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
285792941
label
Speeches/Testimony [4 of 5]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
285792941
contentType
document
title
Speeches/Testimony [4 of 5]
description
Records pertain to the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
citationUrl
identifierLocal
62114-004
collections
Records of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Michelle K. Van Cleave Speech Files
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
285792941
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
baf0f42a84567809
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:
Van Cleave, Michelle, Files
Subseries:
Speech Files
OA/ID Number:
62114
Folder ID Number:
62114-004
Folder Title:
Speeches/Testimony [4 of 5]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
0
0
0
0
F
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
JAMES B. WYNGAARDEN
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR LIFE SCIENCES
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
An address to the annual meeting of the
American Association for the Advancement of Science
New Orleans, Louisiana
February 16, 1990
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 1
I would like to begin by extending Allan's deepest apologies
for not being able to attend this year's annual meeting. He has an
illness in the family, so he asked me if I would be willing to stand
in on short notice. Because the decision was made just a few days
ago, much of what I will be saying will be drawn from the remarks
that Allan had been preparing for this evening's address. But no
government official can pass up the opportunities of a podium, and
I'm sure that some of my own observations will slip in, too.
Eight years ago, as he was stepping down as President of the
AAAS, Allan gave the presidential lecture at the AAAS annual
meeting in Washington, D.C., on the external frontiers of science--the
interfaces between science and the federal government, the
educational establishment, the private sector, international science
and technology, and U.S. society itself. What he had planned to do
tonight was to revisit those frontiers, now that he is on the other
side of one of them, and see how the situation has changed in the
eight years since his original talk. Coincidentally, 1982 was the year
that I crossed over one of the frontiers myself and came to
Washington, D.C., from the Medical School at Duke. So I, too, have
had eight years to observe the workings of science policy firsthand
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 2
and note how both elements in that marriage of convenience, how
both science and policy, have changed.
Allan sent me down here with a story that he thought might
convey a sense of our intentions. It seems that a father was visiting
his son at Yale during the last few days of the semester, and he
decided to sit in on his son's philosophy final, because he had
taken the same philosophy class from the same professor 25 years
earlier and he wanted to see how things had changed. As the final
exam was handed out in the lecture hall, the father was astonished
to see that the questions were exactly the same ones that had been
on his final exam 25 years earlier. As soon as the last blue book
had been turned in, the father marched up to the professor and
said, "You lazy old fraud. Do you mean to tell me that in 25 years
you haven't been able to come up with a single new question?" To
which the professor replied, "It's true, I'm using the same questions.
But I expect different answers now."
Many of the questions we are asking today are the same ones
we asked in 1982, but the answers are not necessarily the same.
The world is a different place than it was just eight years ago. On
the positive side, the U.S. economy has grown nearly a third larger
in real terms. Average personal incomes per capita in the United
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 3
States, after correcting for inflation, have gone up nearly 20 percent.
Real support for research and development by both the public and
private sectors has gone up over 30 percent. In absolute terms, if I
might use a unit of comparison popularized in the last few
Presidential elections, we are obviously better off than we were eight
years ago.
But the last eight years have also seen some very troubling
developments. The national debt is nearly two and a half times
larger than it was in 1982. The United States has gone from being
the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor
nation, seemingly in the blink of an eye. The scientific community is
caught up in what some have described as a "crisis of purpose,"
marked by disputes between the advocates of large projects and the
advocates of small, individual investigator projects and even
between disciplines. There is a vague sense of unease in the air,
as though things are about to turn sour.
Quite rightly, people tend to look to Washington for leadership
in solving these problems, and, limiting my comments for the
moment to science and technology, I believe that there is
considerable reason for optimism. The Bush Administration has
been committed to scientific progress and technological development
F
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 4
throughout its time in office, and lately that commitment has begun
to pay real dividends.
