond the
scholarship and productivity of the principal investigator(s)
(3) support for related educational programs;
(which are already operational criteria for NSF), but also
(4) support for selected socio-economic research;
consider: the importance of the region or group proposed
for study; the degree of threat to that particular region; and
(5) enhanced support for foreign institutions active in
the potential of the project to contribute to meaningful
this area.
international interactions and to education.
These recommendations are discussed in detail below.
For many groups of organisms, and especially groups
(such as microorganisms and many invertebrate groups)
1. The Committee believes that the role of the NSF
which are very rich in species but the object of few studies,
is clear-NSF should, as a matter of National Science
the training and recruitment of additional specialists will
Board Policy, provide leadership to undertake the
be necessary. Much of this recruitment can and should
inventory of the world's biodiversity.
occur in developing countries. A new partnership is
Traditionally, support has been focused on a limited
needed between NSF and the international development
number of groups and on the development of whatever
donor agencies; scientific leadership, support of special-
hypotheses were fashionable at a given time. Implicit in
ized training and research, and long-term funding commit-
this strategy is the notion that all species will be around
ment to continued employment are critical to both early
indefinitely. Given the current staggering loss of species,
success and sustained progress.
there is pressing need to chart the contours of biological
We recommend that support of biotic inventories
diversity, both as a matter of scientific importance and one
be significantly expanded within the Division of
13
Biological Systems and Resources, with initial
fauna (e.g., collembola, mites, and nematodes) are an inte-
funding of $5 million annually, climbing to about
gral part of the soil biota. Ecological studies of the interac-
$20 million.
tions between microorganisms and other soil biota must
The total cost of a global survey of biodiversity con-
not be neglected. Successful reforestation and revegetation
ducted over a ten year period (presuming the availability
apparently requires re-establishing the belowground
of a sufficient number of trained people) can be estimated,
mutualists, not just restoring the aboveground plant com-
munity (Perry et al., 1989).
very approximately, as follows.
The classification of bacteria and fungi has not yet been
-Detailed investigation, over several years, of perhaps
established clearly. Current methods for studying these
100 major sites in Latin America (which is more
organisms require expensive molecular technologies to
poorly known biologically and richer in species) and
complement traditional means of identification. No less
at least another 100 in Africa and Asia together, would
than a sustained effort in the systematics and ecology of
be necessary to gain a sufficiently detailed picture of
bacteria and fungi will result in anything approaching an
the distribution of plants, vertebrates, and major inver-
adequate knowledge base in this field.
tebrate groups throughout the tropics.
The problems of understanding many of the groups of
-The cost of investigating each of these sites, including
the kingdom Protoctista (Protista) parallel those for bacte-
only the field work and processing the resulting data,
ria and fungi. Specimens are difficult to preserve, and pre-
has been estimated as between $300,000 and
vious methods were inadequate. Consequently, efforts to
$750,000. The total cost for the project is estimated at
develop modern systematics for these organisms must go
between $60 million and $200 million over a ten year
far beyond re-interpretations of old illustrations. Only a
period.
dedication to developing a modern systematics of these
organisms will yield a comprehensive outline of their tax-
-Studies of additional groups of organisms would add
onomy and basic morphology.
to the expense, partly because extensive primary mon-
Understanding the ecological interactions of microor-
ographic studies would be required to characterize
ganisms is crucial, because the activities of microorganisms
the organisms sufficiently.
have substantial economic impact on humans. For exam-
These figures are consistent with the recommended
ple, bacteria, fungi, and protoctists all cause plant and ani-
level of expenditure. On the one hand, by no means would
mal diseases, including those of humans. Systematics stud-
all the work be funded by NSF, and on the other, various
ies provide the basis for future biological research. Better
kinds of additional studies would be funded in the pro-
knowledge of microbial systematics will allow more pro-
gram proposed above.
ductive investigation of microbial ecology.
The comparable costs for the inventory of freshwater
We additionally propose that the Biological
and marine biota need to be added. That might, owing to
Research Resources Program be enhanced. Sup-
the high cost of ship time, double these figures.
port for those institutions most active in the
We recommend significant expansion of support
inventory should be funded at the rate of $5 mil-
of microbial systematics and ecology, with an ini-
lion annually. This will supply funding necessary
tial funding of $8 million and growth to approxi-
to handle the increased numbers of specimens
mately $20 million annually.
generated by the inventory. A comparable sum
will be needed for information management, e.g.
It is tempting to focus solely on larger organisms. It is
data banks, Geographic Information Systems
critical to understand that little information is available
(GIS), to handle and disseminate the data gener-
about microbial communities in most tropical, subtropical,
ated by the inventory.
or marine habitats. Microbial systematics and ecology have
been SO seriously underfunded that scientific understand-
Surveying the world's biota will send a flood of speci-
ing of the organisms is simply inadequate. As terrestrial
mens to the museums of the world. The NSF Biological
habitats, especially in the tropics, are destroyed and marine
Research Resources (BRR) Program, established about 17
and freshwater habitats polluted, the bacteria, fungi, and
years ago to address the needs of systematics collections,
protoctists in these habitats are also destroyed.
has not been able to keep pace with current growth in the
Microorganisms are one of the bases of food webs and
numbers of specimens.
are crucial links in the transfer of energy and nutrients in
For the proposed inventory to be effective, new speci-
all communities on land, in fresh waters, and in the seas.
mens must be incorporated into existing collections rap-
More complete scientific knowledge of microbial ecology
idly and efficiently. This, plus incorporating the informa-
will be necessary for effective restoration ecology. For
tion into data banks, will allow further exploratory and
example, microbially-mediated rhizosphere processes are
monographic studies to proceed more rapidly. Having the
crucial in maintaining the plant-soil system, both for indi-
information easily accessible will be an aid in conservation.
vidual plants and on an ecosystem level. In addition, meso-
Additional funding should be provided for facilities and
14
collections in the major museums of the U.S., in addition to
ogy, and environmental management. Effective preserva-
strengthening museums in developing countries.
tion and restoration must include social and economic
The construction of adequate data banks is imperative.
considerations. This will involve multidisciplinary research
Since data banking per se is costly and not often funded
in ecosystem restoration, creation and enhancement, in
adequately, we recommend the special provision of funds
development of environmental planning and management
to enlarge and improve the existing operations and
methods, and in development of environmentally compati-
develop new ones. Supplementary funding should be pro-
ble technology. More research is needed in population
vided for some existing grants to allow the incorporation
biology and genetics, agro-ecology, wildlife biology and
of these surveys or monographic studies into data banks
fisheries ecology as well as on preservation of genetic
that are generally accessible. For example, the Flora of
material and captive propagation.
North America program, which is operated by a network of
Federal agencies involved in resource management deci-
more than 20 institutions in the U.S. and Canada, is gener-
sions, such as the Forest Service, the Park Service, the
ating a data bank on the plants of the region. The Missouri
Bureau of Land Management, and the Environmental Pro-
Botanical Garden, in conjunction with the California Acad-
tection Agency, could make a strong contribution. AID
emy of Sciences and Harvard University, is starting to add
might participate in the international efforts. These pro-
data on the plants of China by means of a comparable joint
grams should be funded at a level of $3.5 million the first
Sino-American project. A data bank containing the charac-
year, building to a level of $10 million per year.
teristics of some 30% of the plants of the world may not be
3. We recommend special emphasis on biological
not far off. Can this be used as a model for other groups
diversity education, including K-12 and informal
and extended to the tropics?
science education. Specifically needed are opportu-
Data-processing strategies that make the data available in
machine-readable form should be emphasized. This would
nities for predoctoral and postdoctoral training in
make information about previously studied organisms eas-
the fields such as systematics, ecology, conservation
ily available. Such easy access will help determine which
biology, and environmental management. Support
of international students studying these disciplines
groups or areas are the least known or are the most prom-
in U.S. institutions should be included. NSF has vir-
ising for further investigations. Faster inventories of biota
tually the full responsibility for the health of these
may be possible by using automated taxonomic methodol-
fields of biology in the U.S.
ogies.
On the other hand, we do not envision the program we
Historically, the biological fields considered important to
have outlined here as a substitute for the Smithsonian Insti-
human health were the best funded. For example, most
tution's BIOLAT program, which deals with small areas in
predoctoral and postdoctoral fellowships in the biological
great depth and stresses ecology as well as systematics.
sciences are provided by NIH. This pattern made possible
Ecology, ecosystem, and related programs within the NSF
an impressive acceleration of knowledge about molecular
Directorate of Biological, Behavioral, and Social Sciences
biology, genetics, metabolism and structural details of
should continue to emphasize tropical ecology to the
cells, tissues, and organs and the ways their actions are
extent possible.
integrated.
2. The inventories for which we are calling, and the
On the other hand, knowledge about organismal biology
enhanced training activities in developing
has not increased proportionately. Within biology depart-
countries, will help provide the underpinning for
ments, the lack of fellowship or training grant support for
the newly emerging fields of restoration ecology,
evolutionary and systematic biology has exacerbated the
conservation biology, and environmental planning
sometimes low regard for these traditional and now criti-
and management.
cally important fields. To increase training opportunities,
systematics and organismal biology must also be given
There are many important reasons for learning about
more importance in university curricula.
organisms, but one of the most obvious is saving them.
For these reasons, we recommend that the NSF, which
Effective conservation, ecosystem restoration, and environ-
has virtually the full responsibility for the health of these
mental management require specific knowledge of species
areas of biology, emphasize educational and training sup-
and ecosystems.
port. The enhanced levels of research support we have rec-
Restoring damaged ecosystems and enhancing existing
ommended will lead directly to additional educational
ones can reverse the losses of natural ecosystems and asso-
opportunities. Students are often, and should be, sup-
ciated biota. Many wetlands restoration projects are cur-
ported on research projects. Recruitment of additional stu-
rently underway. Some projects have successfully restored
dents will depend, in part, on the availability of funding.
natural forest habitats. Experiments have been conducted
Primary research support in the U.S. goes to universities,
on building artificial reefs to enhance marine ecosystems.
and, for obvious reasons, educational funding is almost
We recommend increased support across the Federal
exclusively centered there. However, many leading system-
government to develop the scientific base underlying the
atics institutions-the Field Museum, Bishop Museum, Cali-
emerging fields of restoration ecology, conservation biol-
fornia Academy of Sciences, and New York Botanical Gar-
15
den are examples-are not operated by universities. These
tion only as income results in the overstatement of con-
free-standing museums actually carry out much of the
sumption benefits and erroneous incentives for over-
research in these fields and contain the majority of the
exploitation.
national collections of organisms. Creation of adequate
Many national economic policies contribute directly to
educational support programs for systematic and evolu-
environmental degradation and the loss of biodiversity.
tionary biology may require viewing these museums and
These policies create perverse incentives to deforest lands,
collections as educational institutions. At the very least, it
drain wetlands, reduce fishery species (in national and
will be desirable to support linkages between them and
international waters) to alarmingly low levels, erode soils,
universities and to consider modest new funding in this
pollute water and air, and dangerously overharvest wild
area.
animals. Subsidies, investment credits, taxes, trade regula-
Although predoctoral and postdoctoral opportunities are
tions and governmental foreign exchange rates comprise a
vital at this time, primary and secondary education should
set of instruments which often cause destruction and/or
not be ignored. The present mode of primary support for
depletion of natural resources. Two examples are the tax
the K-12 level should include the development of materials
and investment incentives for converting tropical forests to
pertinent to systematics and ecology. These subjects are of
cattle ranches in parts of Latin America, and pesticide subsi-
interest to most students, and it is increasingly important
dies for rice production in Asia.
that all citizens be educated about the global biodiversity
The debts of developing countries are also associated
crisis. Early education in these subjects is now as important
with the loss of biodiversity. Debtor countries must gener-
to the national interest as early education in mathematics
ate foreign exchange earnings to service their debts; debt-
and other sciences.
servicing pressures stimulate (and may even require)
Educational collaboration with developing countries is
higher levels of natural resource exploitation.
crucial to the success of the program outlined here. Build-
In addition, social and cultural customs heavily influence
ing an adequate research base in developing countries is of
natural resource stewardship practices. Local conventions
fundamental importance. Special efforts should be made to
governing the management of common property resources
encourage the enrollment of foreign students, especially
often lead to immediate over-exploitation. For example,
those from developing countries, in U.S. institutions. It is
ownership of timberland is obtained by demonstrating a
also important to encourage researchers from developing
willingness to "develop," which often is most effectively
countries to use the extensive facilities and research
achieved by burning off the primary forest.
groups that are available in the U.S. Collaboration of all
The challenge is designing monetary incentive schemes
kinds should be sought aggressively; for example, partici-
that enhance the probability of preserving habitats through
pation of foreign scientists in NSF-supported research proj-
time, particularly in nations with unstable political regions.
ects should be strongly encouraged.
"Debt-for-nature" swaps (purchasing a portion of country's
4. We recommend additional funding, initially at
debt in exchange for habitat preservation) is only one of
the level of $1 million annually, for theoretical and
many imaginative financial instruments. Long-term pur-
empirical studies of the economic and social causes,
chase of habitat preservation rights is another. There are
consequences, and remedies of the biodiversity cri-
alternative payment policies. Examples include lump-sum
sis. These funds would be added to the budgets of
payments in the beginning; balloon payments at the end of
the appropriate programs in the Division of Social
a specific period; or annual payments. These different strat-
and Economic Sciences.
egies have not been evaluated to determine which best
insures habitat preservation through time.
One of the key questions is, "Who pays for the conserva-
NSF should create a research program that would:
tion of biological diversity?" Most of the threatened species
are located in low-income countries of the humid tropics;
-Identify and assess governmental decisions that create
most arguments for preserving genetic diversity are framed
perverse policy incentives to extinguish species. These
in terms of global benefits for humanity. Current economic
decisions are imbedded in institutional and policy
flaws and omissions.
policies, methods of analysis, and practices contribute to
the biodiversity crisis; they are not neutral. Until connec-
-Develop alternative socio-economic policies and insti-
tions between methods of economic analysis and the
tutional mechanisms to substitute for the flawed ones.
depletion of natural resources are better recognized and
understood, rates of biological extinction will probably not
-Study mechanisms that effectively transmit informa-
be reduced significantly.
tion about preferred policies, institutions, and market
National income accounting is the framework normally
forms to nations with habitat needing preservation.
used for analyzing a country's economic performance and
-Identify institutional mechanisms for maintaining the
providing policy signals to national decision-makers. These
quantity and quality of the preserved habitats.
accounts completely ignore the depletion of natural
resource assets; they recognize only the income which
-Identify institutional arrangements that enable habitat
such resources generate. Counting natural resource extrac-
preservation to contribute to the local economy.
16
-Encourage synthetic analysis of case studies to identify
often done an outstanding job of preserving representative
specific policies, as well as common ingredients,
samples of their biological diversity. They are frequently
which have played a major role in successful individ-
the primary agencies for granting permits of all kinds to
ual preservation schemes.
foreign scientists, and often receive, by law or custom,
large and sometimes unique samples of collections made
5. We recommend that NSF, in concert with bilateral
within their borders. For these reasons, international
and multilateral development assistance agencies,
mechanisms for funding these institutions are urgently
devise new mechanisms to fund biodiversity scien-
required.
tists and institutions in developing countries. NSF
Educational institutions in developing countries that
leadership is critical, in part because of a vacuum.
have programs in biodiversity studies need support. They
These activities will involve U.S. scientific collabora-
are essential components for producing personnel.
tion, but their primary focus must be directed to
Regional groupings of institutions, such as the Latin Ameri-
improving institutional infrastructure, educational
can Botanical Network, which attempt to build on several
opportunities, and employment of systematists,
centers and thereby provide opportunities for students on
ecologists, and environmental management special-
a regional basis, have an important role to play.
ists in the developing countries. Initial funding
Training local people as technicians both educates more
should be at the level of approximately $2 million.
local people and provides personnel for inventory work.
Many individuals can effectively participate in biodiversity
We recommend expansion of support for cooperative
projects with only a limited amount of training. Such tech-
research and related development of capabilities in other
nicians should often be trained and supported with grant
countries (under the existing Science in Developing
funds. The possibility of major programs, involving exten-
Countries guidelines). Further, we recommend that the
sive biodiversity surveys and many people, should be
NSF take the initiative in fostering a consortium of U.S. and
investigated thoroughly.
foreign sources of support for related scientific infrastruc-
Not every country has the resources to have a major uni-
ture. Unless NSF, with an authorized expanded interna-
versity program in biodiversity studies; only about 6% of
tional biodiversity mandate, is able to provide funding
the world's scientists live in developing countries. Sharing
leadership for such a consortium, its scientific leadership
the available opportunities and strengths can be an ingredi-
role will likely be weakened.
ent in building regional consciousness. As in the case of
The museums located in tropical countries are key insti-
museums, even if NSF is unable to provide a major portion
tutions for promoting biological inventories on a world-
of the support, it can certainly emphasize what is possible
wide basis. Although operating within the limited national
and play a lead role in encouraging other kinds of institu-
budgets of their individual countries, the museums have
tions to fund university-based programs.
X.
CONCLUSION
The loss of biological diversity threatens both scientific
resources, and science infrastructure. Of all the Federal
understanding and human prosperity. The diversity of spe-
agencies, the Foundation is in a key position to mobilize
cies is the heart of biological research. Human existence
the resources of the scientific community to focus on the
requires natural resources: humans use the earth's biologi-
task before us. The National Science Foundation must take
cal resources for food, clothing, medicine, and shelter.
a leadership role to establish cooperative international
Counteracting the current wave of extinctions will require
efforts in conservation and in biodiversity studies and
increased knowledge and concerted action by all the
to bring new energy, determination and funding to
nations of the world.
strengthen U.S. domestic scientific capability and
The National Science Foundation has three guiding
explorations.
themes: scientific opportunity, education and human
XI.
REFERENCES
Caufield, C. 1982. Tropical moist forest: The resource, the
Conservation Foundation. 1988. Protecting America's wet-
people, the threat. International Institute for Environment
lands: An action agenda. The final report of the National
and Development, London.
Wetland Policy Forum. The Conservation Foundation,
Chiariello, N., Hickman, J.C., and H.A. Mooney. 1982. Endo-
Washington, D.C.
mycorrhizal role for interspecific transfer of phosphorus
Demain, A. L. and N. A. Solomon. 1981. Industrial microbi-
in a community of annual plants. Science 217:941-943.
ology. Sci. Amer. 245:66-75.
17
Edwards, S. R., Davis, G. M. and L. I. Nevling. 1985. The
ates, 1988. Prepared by Science Resources Studies, Sci-
systematics community. A report prepared for the
ence and Engineering Education Sector Studies Group,
National Science Foundation. Association of Systematics
National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C.
Collections, Museum of Natural History, Lawrence, Kan-
Officer, C.B., R. B. Biggs, J. Taft, L.E. Cronin, M.A. Tyler, W.R.
sas.
Boynton. 1984. Chesapeake Bay anoxia: Origin, develop-
Ehrlich, P., and A. Ehrlich. 1981. Extinction. The causes of
ment, and significance. Science 223:22-27.
the disappearance of species. Random House, New York.
OTA (Office of Technology Assessment. 1987. Technologies
Erwin, T.L. 1982. Tropical forests: Their richness in Coleop-
to Maintain Biological Diversity. OTA-F-330. U.S. Gov-
tera and other Arthropod species. Coleopt. Bull. 36:74-
ernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
75.
Parker, S.P., ed. 1982. Synopsis and classification of living
Erwin, T. L. 1983. Beetles and other insects of tropical for-
organisms. 2 vols. McGraw-Hill, New York.
est canopies at Manaus, Brazil, sampled by insecticidal
Perry, D. A., M. P. Amaranthus, J. G. Borchers, S. L. Borchers,
fogging. Pp. 59-75 in S. L. Sutton, T.C. Whitmore, and A.
and R. E. Brainerd. 1989. Bootstrapping in ecosystems.