One of the first signs of that commitment was the elevation of
Allan's position to Assistant to the President. That made him a
member of several of the important policy-making bodies within the
White House, including the Domestic Policy Council and the
Economic Policy Council. It also enabled him to work closely with
some of the other Cabinet-level groups within the White House, such
as the National Security Council and the Competitiveness Council.
Several of these groups are looking specifically at issues of
science and technology, and OSTP has been able to become
involved in these deliberations in ways that it has not in the past.
For instance, the Council on Competitiveness, which is headed by
the Vice President, has chosen biotechnology as an area of special
focus and plans to play a very active role in shaping government
policy toward the emerging biotechnology industry. In fact, I am the
head of a Working Group on Biotechnology for the Council that will
be looking at the scientific, regulatory, and financial dimensions of
the industry.
Another very positive sign for science and technology is the
establishment of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 5
Technology or PCAST, which the President announced a couple of
weeks ago. PCAST held its first meeting earlier this month at Camp
David, and for over three hours, while a torrential rain fell outside,
the Council, the President, and several of his top advisors
discussed important issues in science and technology. The Council
is a very distinguished, as well as a very forthright, group, and I
think we can be assured that the President will be well-advised
about both the promise and the problems of science and
technology.
THE FY 1991 BUDGET
Some might contend, however, that all the councils and
working groups and policy committees in the world won't
necessarily do any good, so let's turn to the hard numbers. As I. F.
Stone has noted, in Washington "the budget is the message," and in
general our office is quite pleased with the budget that President
Bush sent to Capitol Hill last month. I don't know how many of you
have seen the 1,569-page book that Budget Director Richard
Darman and OMB prepared this year, but the chapters on research
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 6
and development are preceded only by a chapter on increasing the
national savings rate. This is an important expression of the high
priority accorded science and technology by this administration.
The administration is committed to supporting science and
technology because of its firm belief that the federal government
must increase its investments in the future. Essentially, all of the
expenditures of the federal government can be divided into three
broad categories: (1) outlays for obligations made in the past, such
as commitments to veterans or to Social Security, (2) current needs,
such as health care or the war on drugs, and (3) investments in the
future.
The current budget, and indeed the entire outlook of the Bush
Administration, emphasizes investments in the future, while
maintaining commitments to the past and the present. There are
several ways of investing in the future--some of which I'll return to
in a moment--but certainly one of the most effective is by supporting
research and development. Edwin Mansfield, an economist at the
University of Pennsylvania, has conducted a study, which is now in
press, of the return society receives from investments in university
research and development. According to his analysis, the rate of
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 7
return from academic research in the physical and life sciences is at
least 28 percent.
To put this in perspective, suppose you invested $100,000 in a
house, and that house appreciated in value at the rate of 28 percent
annually. By the end of 12 years that house would be worth over a
million dollars. In other words, that house would be worth almost
as much as a standard three-bedroom Colonial in Washington, D.C.!
The Bush Administration's FY 1991 budget proposals call for
funding for research and development to go up 7 percent, a healthy
increase in this otherwise tight budget year. But our office is even
more encouraged by some of the trends within that overall amount.
Civilian R&D would go up 12 percent, from the $23.8 billion that
was enacted in FY 1990 to $26.7 billion in FY 1991. Basic research
would rise $1 billion, from $11.4 to $12.4 billion, an increase of 8
percent. At a time of declining real defense expenditures, basic
research by the Defense Department would go up by about 6
percent.
Despite the overall advances in the budget, there are a few
areas of concern. One very serious problem involves the funding
rate for grants at the National Institutes of Health and the National
Science Foundation. Despite nearly a decade of funding increases
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 8
at those two agencies, the money available for new, young
investigators is very tight. Last year, for the first time ever, the
fraction of excellent, peer-reviewed, new proposals that were actually
funded by these two agencies fell below 30 percent. The
discouragement caused by a lack of funding is particularly
unfortunate at a time when the nation has a very serious need to
recruit more young people into scientific careers.
There are several reasons for this distressing state of affairs.