C. Chadwick, eds. Tropical rain forest: Ecology and man-
BioScience 39:230-237.
agement. Blackwell, Edinburgh.
Plotkin, M. 1988. The outlook for new agricultural and
Higher Education Panel. 1989. Higher education survey on
industrial products from the tropics. Pp. 106-116 in Wil-
systematic biology training and personnel. Report com-
son, E. O. and F. M. Peter, eds. Biodiversity. National
missioned by the National Science Foundation. Westat
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Corporation. In preparation.
Raven, P. H. 1988. Our diminishing tropical forests. Pp. 119-
Itlis, H. H., J. F. Doebley, R. Guzman M., and B. Pazy. 1979.
122 in Wilson, E.O. and F. M. Peter, eds. Biodiversity.
Zea diploperennis (Gramineae): A new teosinte from
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Mexico. Science 203:186-188.
Ray, G. C. 1988. Ecological diversity in coastal zones and
Kristensen, R.M. 1983. Loricifera, a new phylum with
oceans. Pp. 36-50 in Wilson, E.O. and F. M. Peter, eds.
Aschelminthes characters from the meiobenthos. J. Zool.
Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Syst. 21:163-180.
Repetto, R. 1988. The forest for the trees? Government poli-
Kusler, J.A. 1983. Our national wetland beritage: A protec-
cies and the misuse of. forest resources. World Resources
tion guidebook. Environmental Law Institute, Washing-
Institute, Washington, D.C.
ton, D.C.
Salati, E., T. E. Lovejoy, and P. B. Vose. 1983. Precipitation
Lovejoy, T. E. 1980. A projection of species extinctions. Pp.
and water recycling in tropical rainforests with special
328-331, Vol. 2 in G. O. Barney (study director). The
reference to the Amazon Basin. Environmentalist 3:67-72.
global 2000 report to the President. Entering the 21st
Salati, E. and P. B. Vose. 1984. Amazon basin: a system in
century. Council on Environmental Quality, U.S. Govern-
equilibrium. Science 225:129-138.
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Secretaria de Assessoramento da Defesa Nacional. 1989.
MacArthur, R. H. and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The theory of
Comissao Executiva, Instituida Pelo Decreto. No. 96.944/
island biogeography. Princeton University Press, Prince-
88. Programa Nossa Natureza. Brasilia, Brazil.
ton, N.J.
Myers, N. 1983. A wealth of wild species: Storebouse for
Simberloff, D. S. 1984. Mass extinction and the destruction
buman welfare. Westview, Boulder, Colorado.
of moist tropical forests. Zh. Obshch. Biol. 45:767-778.
Myers, Norman. 1988. Tropical Forests and Their Species.
Smith, S.V., W.J. Kimmerer, E. A. Laws, R. E. Brock and T. W.
Going, Going. ? Pp. 28-35 in Wilson, E. O. and F. M.
Walsh. 1981. Kaneohe Bay sewage diversion experi-
Peter (Eds.) Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Wash-
ments: perspectives on ecosystem responses to nutrient
ington, D.C.
perturbation. Pac. Sci. 35: 279-395.
Myers, Norman. 1988. Threatened biotas: "Hot spots" in
Stork, N. E. 1988. Insect diversity: Facts, fiction, and specu-
tropical forests. Environmentalist 8:187-208.
lation. Biol. J. Linnean Soc. 35:321-337.
Norton, B.J., ed. 1986. The preservation of species. Prince-
Terborgh, J. 1974. Preservation of natural diversity: The
ton University Press, Princeton, N.J.
problem of extinction-prone species. BioScience 24:715-
NRC (National Research Council). 1975. The winged bean:
722.
A high protein crop of the tropics. National Academy of
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). 1989. State of the
Sciences, Washington, D.C.
World Population 1989. UNFPA, New York.
NRC (National Research Council). 1979. Tropical legumes:
Vietmeyer, N. D. 1979. A wild relative may give corn peren-
Resources for the future. National Academy of Sciences,
nial genes. Smithsonian 10:68-79.
Washington, D.C.
Vitousek, P. M., P. R. Ehrlich, A. H. Ehrlich, and P. A. Matson.
NRC (National Research Council). 1980. Research priorities
1986. Human appropriation of the products of photosyn-
in tropical biology. National Academy of Sciences, Wash-
thesis. BioScience 36:368-373.
ington, D.C.
Willis, E. O. 1979. The composition of avian communities
NSF (National Science Foundation). 1989. Early release of
in remanescent woodlots in southern Brazil. Papeis Avul-
summary statistics on science and engineering doctor-
SOS Zool. 33:1-25.
18
Wilson, E.O. 1985. The biodiversity crisis: A challenge to
World Resources Institute, International Institute for Envi-
science. Issues in Science and Technology 2: 20-29.
ronment and Development, in collaboration with the
Wilson, E. O. 1988. The current state of biological diversity.
United Nations Environment Programme. 1988. World
Pp. 3-18 in Wilson, E.O. and F. M. Peter, eds. Biodiversity.
Resources 1988-89. Basic Books, New York.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Wright, D. H. 1987. Estimating human effects on global
World Commission on Environment and Development.
extinction. Int. J. Biometeor. 31:293-299.
1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press,
Yanchinski, S. 1978. Brown planthopper stalks Vietnam's
New York.
rice fields. New Sci. 80:342.
19
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20550
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300
RETURN THIS COVER SHEET TO ROOM 233. IF YOU DO
NOT WISH TO RECEIVE THIS MATERIAL
OR IF CHANGE
OF ADDRESS IS NEEDED
INDICATE CHANGE. INCLUD-
ING ZIP CODE ON THE LABEL. (DO NOT REMOVE LABEL.)
NSB 89-171
January 10, 1991
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS
ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
JANUARY 10-11, 1991
AGENDA
THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1991
OPEN SESSION 9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON
CONFERENCE ROOM
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, NW
8:30 - 9:00
ARRIVAL - COFFEE AND PASTRIES
9:00 - 9:30
OPENING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
9:30 - 10:30
BIODIVERSITY
DR. WILSON
- AN INFORMATION BRIEFING
10:30 - 10:45
DISCUSSION
10:45 - 11:45
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
OSTP STAFF
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
- 1990 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
11:45 - 12:00
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
THURSDAY, JANUARY 10, 1991 Continued ...
CLOSED SESSION, 12:00 NOON - 5:00 PM
ROOM 248
OMB DIRECTOR'S CONFERENCE ROOM
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
12:00 - 12:45
LUNCH
12:45 - 1:00
BREAK
1:00 - - 5:00
ISSUES FOR PCAST CONSIDERATION
DR. BROMLEY
1:00 - - 2:00
MR. GATES
2:00 - - 3:00
DR. BERNTHAL
3:00 - - 4:00
DISCUSSION
4:00 - 4:30
DEPUTY SECRETARY ATWOOD
4:00 - 5:00
ADMIRAL TRULY
- 6:30
COCKTAILS AND DINNER
MAYFLOWER HOTEL
FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1991
CLOSED SESSION 9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON
ROOM 180
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
8:30 - 9:00
ARRIVAL COFFEE AND PASTRIES
(Dr. Bromley's Office, Room 360, OEOB)
9:00 - 10:00
DISCUSSION OF FEBRUARY AGENDA
DR. BROMLEY
AND OTHER ISSUES
10:00 - 12:00
ISSUES FOR PCAST CONSIDERATION
DR. BROMLEY
10:00 - 11:00
GOVERNOR SUNUNU
11:00 - 12:00
CHAIRMAN BOSKIN
- 12:00
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
PRESS PEOPLE INVITED
Wil Lepkowski
Chemical and Engineering News
Colleen Cordes
Chronicle of Higer Education
Bruce Agnew
Journal of NIH Research
Ed Chen
Los Angeles Times
Chris Anderson
Nature
Chris Joyce
New Scientist
Richard McCormack
New Technology Week
Warren Leary
New York Times
Michael Miller
Performance Materials Magazine
Irwin Goodwin
Physics Today
Dan Greenberg
Science and Government Report
Barbara Culliton
Science Magazine
Arthur Kranish
Science Times
Tim Beardsley
Scientific American
Jeffrey Mervis
The Scientist
Dick Thompson
Time
Georgia Persinos
Washington Insight
William Booth
Washington Post
PCAST MEMBERS EXPECTED
Name
Thursday
Thursday Dinner
Friday
Borlaug
Yes
Yes
Yes
Buchsbaum
No
No
No
Drake
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gomory
Yes
Yes
Yes
Healy
Yes
Yes
Yes
Likins
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lovejoy
Yes
Yes
Yes
Massey
No
No
No
McTague
Yes
Yes
Yes
Nathans
Yes
Yes
Yes
Packard
Yes
Yes
Yes
Shapiro
Yes
Yes
Yes
DRAFT
January 10, 1991
PCAST AGENDA UNDER CONSIDERATION
A.
SHORT TERM ISSUE PAPERS (Completed papers may be updated)
1.
Mathematics and Science Education -- Peter Likins
(Sent to EOP and briefed to President, December 1990)
2.
Technology and the U.S. Standard of Living -- Ralph Gomory
(Sent to EOP and briefed to President, December 1990)
3.
Priorities in Federal S&T Funding -- Charles Drake
(Drafted, Edited, December 1990)
4.
OSTP's Technology Policy -- Ralph Gomory & Sol Buchsbaum
5.
S&T Gaps in National Security -- Sol Buchsbaum
6.
College and University Infrastructure -- Dan Nathans
B.
OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY BE ADDRESSED IN SHORT TERM
1.
Nuclear Energy (Fission and Fusion)
2.
Biodiversity
3.
Trust/Anti-Trust
4.
Conservation (Broad Interpretation)
5.
Human Genome
C.