One is that the rate of inflation for research in the physical and life
sciences is higher than the consumer price index, and the
nonearmarked dollars available to NIH and NSF have not kept pace.
There is a "sophistication inflation" that drives costs upward as the
problems under investigation grow more complex and detailed.
We must also recognize that, to some extent, we are the
victims of our own success. It has been a remarkable decade in
science. The increased funds devoted to research during the 1980s
have produced a wealth of advances, which in turn have created an
exponentially increasing number of exciting opportunities throughout
the scientific disciplines. The number of high-quality applications is
growing steadily. The peer review system no longer has the power
to distinguish among the fine points of these many proposals. We
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 9
must find some way of dealing with the remarkable progress that we
have made.
There is a widespread feeling in the scientific community that
funding pressures on individual investigators will increase as several
of the large or "mega" projects in science--such as the
Superconducting Super Collider, Space Station Freedom, the human
genome project, the National Aerospace Plane, and the Compact
Ignition Tokamak--scale up during the 1990s. We at OSTP are very
cognizant of this problem. As Allan has repeatedly stated--and this
is a point I would like to emphasize myself--small science comes
first. Individual investigators are now and will continue to be the
heart of American science. We will do everything that we can to
protect and nurture this font of scientific creativity.
We are now heading into the season of budget hearings in
Washington, when Congress looks at the administration's requests
and decides what it wants to appropriate. This is a time when your
support for science and technology is most needed. OSTP is not
and cannot be an lobbyist for the scientific community, although of
course we share the administration's enthusiasm for increased R&D
support. I shall return to this point later, but for now I want to say
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 10
that your voice can make a real difference in the appropriations
process.
EDUCATION
Another way in which this country invests in the future is
through the education of its young people. In an age of
information, human capital is just as important as physical capital,
and in many sectors it is more important. Yet if current trends
continue, we will soon be running this country on the human
equivalent of baling wire and scotch tape.
It was 1983 when the National Commission on Excellence in
Education, in its report A Nation at Risk, warned of a "rising tide of
mediocrity" in our elementary and secondary schools. Yet in the
seven years since then, despite a wave of school reform efforts,
standardized tests show very little improvement in student
achievement. Countries are like companies in that they may be able
to absorb a few years in which output is not up to prevailing
standards. But if many years go by in which the students of this
country are not being given the skills they will need to compete in a
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 11
global marketplace, the United States will inevitably enter a period
of decline.
As with science and technology, education has been a focus of
special concern for this administration. Last September, Allan
accompanied the President to the Education Summit in
Charlottesville, where the President met with the nation's governors
to work on this issue. Although a great deal of skepticism
surrounded that meeting, Allan came away considerably heartened.
Many of the states have taken great strides forward in improving
their educational systems, even if those strides have not yet been
reflected in national measures of achievement. That meeting also
served a very real catalytic function. It focused the attention of the
nation on education, and several governors have since told Allan
that they are finding it much easier to get legislation through their
statehouses because of the impetus provided by the education
summit.
The goal that President Bush outlined in his state of the Union
message--and it is admittedly a very ambitious goal that will require
the combined efforts of everyone in this room--to have American
students be first in the world in science and technology was not
made lightly. For one thing, the budget for FY 1991 proposes to
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 12
increase funding for science and mathematics education by 26
percent, to a total of over $1 billion. These funds would be
distributed among the Deparment of Education, the National Science
Foundation, NASA, the Department of Energy, and the National
Institutes of Health, allowing those agencies to expand current
programs and initiate new ones.
Our own Office of Science and Technology Policy is also very
involved with precollege education. For instance, we are currently
in the process of reviewing the relationship between the educational
programs of the Department of Education and those of the National
Science Foundation to help improve the coordination of these
activities.
But I am sure that everyone here knows that the federal
government alone cannot solve our problems with precollege
education. Education will remain predominantly a state and local
responsibility, as it should be. What the federal government can do
is act as a catalyst and monitor of change.