PCAST PANELS UNDER CONSIDERATION
High Performance Computing and Communications
Chairman:
Sol Buchsbaum
Vice Chairman:
Ralph Gomory
Education and Human Resources
Chairman:
Peter Likins
Vice Chairman:
Charles Drake
Technology and National Security
Co-Chairman:
Sol Buchsbaum
Johnny Foster
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 Enivironment and Natural Resources
Chairman:
Tom Lovejoy
Vice Chairmen:
David Packard
Norman Borlaug
DRAFT
As of January 8, 1991
PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS
ON
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
FEBRUARY 7-8, 1991
AGENDA
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1991
OPEN SESSION 9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON
CONFERENCE ROOM
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, NW
8:30 - 9:00
ARRIVAL - COFFEE AND PASTRIES
9:00 - 9:30
OPENING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
9:30 - 10:30
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE
DR. PECK
RESEARCH PROGRAM
Hal Mooney -NAS GC
10:30 - 10:45
DISCUSSION
10:45 - 11:45
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND
OSTP STAFF
TECHNOLOGY POLICY
- 1990 ACCOMPLISHMENTS
CTI
11:45 - 12:00
DISCUSSION
HPCC
DRAFT
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1991 Continued ...
CLOSED SESSION 12:00 NOON - 5:00 PM
ROOM 208
CORDELL HULL CONFERENCE ROOM
OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING
12:00 - 12:45
LUNCH
1:00 - 2:00
U.S. SECURITY POLICY
HON. PAUL WOLFOWITZ
UNDERSECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR POLICY
2:00 - 2:15
DISCUSSION
2:15 - 3:15
NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY
DIRECTOR
STRATEGIC PLANS
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
5:15 - 3:30
DISCUSSION
3:30 - 4:30
DOD TECHNOLOGY STRATEGY
DR. HERZFELD
4:30 - 4:45
DISCUSSION
4:45 - 5:00
CLOSING REMARKS
DR. BROMLEY
:
DRAFT
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1991
CLOSED SESSION 9:00 AM - 12:00 NOON
ROOSEVELT ROOM
WEST WING
THE WHITE HOUSE
8:30 - 8:50
ARRIVAL - COFFEE AND PASTRIES
(DR. BROMLEY'S OFFICE, ROOM 360, OEOB)
8:50 -
MOVE TO ROOSEVELT ROOM
9:00 - 10:00
CRITIQUE OF FCCSET
DR. LIKINS
REPORT ON MATHEMATICS AND
SCIENCE EDUCATION
10:00 - 11:00
CRITIQUE OF FCCSET
DR. LOVEJOY
REPORT ON U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE
RESEARCH PROGRAM
:00 - - 12:00
OTHER BUSINESS
DR. BROMLEY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 9, 1991
Dear Brent,
As I mentioned in my letter of January 4, the President's Council of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) looks forward to meeting with you on Thursday,
January 10, 1991. The PCAST members are interested in learning about activities of
your office and can give advice and assistance on science and technology issues. An
updated meeting agenda is attached.
You will recall that the PCAST is a group of 12 prestigious individuals from
academia and industry who report directly to the President and, at his request,
examine a broad range of science and technology issues. In addition, PCAST forms
smaller ad hoc panels of private sector executives, researchers, and academics to
address issues in depth.
The PCAST serves two major functions. The first is to provide the President
with accurate, objective information on science and technology as it affects public
policy - in short, science and technology for policy. Of particular importance here is
providing not only science and technology input but also some realistic feel for the
reliability and accuracy of that input. To fulfill this function, the PCAST meets
regularly with the President, Cabinet members and Executive Office of the President
Staff.
A second major task is to help ensure the health and productivity of science and
technology in this country - in short, to advise on policy for science and technology.
To do this the PCAST provides their opinion of science and technology plans and
programs within the federal government.
When we meet later this week, the PCAST would be interested in hearing your
top objectives for 1991 and how PCAST can be of assistance. We would also be
pleased to hear other issues that are of importance to you and your office and those
issues for which you believe the PCAST can offer advice.
:
Finally, the PCAST is interested in hearing your ideas on private sector
initiatives that might be supportive of your objectives and the needs of the President.
Sincerely,
Alen
D. Allan Bromley
Assistant to the President
for
Science and Technology
The Honorable Brent Scowcroft
Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs
West Wing
The White House
Enclosure
MARYANNE C. BACH
Executive Director
Federal Coordinating Council for Science
Engineering and Technology (FCCSET)
Maryanne Bach recently joined FCCSET to serve as Executive Director working
directly for Dr. D. Allan Bromley, Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP). Ms. Bach came to FCCSET from the Department of the Interior where she
most currently was appointed by Secretary Manuel Lujan, Jr. to serve as the
Department's Director of the Office of Program Analysis. Reporting to the Assistant
Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, the Office oversees and coordinates
major program and policy development for Interior, including wetlands, global change,
energy strategy, and initiatives to enhance stewardship of our natural resources.
Prior to October 1988, Bach served as Special Assistant to the Secretary and the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks where she was key to the
Department's endorsement of major steps to enhance and protect prime wildlife and
wetland habitat, including legislation to expand the Everglades National Park and an
international wetlands agreement, the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
She has also chaired the Department's Wetlands Working Group. In addition, Ms.
Bach serves as the Secretary's representative to the National Park Systems Advisory
Board, a sixteen member group that gives independent advise on Park matters.
Prior to her arrival at the Interior Department, Bach served eight years on the
Republican staff of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology of the U.S.
House of Representatives. As the Republican Science Coordinator, Ms. Bach oversaw
major policy development in the field on non-military federal research and
development. This included the coordination of the legislative and oversight activities
for: the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the research and
development programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
environmental program in the DOE, the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) within the Department of Commerce (DOC), all
international R&D activities, as well as technology transfer and biotechnology issues
under the jurisdiction of the Committee. Formerly, she coordinated the work of the
Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, as well as served as the principal
Minority representative on the Committee's Supercomputer and Biotechnology Task
Forces during their existence in 1985-87.
A native of New York, Bach received her B.S. degree (cum laude) in biology from
Providence College, Rhode Island and a M.S. in Botany and Plant Ecology (magna
cum laude) from Iowa State University. While at Iowa State, she worked for the
Science and Humanities Research Institute and The Nature Conservancy.
Bach is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
(AAAS), Phi Sigma Tau, Phi Kappa Phi, the Iowa Academy of Science and The
Nature Conservancy.
FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
WASHINGTON, D.C.
President Bush's appointment of Dr. Frederick M. Bernthal as Deputy
Director of the National Science Foundation was confirmed by the
Senate on March 1, 1990. The Foundation is charged with promoting
and strengthening U.S. scientific and engineering research and
education. Its budget of $2.4 billion supports 12,000 to 14,000
grants annually in the natural and social sciences, engineering,
and education.
Prior to his appointment to the Foundation, Dr. Bernthal served for
two years as Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs. He negotiated
the U.S.-USSR Agreement for Cooperation in Basic Sciences and led
numerous U.S. delegations to international meetings on
environmental and science and technology issues, including the
first meeting of the parties to the Montreal Protocol on Depletion
of Stratospheric Ozone, and the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental
Panel on Global Climate Change. He chairs the 50-nation Response
Strategies Working Group of that Panel.
Dr. Bernthal served as a member of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission from 1983 to 1988. In the wake of the Chernobyl
disaster, he led a 12-member interagency U.S. Nuclear Safety
Delegation to the Soviet Union and negotiated and signed the first
U.S.-USSR nuclear safety protocol.
In 1978, Dr. Bernthal was a Congressional Science Fellow of the
American Physical Society, and joined the staff of U.S. Senator
Howard Baker. In April of 1980 he was appointed Chief Legislative
Assistant to then Senate Majority Leader Baker, on whose staff he
continued to serve until 1983.
From 1970 to 1978, he was a professor of Chemistry and Physics at
Michigan State University. He spent a year in research at the
Niels Bohr Institute of the University of Copenhagen, and in 1977
was a NATO Senior Scientist Fellow.
Dr. Bernthal earned the B.S. degree in chemistry with distinction
from Valparaiso University in 1964, and a Ph.D. in nuclear
chemistry in 1969 from the University of California at Berkeley.
He was a postdoctoral research staff scientist at Yale University
from 1969 to 1970.
The author of over 45 publications in professional scientific
journals, Dr. Bernthal is a member of the Scientific Research
Society of Sigma Xi, the American Physical Society, the American
Chemical Society, and the American Association for the Advancement
of science.
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE
COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC ADVISERS
WASHINGTON
Michael J. Boskin
Chairman
The President's Council of Economic Advisers
Michael J. Boskin is the Chairman of the President's Council of Economic
Advisers. He was appointed to this post by the President on February 2, 1989,
following unanimous confirmation by the Senate. As Chairman, he provides
economic analysis and advice directly to the President and assists in formulating
national economic policies. Dr. Boskin is on leave from Stanford University where
he is the Burnet C. and Mildred Finley Wohlford Professor of Economics. He is
also on leave as a Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Dr. Boskin is the recipient of numerous professional awards and citations,
ranging from the Chancellor's Award and Department Citation as outstanding
undergraduate at the University of California in 1967 and the first National Tax
Association Outstanding Doctoral Dissertation Award in 1971 to the Abramson
Award for Outstanding Research from the National Association of Business
Economists in 1987, and Stanford University's Distinguished Teaching Award in
1988. He is the author of more than 80 books and articles in the areas of
government spending, tax theory and policy, public debt, Social Security, retirement
patters and behavior, U.S. saving behavior, capital formation, U.S. economic growth,
and the economic status of the elderly.
Dr. Boskin received his B.A. degree with highest honors in 1967 from the
University of California at Berkeley, where he also received his M.A. in 1968 and
his Ph.D in 1971.
Previously, Dr. Boskin had served as a consultant and advisor to the White
House, Department of Health and Human Services, Treasury Department, National
Science Foundation, and other government agencies, and various Congressional
Committees.
Dr. Boskin is a member of the Economic Education Committee of the
American Economic Association. He and his wife, Chris, moved to Washington,
D.C. from California. They both enjoy tennis and skiing.