It has been said that "every problem that exists in education
has already been solved somewhere." The federal government can
monitor and identify the very innovative programs that originate at
the state and local level and help to disseminate those programs to
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 13
other locations. The federal government can also exert a leadership
role that is not necessarily tied to funding, as it is in the process of
doing in setting national goals and implementing ways of monitoring
achievement relative to those goals.
The real innovation in education is going to come from the
states and localities, and from the national organizations that
represent those localities. In this respect, we at OSTP, and many
other observers of science in Washington, are very encouraged by
the AAAS's Project 2061. We highly commend your efforts to define
an agenda for national scientific literacy, and we are very much
looking forward to the next phase of the project, when the agenda
will be implemented at select school districts around the country.
These are the kinds of efforts, combining national oversight and
local action, that can make President Bush's goal of American
preeminence in science and mathematics education a reality.
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 14
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
Education is also a vital consideration of the third frontier Allan
and I wanted to discuss tonight, that between science and the
private sector. It is often easy to forget how radically the world in
which American business now operates has changed. Today, over
70 percent of the goods manufactured in America are subject to
foreign competition. Of every dollar we spend, an average of 27
cents nationwide goes to imports. Furthermore, the
internationalization of the American economy has not yet run its
course. With the increased unification of the European community
in 1992 and the continued economic expansion of the Pacific Rim
countries, competition is only going to intensify.
The American economy is already part of a global marketplace,
yet all too often the institutions of this country are still geared
toward the notion of a relatively insulated, national economy. For
example, American companies are often reluctant to engage in
cooperative research and development, in part because they fear
that antitrust considerations may raise roadblocks to their efforts.
Legislation has been enacted to greatly reduce these roadblocks,
but the influence of previous restrictions still has a powerful hold.
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 15
One piece of legislation designed to increase cooperation
among industry, government, and academia was the Technology
Transfer Act of 1986. This act offered incentives to scientists in
national laboratories to collaborate more actively with industry in
research and development. Much progress has come from this act.
But we still face a major challenge in adjusting our institutions and
attitudes to realize more fully the intent of this legislation.
What the federal government, industry, and universities must
do is to find ways of encouraging cooperative efforts in areas of
research and development that are of importance to the economic
and military health of this nation. These cooperative efforts can
take place entirely within one sector--as in the case of industrial
consortia--or they can involve elements from all of the sectors.
An important example of cooperation between government and
industry is SEMATECH, the consortium of semiconductor companies
that is focusing on precompetitive research and development. It
does not make sense for the government to require U.S. companies
within a given area, such as semiconductors, to each work
separately on the generic technologies that underlie their products.
Companies in other countries are certainly working cooperatively,
and it is time for us to follow their example.
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 16
The role of the federal government in such consortia will vary.
In some areas, the federal government needs to do no more than to
make clear that it will not oppose a proposed cooperative effort. In
other cases, the government can act to catalyze state and local
activities, to leverage its own funds through nonfederal mechanisms.
In still other areas, it may be appropriate for the federal government
to provide support to consortia, as it is doing in the case of
SEMATECH.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy is heavily
involved in the issue of competitiveness. For the first time, OSTP
has an Associate Director for Industrial Competitiveness, William
Phillips, who for the last several years has been President of the
Missouri Advanced Technology Institute and Science Adviser to the
Governor of Missouri. Bill's confirmation hearing before the Senate
is scheduled for February 28, and as soon as he is confirmed he
will be working closely with the Department of Commerce, with other
federal agencies, and with Congress to foster and coordinate federal
activities in this area.
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 17
THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
International competitiveness will be one issue that consumes
a significant fraction of our attention. Another issue with which we
will undoubtedly spent much time--in fact, it has already consumed
quite a bit of our time--is global change.
For a variety of reasons, including a string of warm years
during the 1980s and the resurgence of a strong environmental
movement around the world, global change has boiled to the top of
the national and international political agendas. I notice, for
instance, that there will be a number of sessions on the topic at this
meeting, and I'm sure they will be well attended.