September 1989
Mr. Robert M. Gates
Assistant to the President and Deputy for National Security Affairs
Robert M. Gates was appointed Assistant to the President and Deputy for National Security
Affairs by President Bush on August 3. 1989.
Mr. Gates served as Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs from
January 20 to August 3, 1989. Prior to that, he served as Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
from April 1986 to January 1989. In this position he was principal deputy to the Director, who
heads the Intelligence Community (all of the foreign intelligence agencies of the United States) and
directs the Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Gates, a native of Kansas, received his BA Degree from the College of William and Mary
in 1965, his Masters Degree in history from Indiana University in 1966, and his Doctorate in
Russian and Soviet history from Georgetown University in 1974.
Mr. Gates joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1966, serving as an intelligence analyst
and as one of two Assistant National Intelligence Officers for Strategic Programs. In 1974 he was
assigned to the National Security Council Staff.
After more than five years at the National Security council, serving three Presidents, Mr.
Gates returned to the Central Intelligence Agency in late 1979. lle subsequently was appointed to a
series of administrative positions and served as National Intelligence Officer of the Soviet Union
prior to his appointment as Deputy Director for Intelligence in January 1982.
As DDI for nearly four and one half years, Mr. Gates directed the Central Intelligence
Agency's component responsible for all analysis and production of finished intelligence. In
September 1983, the Director appointed Mr. Gates Chairman of the National Intelligence Council
concurrent with his position as Deputy Director for Intelligence. As Chairman of the National
Intelligence Council, Mr. Gates directed the preparation of all national intelligence estimates
prepared, by the Intelligence Community.
Mr. Gates served as Acting Director of Central Intelligence from December 18, 1986, until
May 26. 1987.
Mr. Gates has been awarded the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal and has
twice received CIA's highest award, the Distinguished Intelligence Medal. He also is a recipient of
the Intelligence Medal of Merit and the Arthur S. Fleming Award, which is presented annually to
the ten most outstanding young men and women in the Federal Service.
Mr. Gates and his wife Becky have two children.
APRIL 1990
CURRICULUM VITAE
DONALD AINSLIE HENDERSON
OFFICE ADDRESS:
615 N. Wolfe Street
BORN:
September 7, 1928
Baltimore, MD 21205
Lakewood, Ohio
301-955-3540
HOME ADDRESS:
3802 Greenway
MARRIED:
Nana Irene Brags
Rochester, New York
Baltimore, MD 21218
301-889-2880
September 1, 1951
CHILDREN:
Leigh Ainalie, 1954
David Alexander, 1956
Douglas Bruce, 1960
EDUCATION:
A.B., Oberlin College, 1950
M.D., University of Rochester School of Medicine, 1954
M.P.H., Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, 1960
Honoris cause:
M.D., Universite de Geneve (19805
LL.D., Marietta College (1978)
L.H.D., State University of New York (1981)
Sc.D., University of Rochester (1977);
Oberlin College (1978);
University of Illinois (1979);
University of Maryland (1980);
Yale University (1986)
Albany Medical College (1989)
-2-
APRIL 1990
POSITIONS HELD:
Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital, Cooperstown, New York, Intern in Medicine, 1954-1955, Resident
in Medicine, 1987-1959
Communicable Diseases Center, Department of Health, Education, and Walfare, Assistant Chief,
Epidemic Intelligence Service, 1955-1956; Chief, Epidemic Intelligence Service and Assistant to
Chief, Epidemiology Branch 1956-1957; Assistant Chief, Epidemiology Branch and Chief,
Epidemic Intelligence Service, 1960-1961, Chief, Surveillance Section, Epidemiology Branch,
1961-1965; Chief, Smallpox Eradication Program, 1963-1966
World Health Organization, Chief Medical Officer, Smallpox Bradication, 1966-1977
Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health, Dean and Professor of Epidemiol-
ogy and International Health, 1977-
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES:
American Board of Preventive Medicine, 1963-
American College of Epidemiology, Fellow, 1990.
American College of Preventive Medicine, Fellow, 1978-
American Epidemiological Society, 1963-
American Public Health Association, 1956; Fellow, 1961-
American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 1981-
Association of Schools of Public Health, Treasurer, 1978; Vice-President, 1981-1982; 1967-1988;
President, 1988-
Indian Society for Malaria and Other Communicable Diseases, Fellow, 1975-
International Epidemiological Association, 1965-
Royal College of Physicians (Edinburgh), Fellow, 1986-
Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, Fellow, 1976-
APRIL 1990
SCIENTIFIC AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS: (United States)
National Medal of Science, 1986
National Academy of Sciences . Public Welfare Medal, 1978
Charles S. Dana Foundation Award for Pioneering Achievement in Health, 1986
American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Fellow, 1986-
Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, Member, 1978-
Albert Schweitzer International Prize for Medicine, 1985
American American Public Health Association . Rosenhaus International Award for Excellence, 1975
College of Physicians . James D. Bruce Memorial Award, 1978
American Academy of Pediatrics - Honorary Fellow, 1960
Johns Hopkins University & Distinguished Alumnus Award, 1982
Michigan State University . Walter F. Patenge Medal of Public Service, 1984
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine Medal, 1990
Ohio Foundation of Independent Colleges, Hall of Fame, 1990
Blue U.S. Association for the United Nations . Joseph C. Wilson Award in International 1986 Affairs, 1978
Cross-Blue Shield . 50th Anniversary Distinguished Service Award, 1979
U.S. General Accounting Office . Comptroller General's Special Recognition,
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Superior Service Award, 1964
Sustained Superior Performance Award, 1966
U.S. Public Health Service . Distinguished Service Medal, 1976
Commendation Medal, 1962
Delta Omega Honorary Public Health Society a Mamber, 1979
Outstanding Alumnus Award, 1950
Sigma XI Member, 1956
SCIENTIFIC AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS 1 (Other Countries)
The Japan Prize, 1988
Republic of China . Health Medal of the First Grade, 1958
Government of Uruguay - Medal of Abnegation, 1988
Universidad Peruana Caystano Heredia, Honorary Professor, 1988
Commemorative Award of Seventh World Congress of the International Physicians for the Preven-
Non of Nuclear War, 1987
Gairdner Foundation (Canada) International Award of Merit, 1983
Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom - Faculty of Community Medicine . Honorary
Fellow, 1981
Royal Society of Medicine
Richard T. Hewitt Award, 1986
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and
Honorary Member, 1980
Government of Ethiopia - Medal for Contributions to Health 1979
Hygiene . George McDonald Prixe and Medal, 1976
Government of Afghenisten = Roghtya Nashan (Health Medal), 1976
Ernst-Jung Foundation, (Germany) - Ernst-Jung Prais fur Mediatr, 1976
Government of India Special Award, 1978
Indian Society for Malaria and Other Communicable Diseases * Special Award, 1975
Lahore, Paklstan . Certificate of Marit, 1977
+
APRIL 1990
AWARD TO WHO FOR SMALLFOX ERADICATION
Special Albert Lasker Public Health Service Award, 1976
SPECIAL LECTURESHIPS:
Alumni Reunion Lecture, Oberlin College, 1990
Vanderbilt University World Health Week, Keynote Speaker, 1990
Cleveland City Club Forum Speaker, 1990
Kathryn Boucot Sturgis Lecture, 1990
Ahmnni Reunion Lecture, University of Rochester, 1989
John F. McGovern Lecturer, Baylor College of Medicine, 1989
Phyllis Lewander Memorial Lecture - Children's Hospital National Medical Center, Washington,
Annual Banquet Address, Clinico-Pathological Society of Washington, 1989
D.C. 1989
American Fediatric Society . Washington, DC, 1988
Bloomfield Lecture . Case-Weatern Reserve University, 1987
Joseph Mountin Lecture- Centers for Disease Control, 1987
Againd Lecture - University of Washington, 1987
Frontiers of Science Lecture University of Florida, 1987
Eighteenth Chief Guest and Keynots Speaker, 30th Aniversary of Indian Public Health Association . Calcutta,
International Pediatric Congress . Keynota Speaker, 1986
National India, Convention 1965 on the Management of Health Systems . Convention Orator: Jaipur, India, 1985
P.D. Agarwal Memorial Oration . Calcutta, India, 1963
Oberlin College Sesquicentennial Speaker - 1983
Harvard Medical School Bicentennial Speaker . 1982
Rameshwar Sharma Oration . School of Medicine, Jaipur, India, 1981
Harben Lecture a Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiena, London, 1980
Stephens Lecture . Oberlin, Ohio, 1990.
V.W. Scully Distinguished Lacture - Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, 1979
Joseph C. Wilson Lecture . Rechester, New York, 1979.
Julia M. Jones Memorial Lecture . American Lung Association and American Thoracic Society, 1977 1979
James Bordley B Lecture . Mary Imogene Bassett Hospital, Cooperstown, New York,
Merck Sharpe and Dohme Lecture a Canadian Public Health Association, Ottawa, Canada, 1977
Jenner Memorial Lecture . Bristol (UJO Royal Infirmary, 1975
Commencement and Convocation Addressez
San Diego State University School of Public Health a 1988
University of California (San Diego) School of Medicine . 1984
Michigan State University School of Medicine . 1984
University of Southern California School of Medicine - 1978
APRIL 1990
PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEES: (Present)
World Health Organization
Expert Advisory Panel on Virus Diseases, 1976-
Committee on Orthopoxvirus Infections, 1981-
Consultant Group on Poliomyelitis Eradication, Chairman. 1988-
Pan American Health Organization
Technical Advisory Group on Immunization Chairman, 1985-
American Journal of Epidemiology,
Board of Overseers, Associate Editor, 1963-1977; Chairman, 1984-
Editorial Advisory Board . Bibliography of Biosthics, 1979-
International Association for Maternal and Neonatal Health, Scientific Council, 1981-
Rotary Foundation of Rotary International, Polio Flus Advisory Committee, 1985-
Government Accounting Office
Advisory Board, Program Evaluation and Methodology Division, 1988-
U.S. Department of State
Advisory Committee on Oceana, Environmental and Scientific Affairs, 1988-
Department of Health and Human Services
National Vaccine Advisory Committee, 1988-1989; Chairman, 1990-
Secretary's Council on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, 1989.