One major way in which the Office of Science and Technology
Policy is involved with this issue is through the Committee on Earth
Sciences. This committee is one of several committees under the
Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and
Technology, or FCCSET, which Allan chairs. FCCSET, which was
established by the same legislation that created OSTP, is the entity
within the Executive Branch that is charged with overseeing and
coordinating R&D that cuts across the missions of more than one
federal agency. The members of FCCSET committees are
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 18
representatives from the agencies involved in a specific area of
research. For instance, the Committee on Earth Sciences has
members from the U.S. Geological Survey, the State Department, the
National Science Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency,
NASA, and so on down the list of relevant agencies.
A couple of years ago the Committee on Earth Sciences
organized all of the research being conducted by the different
agencies into what has become known as the U.S. Global Change
Research Program. This program is an integrated, government-wide
effort to reduce key scientific uncertainties and to develop more
reliable scientific predictions upon which to base public policy. It
was Bertrand Russell who said, "The most savage controversies are
those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either
way." The U.S. Global Change Research Program is trying to
produce that evidence, and perhaps in the process it will reduce the
ferocity of the debate.
The information generated by the Global Change Research
Program will feed in to the policy-making process within the White
House, with which OSTP is also involved. Allan is the chairman of
a working group on global change within the White House Domestic
Policy Council. The working group provides Cabinet-level
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 19
coordination on policy issues involving global change and is an
important source of advice for the President.
One of the first actions of the working group was to
commission three studies by federal agencies to examine the
economic and legal aspects of the issue. The first report was on
the economic costs of global change and the costs of possible
responses to it. The second covered the concerns and activities of
the private sector regarding global change. And the third looked at
legal precedents for international agreements and conventions on
the environment. These three studies, which have now been
presented to the working group, will complement the scientific input
of the Global Change Research Program. Thus, the working group
will have input not only on the science, but on the economic, social,
and legal aspects of global change.
In addition to the heading the working group, Allan has been
asked by the President to cochair, along with the chairmen of the
Council of Economic Advisers and the Council on Environmental
Quality, a White House meeting of the three senior officials in
science, economics, and the environment from a number of
countries this spring. The meeting will examine the data and
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 20
analytical tools needed to understand global change and will
highlight gaps that need to be filled.
Finally, a subgroup of PCAST is going to be looking at this
issue. This subgroup will in many ways parallel the Committee on
Earth Sciences. In this way, the Global Change Research Program
can take advantage of the experiences of the private sector in this
area, and vice versa.
On the international front, the United States continues to
support the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
which is sponsored by the United Nations and the World
Meteorological Organization. There are three working groups of the
IPCC, which met in plenary session last week in Washington, and
their final papers will be presented to the entire panel in August,
shortly before the Second World Climate Conference in November.
The IPCC process, as well as the domestic policy-making
taking place in the White House and on the Hill, will all provide
input to an International Framework Convention on global warming
that will begin sometime next year. At that point, the United States
expects to be able to consider quantitative proposals for stabilizing
greenhouse gas emissions, something it has not been able to do in
the past. At the Malta Summit last December, president Bush
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 21
proposed that the United States will host the first negotiating
session for a Framework Convention, and he reiterated that offer to
the IPCC last week.
I have gone through this long list of committees and policy-
making bodies to make a relatively simple point. It is hard to
accuse the Bush Administration of ignoring or belittling this issue.
If the computer models now being used prove accurate, global
change is going to be a very difficult and costly problem to solve.
The United States does not want to embrace policies that it
ultimately cannot observe or that prove counterproductive. National
and international policies must be based on the best scientific and
economic advice that is available. Providing that advice is OSTP's
foremost legislative responsibility; it is also the only reasonable
approach to take with an issue of this importance.