Association of Academic Health Centers
Task Force on Health Promotion /Disease Prevention, 1989-
"AIDS Patient Care" magazine . Editorial Advisory Panel, 1987-
United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association, Scientific Advisory Panel, 1988-
Institute of Medicine, Board on International Health, 1985-
Charles A. Dana Foundation Awards Jury, 1990-
Foundation for Development of International Health Japan). Scientific Consultant, 1990-
BOARD OF DIRECTORS/TRUSTEES:
Indian Institute of Health Management Research, 1985-
Maryland Society for Medical Research, Inc. 1978-
Population Crisis Committee, 1981-
International Center for Diarrheal Disease Research (Dhaka), 1988-
Medical Alumni Association. Mary Imogene Bansett Hospital, 1989-
BIOGRAPHICAL LISTINGS:
Who's Who in the World
The International Who's Who
Who's Who in America
Who's Who in Frontiers of Science and Technology
American Man and Women in Science: Medical and Health Sciences
Dietionary of International Biography
APRIL 1990
PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEES: (Past)
American Public Health Association
Committee on Hepatitis, Chairman, 1961-1965
Multiple Antigen Committee, 1964-1966
Epidemiology Section Council, 1963-1967
Surgeon General's Advisory Committees on:
Influenza, Secretary, 1961-1963
Measies Vaccines, Secretary, 1963
Inmunization Practice, Secretary, 1964-1966
World Health Organization
Special Committee on Measles Vaccine, Consultant, 1963
Scientific Group on Human Virus Vaccines, Member, 1965
Global Commission for the Certification of Smallpox Bradication, 1978-1980
Program Advisory Group for the Prevention of Blindness, 1978-1982
Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases- Scientific and Technological Advi-
Caribbean Epidemiology Center Scientific Advisory Committee, 1980-1983
sory Committee, 1982-1984
National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences
Board on Science and Technology in International Development, 1981-1983
Committee on Research Grants, 1982-83
National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine,
Stearing Committee for the Study on Clinical Investigations in Developing Countries, 1978-1980
AID Health Strategy Study, Steering Committee, 1978
Advisory Committee on Health, Biomedical Research and Development, Chairman, 1981-1983
Stearing Committee, Study of Tropical Diseases, 1954-1987
Government Accounting Office
Research and Education Advisory Panel to the Comptroller-General, 1977-1986
Department of Health and Human Services
PHS Hospitals ad hec Advisory Committee, 1978
Secretary's Committee on Influanza, Vice-Chairman, 1979
National Ethics Advisory Board, 1977-1980
CDC Programs and Policy Advisory Committee, 1978-1980
Immunization Practices Advisory Committee, Centers for Disease Control, 1982-1986
Chairman, Mayor's Task Force on Environmental Carcinogens (Saltimore), 1977-1978
NASA Planetary Protection Study Group, 1978
Executive Office of the President Office of Science and Technology
Task Perce for Science and Technology in Foreign Assistance, Chairman, 1980
Advisory Committee on Science, Technology and Development, 1978-1979
Consultant, 1978-1982
Harvard University,
Burroughs-Wellcome Fund - Pharmacoepidemiology Awards Committee, 1983-1987
Visiting Committee, University Health Services, 1981-1983
City University of New York Medical School, National Visiting Council, 1986-1989
Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences,
Committee on the Evaluation of Policmyclida Vaccine, 1987-88
U.S. Agency for International Development
Research Advisory Committee, 1983-1990
PUBLICATIONS:
More than 100 scientific publications dealing primarily with smallpox eradication, epidemiology and
immunization.
RACHEL ELIZABETH LEVINSON
Office of Science and Technology Policy
11700 Bunnell Ct., N.
Executive Office of the President
Potomac, MD 20854
Washington, D.C. 20506
(301) 983-8670
(202) 395-4850 (202) 395-3719 FAX
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
POLICY
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR LIFE SCIENCES: Division of Life Sciences, Office of
Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President,
September 1990 - present
The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) serves as a source of science and
technology expertise for the President and other organizations within the Executive Office
of the President and provides for coordination, reviews and policy analyses of research
and development programs of the Federal Government. The Assistant Director for Life
Sciences provides scientific and technological advice involved in areas of national concern,
including the economy, health, foreign relations, and the environment; evaluates the scale,
quality, and effectiveness of the Federal effort in the life sciences and technology; assists
agencies throughout the Federal budget development process; and promotes coordination
of the activities of the research agencies of the Federal Government. In addition, the
Assistant Director retains the responsibilities described below.
SENIOR POLICY ANALYST FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY: Division of Life Sciences, OSTP
November 1989 . September 1990
The Senior Policy Analyst for Biotechnology is responsible for the following: analysis and
policy formulation of the key issues involved in environmental, health and safety
regulations, and analysis of Federal policies toward industrial innovation, particularly in
the biotechnology field; support for the Associate Director, Life Sciences, in formulating
and implementing major initiatives by the Director, OSTP, in the scientific arena;
direction of major conceptual, analytical and evaluative studies of different aspects of
biotechnology policy, designed to provide high-level advice and analysis to be used by the
President; and liaison for OSTP with other Government agencies, Congressional
committees, national laboratories, universities, the private sector, and embassies and
foreign governments on the sciences programs, both in the U.S. and abroad, to
continuously assess their status and to identify the greatest opportunities for beneficial
cooperation.
Selected Special Projects: Serves as Vice Chairman of the Working Group on
Biotechnology, Vice President's Council on Competitiveness. The Working Group has
been charged to develop a set of recommendations for Federal policies designed to
stimulate the domestic biotechnology industry and to identify and remove barriers to
international competitiveness.
Rachel E. Levinson
Resumè - Page Two
Serves as Executive Secretary to the Biotechnology Science Coordinating Committee
(BSCC), a committee established in OSTP in 1985. The BSCC provides for interagency
science policy coordination and guidance and the exchange of information regarding the
scientific aspects of biotechnology research and regulation.
Serves as OSTP liaison member of the National Biotechnology Policy Board, a
Congressionally mandated organization comprised of government, university, and industry
representatives charged to assess and to recommend policies and programs pertaining to
biotechnology. Topics for discussion include basic and applied sciences, training,
competitiveness and technology transfer.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Office of Recombinant DNA Activities, Office of Science Policy
and Legislation, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health,
August 1988-November 1989. Acting Director: August 1988-August 1989
The Office of Recombinant DNA Activities (ORDA) serves as a national focal point for
maintaining and disseminating information on recombinant DNA research to NIH and
other Federal agencies, research institutions, biosafety committees, Congress, state and
local governments, and the private sector. The Deputy Director assisted the Director,
ORDA, in providing briefings and staff support to the Director, NIH, concerning
recombinant DNA and biotechnology policy; supervised staff in the administration of the
Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee; served as Executive Secretary, Human Gene
Therapy Subcommittee and other subcommittees; and oversaw daily operations.
Selected Special Projects: Represented NIH at interagency and international meetings
concerning the development of consistent guidelines for biotechnology, coordinated and
administered NIH approval of the first human gene transfer experiment, and assisted the
NIH Legal Advisor and the Department of Justice in several legal actions.
PROGRAM ANALYST: Science Policy Analysis and Development Branch, Office of
Science 1983-1988 Policy and Legislation, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health,
Analyzed current policy and assisted in the development of new policies in areas
including: biotechnology, characterization of the human genome, government/industry/
university relations, patents, technology transfer, biomedical ethics and research resources.
Developed and authored policy analyses, speeches, Congressional testimony, position
papers, briefing materials, descriptive reports and critiqued documents submitted to the
Office of the Director by other NIH components. Initiated and maintained liaison with
knowledgeable persons in and outside of NIH in support of responsibility to inform
appropriate officials of developments in assigned issue areas.
Advisory Committee on Complex Genomes, the NIH Working Group on Complex
Selected Special Projects: Served as Executive Secretary to the NIH Ad Hoc Program
Genomes, and the NIH Committee on Biotechnology Activities. In preparation for
Rachel E. Levinson
Resume . Page Three
February 1988 meeting of the Ad Hoc Program Advisory Committee, developed meeting
agenda and roster of scientific experts from industry, academia, the NIH intramural
research program, Congressional staff, and other organizations; discussed meeting
objectives with participants; selected background material; responded to questions from
the media; prepared introductory remarks and talking points on current NIH policies and
related legislative activities for the NIH Director and the Associate Director for Science
Policy and Legislation; and produced and published summary report.
RESEARCH
Laboratory of Pathology, National Cancer Institute, 1973-1983
Acquired extensive practical and theoretical background in a variety of areas of
biomedical research including: immunology, endocrinology, carbohydrate chemistry and
cancer biology. Activities included: isolation and characterization of carbohydrates,
structural proteins and glycoprotein hormones from human tissue; production and
identification of monoclonal antibodies through the development of hybridoma cell lines;
immunofluorescence labeling and microscopy for in situ localization of specific antigens;
mass spectroscopy; and induction and passage of tumors in animal model systems.
EDUCATION
Master of Arts; Science, Technology, and Public Policy, 1985
George Washington University, School of Public and International Affairs
Areas of Concentration: Science Policy, Public Administration and Ethics
Thesis Title: The Impact of Prospective Payment On Clinical Trials
Graduate Work; Biochemistry and Endocrinology, 1976-1981
American University and Foundation for Advanced Education in the Sciences
Bachelor of Science; Zoology, 1975
University of Maryland, College Park
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
Washington Association for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Public Policy
Founding Member and Advisory Board Member
American Association for the Advancement of Science - Member
District of Columbia Science Writers Association . Member
The Hastings Center on Ethics and Society - Associate Member
Washington Area Ethics Society, Kennedy Institute for Bioethics - Member
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
J. THOMAS RATCHFORD
Dr. J. Thomas Ratchford is Associate Director for Policy and International
Affairs of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office
of the President. Prior to his appointment to this post by President Bush in
November 1989, Dr. Ratchford was the Associate Executive Officer of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). At AAAS he served as deputy to
the chief executive officer and headed the Association's program directorates:
Education and Human Resources, International Programs and Science and Policy
Programs.
Educated and trained as a solid state physicist, Dr. Ratchford has taught at
Washington and Lee University and served on research staffs of various private and
governmental laboratories. From 1964 to 1970, he was responsible for formulating
and administering a basic research program in the solid state sciences for the Office
of Scientific Research of the Department of the Air Force. Dr. Ratchford was a
member of the professional staff of the Committee on Science and Technology of the
United States House of Representatives from 1970 to 1977, and was one of the first
scientists to serve the Congress on a full-time basis. His responsibilities there dealt
mainly with policy and funding for science and technology, and for energy research
and development.
As a Congressional Fellow of the American Political Science Association in the
late 1960's, Dr. Ratchford served in the offices of members of the House and Senate
with particular interests in scientific and technological issues. In 1976, he was a
Research Scholar at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in
Laxenburg, Austria, doing research on the economics and technologies of global energy
systems.
Over the years he has chaired outside advisory panels for organizations such
as the Gas Research Institute, the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment, and
the National Science Foundation, and has served as a consultant and advisor to
various governmental, university and industrial organizations.
Dr. Ratchford received his B.S. in mathematics and physics from Davidson
College in 1957. The University of Virginia awarded him an M.A. in 1959 and a
Ph.D. in 1961, both in physics. A member of Phi Beta Kappa and Sigma Xi, he is a
fellow of the AAAS and a member of the American Physical Society and the Virginia
Academy of Science. He is married to the former Joanne Walton Causey, and they
have four children: Joseph Thomas Jr., Laura Leigh, James Raymond and David
Andrew.
1/90
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
BIOGRAPHY OF JOHN H. SUNUNU
John Henry Sununu, 51, of Salem, New Hampshire, was
commissioned Chief of Staff to the President of the United States
on January 21, 1989. As Chief of Staff, Governor Sununu oversees
the daily operations of the White House and its staff.
After playing an influential role in President Bush's New
Hampshire primary victory, Governor Sununu served as National Co-
Chairman of the Bush/Quayle campaign. During the general
election, the Governor became one of the most active surrogate
speakers on the campaign trail and travelled extensively across
the country.
Governor Sununu became New Hampshire's 93rd Governor on
January 6, 1983, and served three consecutive terms prior to
joining the White House staff.
Governor Sununu assumed office with a background of nearly
20 years experience as an educator, engineer, small businessman
and community leader.
The Governor gained both regional and national recognition
through his chairmanship of the Coalition of Northeastern
Governors, the chairmanship of the Republican Governors'
Association, and his election in 1987, to the chairmanship of the
National Governors' Association.
Within the National Governors' Association, Governor Sununu
served as chairman of several committees. He was particularly
active as chairman of the New Technology Education Task Force,
which, two years ago, issued "Time for Results; The Governors'
1991 report on Education". Also through his efforts, the NGA,
and later the New Hampshire Legislature, endorsed innovative acid
rain legislation.
Governor Sununu is a member of the National Academy of
Engineers' Committee on Public Engineering Policy and has served
as a member of the President's Council on Environmental Quality
Advisory Committee, the New England Regional Energy Advisory
Council, the board of trustees of the Northeast Solar Energy
Center, and as chairman of the board of directors of Consumer
Alert.
July 1990
The Governor attended the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, and
earned his Ph.D there in 1966 in mechanical engineering. From
1968 to 1973, he was associate dean of the College of Engineering
at Tufts University where he had been an associate professor of
mechanical engineering since 1966. He was invited to join the
Advisory Board of the Technology and Policy Program at MIT in
August, 1984.
From 1965 until his election as Governor, he served as
President of JHS Engineering Company and Thermal Research Inc.;
in addition, he helped found, and served, as chief engineer for
Astro Dynamics Inc. from 1960 to 1965.
The Governor married the former Nancy Hayes in 1958. They
have eight children.
NASA
Biographical
National Aeronautics and
Data
Space Administration
Washington, D.C.
20546
RICHARD H. TRULY
NASA Administrator
Richard H. Truly became the eighth administrator of NASA on
July 1, 1989. One day earlier, he concluded his naval career of
more than 30 years, retiring as a Vice Admiral, United States
Navy. He is the first astronaut to head the nation's civilian
space agency.
Truly became NASA's associate administrator for space flight on
February 20, 1986. In this position, he led the painstaking
rebuilding of the Space Shuttle program. This was highlighted by
NASA's celebrated "return to flight" on September 29, 1988, when
Discovery lifted off from Kennedy Space Center, Florida, on the
first Shuttle mission in almost 3 years.
Before returning to NASA, the former Shuttle astronaut served as
the first commander of the Naval Space Command, Dahlgren,
Virginia, established October 1, 1983. His career in the U.S.
Navy began in 1959, when he was commissioned an ensign. This
coincided with his graduation from Georgia Institute of
Technology, which he attended as a Naval R.O.T.C. midshipman and
earned a bachelor's degree in aeronautical engineering.
Following flight school, he was designated a naval aviator in
1960. His initial tour of duty, Fighter Squadron 33, was aboard
USS Intrepid and USS Enterprise, and he made more than 300
carrier landings. From 1963 to 1965, he was a student and then
instructor at the U.S. Air Force Aerospace Research Pilot School,
Edwards Air Force Base, California.
In 1965, Truly became one of the first military astronauts
selected to the Air Force's Manned Orbiting Laboratory program in
Los Angeles, California, and transferred to NASA as an astronaut
in August 1969. He served as capsule communicator for all three
of the manned Skylab missions in 1973 and the Apollo-Soyuz
mission in 1975. As a naval aviator, test pilot, and astronaut,
Truly has logged over 7,500 hours in numerous military and
civilian jet aircraft.
He was pilot for one of the two-man crews that flew the 747/Space
Shuttle Enterprise approach and landing test flights during 1977.
He then served as backup pilot for STS-1, the first orbital test
of the Shuttle. His first flight in space was November 12-14,
1981, as pilot of Space Shuttle Columbia (STS-2), significant as
the first manned spacecraft to be reflown in space. His second
flight (STS-8, August 30-September 5, 1983) was as commander of
Space Shuttle challenger, the first night launch and landing in
the Shuttle program.
on January 18, 1989, Truly was awarded the Presidential Citizen's
Medal by President Reagan. His NASA awards include two NASA
Distinguished Service Medals, the NASA Outstanding Leadership
Medal, two NASA Exceptional Service Medals, and two NASA Space
Flight Medals. His military decorations include the Defense
Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal,
two Legions of Merit, the Navy Distinguished Flying Cross, and
the Meritorious Service Medal.
Truly also has received the Robert J. Collier Trophy (twice, 1982
and 1989), the Robert H. Goddard Memorial Trophy (twice, 1982 and
1989), the Society of Experimental Test Pilot's Ivan C. Kincheloe
Award (1978) and James H. Doolittle Award (1988), the Federation
Aeronautique Internationale Gold Space Medal (1984), the Harmon
International Trophy (1982), the Thomas D. White Space Trophy
(1982), the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Haley Space Flight Award (1980), the American Astronautical
Society's Flight Achievement Award (1977) and John F. Kennedy
Astronautics Award (1990), the Air Force Association's David c.
Shilling Award (1978), the Boy Scouts of America Distinguished
Eagle Scout Award, the Medal of Honor of the National Society of
the Daughters of the American Revolution, and the Sons of the
American Revolution Gold Good Citizenship Award.
Truly was born in Fayette, Mississippi, on November 12, 1937,
and attended school in Fayette and Meridian, Mississippi. He
is married to the former Colleen (Cody) Hanner of Milledgeville,
Georgia. They have three children--Mike, Dan and Lee--and three
grandchildren--Ashley, Courtney and Peter.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
MICHELLE K. VAN CLEAVE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS
AND
COUNSEL
Michelle Kim Van Cleave was reappointed Assistant Director for
National Security Affairs and Counsel, White House office of
Science and Technology Policy, on October 1, 1989--positions she
had held from August 1987 through February 1989. Prior to
rejoining OSTP, Ms. Van Cleave served as Republican Counsel to
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives.
From 1981 through July 1987, Ms. Van Cleave was Assistant for
Defense and Foreign Policy to Congressman Jack Kemp (R-NY),
serving concurrently as National Security Assistant to the House
Republican Conference and Associate Staff Member, House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, U.S. House of
Representatives.
From 1979 through 1981, Ms. Van Cleave was an associate with the
Los Angeles law firm of Horvitz and Greines, specializing in
appellate advocacy.
Ms. Van Cleave was Coordinator and Staff Attorney in the office
of the General Counsel, 1981 Presidential Inaugural Committee,
and assisted in the work of the Department of Defense Transition
Team Office of President-elect Reagan 1980. At the Republican
Convention in 1984, Ms. Van Cleave was a member of the Platform
Committee staff, with responsibility for foreign policy.
Ms. Van Cleave has served as a member of the Board of Advisors,
Center for Security Policy, and as consultant to the Heritage
Foundation, the Fund for an American Renaissance, and the
American Security Council. She has spoken before a variety of
conferences and organizations including the Aspen Institute
Berlin, the New York Institute of Technology, the National
Defense University, Tufts University, Johns Hopkins School for
Advanced International Studies, Republican National Committee
regional meetings, the Military Operations Research Society and
the American Chamber of Commerce (Manila). She also served as a
Congressional Staff Advisor to the U.S. delegation to the United
Nations Second Special Session on Disarmament.
Ms. Van Cleave holds M.A. and B.A. degrees in international
relations from the University of Southern California and a J.D.
from the U.S.C. School of Law. She is a member of the State Bar
of California.
December 1989
Withdrawal/Redaction Sheet
(George Bush Library)
Document No.