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 22
THE PUBLIC CONSTITUENCY FOR SCIENCE
Global change is an excellent example of the last subject I
would like to discuss tonight: the inextricable involvement of the
American public with issues of science and technology. By
definition, global environmental issues affect everyone. By the same
token, everyone will be part of the solution. Changing emissions of
greenhouse gases will involve countless decisions that people make
every day: about their use of energy, about the products they buy,
even about the kinds of food they eat. Global change demonstrates
as much as any current issue how science and technology have
linked the small scale with the large scale, the individual with the
planetary.
In his speech eight years ago, Dr. Bromley talked about the
necessity of creating an informed, interested public prepared to
recognize and understand, at least in outline, the vital roles that
science and technology play in almost every aspect of modern life.
Whether we are closer to that goal now is debatable. The boom in
popular science magazines during the first part of the decade has
faded. Measures of scientific literacy remain as mired in the
doldrums as do school achievement scores.
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 23
But I also see several positive signs of an increasing public
interest and understanding of science. Science museums are the
most popular of all museums. Science sections are now a regular
part of newspapers and general audience magazines. Moreover, I
do not sense the antagonism toward science that has occasionally
surfaced in this country, such as during the 1960s and shortly after
the development of recombinant DNA.
Last week the National Science Foundation released its most
recent science and engineering indicators report, and it includes a
chapter that speaks directly to this topic. For instance, national
surveys reveal that 88 percent of the U.S. public believes that
science makes our lives healthier, easier, and more comfortable.
Perhaps even more encouraging, 80 percent of the public believes
that government should support scientific research even when it
brings no immediate benefits.
Surveys also show that scientists rank second only to
physicians on a list of professionals in which the American public
has confidence. As usual, Congress and the media rank near the
bottom. One wonders where public speakers might rank.
These are very encouraging numbers to the scientific and
engineering communities. They indicate that the American public is
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 24
unlikely to oppose continued support for these enterprises. But of
course these numbers do not have much tangible influence in
Washington. Washington policymakers answer to a different kind of
message.
There is always much talk around the country of the isolation
of Washington, of the "inside the beltway" mentality that separates
us from the rest of the country. For instance, you might have heard
that Washington, D.C., has been defined as 69.2 square miles
surrounded by reality. Or that Washington is the only place where
sound travels faster than light.
But Washington is not as isolated as it sometimes seems. I
can tell you from my experience that most Washington officials are
very responsive to their constituencies. I have often been amazed,
during my time at NIH, at the influence relatively small groups can
have on policy. Unfortunately, that influence has often been of the
negative variety. For instance, the ardent believers in animal rights
constitute a very small fraction of the American public. Yet through
their skillful use of the media, the schools, the Congress, and the
courts, they have had a disproportionate influence on local and
national legislation.
AAAS ANNUAL MEETING
Page 25
The most dedicated constituencies for science and technology
are the people in this room, the other members of the AAAS, and
the 4.6 million scientists and engineers employed in the United
States. You are the ones from whom Congress must hear as it
makes decisions affecting the future of your fields. Science budgets
in Washington are now in direct competition with many other social
needs, many of which have powerful and vocal advocates. Many
Congressmen have been very generous and enlightened in
supporting the growth of research and development. They need our
backing if that support is to continue.
Eight years ago, Allan concluded his speech with a simple
suggestion: get together with your representative or senators, or
write a letter to them, and talk about the issues that concern you.
That piece of advice is as relevant and as effective today as it was
then. Over the past four decades, science and the federal
government have become increasingly interdependent. Many
scientists need the support of the federal government if they are to
pursue their research. By the same token, the federal government
needs your support if the scientific enterprise is to continue to
prosper.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20506
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE CONFERENCE
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
Executive Office of the President
White House Conference
on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change
Washington, D.C.
April 17, 1990
1
I would like to add my welcome to those of Secretary Brady and President
Bush. Working together with you, we look forward to very real accomplishments over
the next two days. In a moment, I will describe what the President views as some of
the objectives of the conference.
GLOBAL STEWARDSHIP
But first let me elaborate briefly upon the conferences's theme, that of Global
Stewardship. As President Bush has stated, Global Stewardship is not a fixed state.