Subject/Title of Document
Date
Restriction
Class.
and Type
01. Resume
Resume of Edward Osborne Wilson [social security number
(b)(6)
redacted] (1 pp.)
Collection:
Record Group:
Bush Presidential Records
Office:
Science and Technology Policy, Office of (OSTP)
Series:
Bromley, D. Allan, Files
Subseries:
Organization Files - PCAST
WHORM Cat.:
File Location:
President's Council of Advisors for Science and Technology: Meetings - 1/10/91-1/11/91
Date Closed:
5/17/2010
OA/ID Number:
62079-001
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.
Curriculum Vitae
EDWARD OSBORNE WILSON
(Soc. Sec. No.
(b)(6)
)
Alabama, June 10, 1929; parents: Linnette Freeman Huddleston 1955. One and
BORN: Edward Birmingham, Osborne Wilson, Sr. (father deceased). Married: Irene Kelley,
daughter: Catherine, born 1963.
EDUCATION: Graduated Decatur Senior High School, Decatur, Alabama, 1946
B.S. (biol.), University of Alabama, 1949
M.S. (biol.), University of Alabama, 1950
Ph.D. (biol.), Harvard University, 1955
POSITIONS: Alabama University: Department of Junior Conservation: Fellow, Society Entomologist, of Fellows, 1949 1953-56; Assistant of Professor
Harvard 1956-58; Associate Professor of Zoology, 1958-64; Professor Zoology,
of Biology, 1964-1976; Curator in Entomology, Museum of Comparative of the Sciences, 1973-;
Zoology, Frank B. Baird Jr. Professor of Science, 1976-; Mellon Professor
University 1990-1993 of California, Berkeley: Hitchcock Visiting Professor, 1972
Society for the Study of Evolution: President, 1973
Marine John Simon Guggenheim Foundation: Fellow, 1976; Advisory Board, 1977-81; Committee
Biological Laboratories: Board of Trustees, 1976-80
World of Selection, Wildlife Fund: 1982-89 Scientific Advisory Committee, 1978-; Board of Directors,
1984-90; Research Council: Board on Science and Technology in International
Executive Committee, 1987-90
National Development, 1984-86; Committee on Research Opportunities in Biology, 1985-89;
National Science Board Taskforce on Biodiversity, 1987-89
Chairman, Committee on Biodiversity, 1988-90
Xerces Society: President, 1989-90
Griswold Lecture, Cornell University (1968)
Bartram Lecture, Florida State University (1976)
Lectures, Cornell University (1976)
Messenger Distinguished Lecture, Eastern Psychological Association (1977)
Leon Lecture, University of Pennsylvania (1977)
Gilmour Lecture, Johns Hopkins University (1977)
Orr Lectures, Dartmouth College (1977)
Beatty Lectures, McGill University (1977)
Harris Lectures, Northwestern University (1978)
Tanner Lecture in Philosophy, University of Michigan (1979)
Patten Memorial Lectures, Indiana University (1979)
Annual Lecture, Carnegie Institution of Washington, D.C. (1979)
Lecturer, Trinity College, Cambridge University (1979-82)
Aharon Tarner Katzir-Katchalsky Lecture, Weizmann Institute, Israel (1980)
Bush Library Photocopy
Gay Lecture in Ethics, Harvard Medical School (1980)
Wilhemine George Key Lecture, American Genetic Association (1980)
Adolf Lecture, American Psychiatric Association (1981)
Inaugural Meyer Corliss Lamont Lecture, American Humanist Association (1982)
Philip Denecke Lecture, Oxford University (1982)
Plenary Lecture, American Psychoanalytic Association (1982)
Robert Clinton Rhodes Lecture, Emory University (1983)
Loren Eisley Lecture, University of Pennsylvania (1983)
Man and Ideas Lecture, Carnegie Institute (1984)
Presidential Lecture, Rice University (1984)
Rosenstadt Visiting Professor of Medicine, University of Toronto (1984)
Lewis Clark Vanuxum Lecture, Princeton University (1985)
Mangelsdorf Lecture, University of North Carolina (1985)
2
E. O. Wilson, C.V.
Centennial Lecture, University of Arizona (1985)
Tansley Lecture, British Ecological Society (1985)
Felix Santschi Lecture, University of Zürich (1986)
Distinguished Lecture, Family Theory Symposium, Georgetown University (1986)
Joseph Leconte Lecture, Georgia Southern College (1986)
Keynote address, National BioDiversity Forum (1986)
Keynote address, Conservation 2100, New York Zoological Society (1986)
Keynote address, American Academy of Psychiatry and Law (1987)
Keynote address, Entomological Society of America (1987)
Address, National Geographic Society Centennial (1988)
Phi Beta Kappa Lecture, University of Miami (1988)
Lionel Trilling Lecture, Columbia University (1988)
Centennial Lecture, Marine Biological Laboratories, Woods Hole (1988)
Gannon Lecture, Fordham University (1988)
Bicentennial Lecture, Georgetown University (1989)
Mahoney Lecture, National Institutes of Health (1989)
Hilldale Lecture, University of Wisconsin (1989)
Centennial Lecture, Entomological Society of America (1989)
NSF Graduate Research Fellowship Commemorative Lecture, American zoological Society
H. (1989) O. Lund Lecture, University of Georgia (1990)
MEMBERSHIPS AND AWARDS:
National Medal of Science (1977)
Crafoord Prize, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (1990)
Prix du Institut de la Vie, Paris (1990)
Gold Medal, Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF-International) (1990)
Distinguished Scientific Humanist Award, Free Inquiry (1990)
Revelle Medal, San Diego Natural History Museum (1990)
University Medal, University of Helsinki (1989)
Ingersoll Prize in Scholarly Letters (1989)
Benjamin Dann Walsh Award, Illinois Academy of Sciences, Chicago (1989)
Founder's Award, Field Museum, Chicago (1989)
Golden Plate Award, American Academy of Achievement (1988)
Terrestrial Ecology Prize of the Ecology Institute, Germany (1987)
National Zoological Park Medal in Zoology and Conservation (1987)
Rector's Medal of the University of Bergen (1987)
L. O. Howard Distinguished Achievement Award, Entomological Society of America (1985)
Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement (1984)
Laureate, Academy of Humanism (1983)
Distinguished Humanist Award, American Humanist Association (1982)
Book of the Year Award, Alabama Library Association (1979)
Pulitzer Prize, General Non-fiction (1979)
Leidy Medal, Academy of Natural Sciences (1979)
Carr Medal, University of Florida (1979)
Distinguished Service Award, American Institute of Biological Sciences (1976)
Founders Memorial Award, Entomological Society of America (1973)
Mercer Award, Ecological Society of America (1971)
Cleveland Research Prize, American Association for the Advancement of Science (1968)
Fellow:
American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1959)
American Philosophical Society (1976)
Animal Behavior Society (1976)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (German Academy of Sciences) (1977)
Royal Society of Sciences of Uppsala (1989)
3
E. O. Wilson, C.V.
Member:
National Academy of Sciences (1969)
Foreign Member:
Royal Society, England (1990)
Finnish Academy of Science and Letters (1990)
Honorary Life Member:
American Genetic Association (1981)
British Ecological Society (1983)
Entomological Society of America (1987)
Darwin Society, University of Bergen (1987)
American Humanist Association (1989)
Member of founding group of the following organizations:
International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (ICIPE)
Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS)
Ecosystems Center of the Marine Biological Laboratory
D.Phil. caus.) : Uppsala University, 1987
(hon. (hon. caus.) : Duke University, 1978; Grinnell College, 1978; University 1989; of
D.Sc. West Florida, 1979; Lawrence University, 1979; Fitchburg State College,
Macalester College, 1990
L.H.D.
(hon. caus.) : University of Alabama, 1980; Hofstra University, 1986
LL.D.
(hon. caus. ) : Simon Fraser University, 1982
RESEARCH INTERESTS:
Evolutionary biology: biology of social insects: classification of ants;
sociobiology; biogeography; ethical philosophy
ARTICLES, MOSTLY TECHNICAL: about 320
CITATION CLASSICS (Current Contents, most cited articles and books) :
Brown, W. L. and E. O. Wilson. 1956. Character displacement. Systematic Zoology,
MacArthur, R. H. and E. O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography.
5: 49-64.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. 203 PP.
Simberloff, D. S. and E. O. Wilson. 1969. Experimental zoogeography of islands:
the colonization of empty islands. Ecology, 50 (2) : 278-296.
Wilson, E. O. 1975. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA. 697 pp.
BOOKS: The Theory of Island Biogeography, with Robert H. MacArthur (1967)
A Primer of Population Biology, with William H. Bossert (1971)
The Insect Societies (1971)
Life on Earth, with 6 co-authors (1973) ; second edition (1978)
Sociobiology: The New Synthesis (1975) : the abridged edition (1980)
on Human Nature (1978)
Caste and Ecology in the Social Insects, with George F. Oster (1978)
Genes, Mind, and Culture, with Charles J. Lumsden (1981)
Promethean Fire, with Charles J. Lumsden (1983)
Biophilia (1984)
Scientific American Readings:
Ecology, Evolution, and Population Biology, editor (1974)
Animal Behavior, co-edited with Thomas Eisner (1975)
The Insects, co-edited with Thomas Eisner (1977)
Biodiversity, editor (1988)
The Ants, with Bert Hölldobler (1990)
Success and Dominance in Ecosystems: The Case of the Social Insects (1990)
4
E. 0.Wilson, C.V.
h.D. STUDENTS:
Stuart A. Altmann, William H. Bossert, Donald J. Farish, Adrian B. Forsyth, Robert
L. Jeanne, William B. Kerfoot, Nancy K. Lind, David R. Maddison, Robert A. Metcalf,
Scott E. Miller, Mark W. Moffett, Herbert E. Nipson, Aniruddh Patel, Robert E.
Silberglied, Alastair M. Stuart, Roger B. Swain, Robert W. Taylor, Leeanne Tennant,
Margaret K. Thayer, Barbara L. Thorne, John E. Tobin, James D. Weinrich, Norman E.
Woodley
4 January 1991