It is a process of continual change that balances environmental and economic values
to meet human needs and expand human prospects.
Global Stewardship is a complex, multifaceted concept, yet I believe that it can
be summed up in remarkably succinct fashion. On December 22, 1968, as the crew of
Apollo 8 became the first humans to leave Earth orbit and head toward the Moon,
they turned their frail spacecraft back toward the Earth and took the first
photographs of our planet from deep space. I firmly believe that thousands of years
in the future perhaps the one most lasting thing for which our age will be
remembered will be those photographs. They show the Earth as a beautiful blue and
white sphere floating quietly in the immense blackness of space. They emphasize that
this planet is mankind's common heritage. It is ours to cherish; it is ours to destroy.
We are all truly in this together.
We will achieve Global Stewardship in the same way that we achieve scientific
knowledge through careful study of the environment and of ourselves, coupled with
effective and timely action. We must come to understand the extent and limits of the
resources available to us on this planet. And we must come to understand how
humans can use those resources in a sustainable fashion to achieve a more
prosperous and productive future.
We are not here to make a global warming policy. That will emerge from the
broad array of research and policy reviews now ongoing. Rather, we are here to try
to determine what will be required in order that such policies be based on sound
scientific understanding and that they be both technologically and economically
feasible.
THE LINK BETWEEN SCIENCE AND POLICY
Much has been written and said during the past few months about the
scientific understanding of global change and about policy responses to global
environmental concerns. But conspicuous by its absence in almost all of these
discussions has been a careful and detailed analysis of the economic causes or
consequences of global change. For example, we will talk at length over the next two
days about various ways of taking out insurance policies against possible adverse
2
effects of global warming. But there are good insurance policies and bad ones, and
we very much need the input and expertise of economists to discriminate between
them.
In a very real sense, we should perhaps look on economics as the glue that
binds scientific understanding of global change phenomena to the policies both
national and international that we adopt to address this issue.
In general, the social sciences economics, psychology, sociology -- must be an
integral part of any approach to the understanding of global change. Even when the
physical and biological aspects of a problem are understood, all too often agreement
is lacking on the underlying social, behavioral, and economic causes and consequences
of an action. This conference will focus as much on these aspects of global change as
on the purely scientific aspects. In this way, we hope to add a new dimension to the
international dialogue on global change.
GOALS OF THE CONFERENCE
As President Bush noted, the foundation of this conference is what we do know
and what we do not know about the science and economics of global change. At a
more detailed level, we seek to determine which uncertainties might be reducible in
the foreseeable future and which are not, and to understand how scientific
uncertainties affect our economic modeling and vice versa.
The conference is designed to achieve several other objectives. Among them are
the following:
0
To increase the mutual understanding and sensitivity of the scientific
and economic research communities to each other's needs and to the
needs of the policy makers who look to them for guidance.
0
To foster a solid and well-implemented international research effort that
can address the scientific, economic, and policy questions of global
change, drawing on the expertise, experience, and data of all the world's
nations.
0
To forge a worldwide communications network among the researchers
and policymakers concerned with global change.
REVIEW OF THE AGENDA
To achieve these objectives, the conference is organized around three themes.
0
The science and economics research challenge.
0
Integrating science and economics research in the policy process.
3
0
Building a partnership for science and economics research.
Later this morning, I shall speak on the first of these themes. My cochairmen
Michael Boskin and Michael Deland will speak on the second and third.
Following those presentations, the agenda calls for us to divide into three
Working Groups that will then meet in four sequential sessions. Each of the Working
Groups will have about 25 members, with roughly equal representation from the three
disciplines of science, economics, and the environment.
The first three Working Group sessions will be devoted to the three themes of
the conference. The fourth will be devoted to integration of the discussions and
preparation of a summary report of each Working Group's deliberations.
These summaries will form part of a Cochairmen's report, which we would
suggest as the primary product of the conference. In this report, we would expect to
outline the deliberations of the conference and set forth agreed-upon common actions
designed to expand research and cooperation among nations.
CONCLUSION
This conference is only one of many national and international actions being
taken to address issues of global change. We must therefore seek to integrate the
accomplishments of the next two days into these ongoing efforts -- and, in particular,
into the deliberations of the IPCC, the international research programs of the World
Meteorological Organization and International Council of Scientific Unions, and the
programs of individual countries focused on the global environment. At the same
time, we will work to coordinate the many activities now going on in the United States
and abroad. They will all be stronger if carried forward in a unified, coherent
fashion.
We want to emphasize that the President has instructed us from the outset of
our planning to design this conference with a primary goal of complementing,
strengthening, and supporting the entire IPCC process, which he considers to be the
central and appropriate forum for our joint efforts toward understanding of, and
responding to, the questions of Global Stewardship.
Louis Pasteur wrote that, "Science knows no country because knowledge belongs
to humanity and is the torch which illuminates the world." We will be the carriers of
that torch for the next two days. And we must keep it burning as we leave to face
the great challenges that lie ahead.
UNCERTAIN CHANGE:
THE SCIENTIFIC AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH CHALLENGE
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
Executive Office of the President
White House Conference
on Science and Economics Research
Related to Global Change
Washington, D.C.
April 17, 1990
1
The global environment has been changing throughout human history, and
indeed throughout the entire history of our planet. At the peak of the last ice age
18,000 years ago -- just a few thousand years before the first substantial human
civilizations came together in the river valleys of the Middle and Far East -- a glacier
over two kilometers high covered much of the northern United States and Europe.
Sea level was 100 meters lower than at present, so that the future sites of many of
today's port cities were perched on the edges of deep ravines. Then, rather abruptly
about 10,000 years ago, the world warmed, the ice retreated, and sea level rose to
about its present level. These natural changes in the Earth's climate have occurred
throughout its history, and they will continue to occur in the future.
During the past century, human society has entered into a new and momentous
relationship with the global environment. For the first time in history, we have
become a geological agent capable of influencing our entire planet. We have altered
the face of the Earth by clearing forests, building cities, and converting wild lands to
agriculture. We have changed the composition of the Earth's atmosphere by burning
fossil fuels, expanding agriculture, and producing and releasing industrial compounds.
We have embarked on an enormous, virtually unplanned, planetary experiment that
poses unprecedented challenges to our wisdom, our foresight, and our scientific
capability.
The first theme of this White House Conference is the scientific and economic
research challenge related to global change. Properly speaking, global change
encompasses not only global warming but such issues as ozone depletion, the
adequacy of food and water supplies, changes in sea level, deforestation, levels of
biodiversity, and population change. Indeed, any of these issues could turn out to be
more serious in terms of human impact than global warming. Yet much of the
world's attention has focused on the possibility of increased global temperatures, and
that will inevitably be the main topic of discussion at this conference.
SCIENTIFIC KNOWNS AND UNKNOWNS
In light of the Earth's daunting complexity, it is easy to be overwhelmed by
how much we do not know about the Earth's components and how they interact. But
it is always important to keep in mind how much we do know about the Earth and
our influence on it.
We know, based on a sophisticated set of chemical measurements, that humans
have raised the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 25 percent since
preindustrial times. This is the single largest impact that our species has had on the
planet. We know that atmospheric levels of methane have doubled over the same
period. We know that chlorofluorocarbons produced by human beings are
catalytically destroying ozone in the atmosphere above Antarctica and possibly
elsewhere around the globe.
2
By analyzing sediments and ice cores, geoscientists have traced levels of
atmospheric gases and temperatures many thousands of years into the past. Using
large computers, researchers have modeled the complex eddies and flows of the global
atmosphere with considerable accuracy. These are all remarkable accomplishments.
Based on this work, scientists now generally agree that continued loading of the
atmosphere with greenhouse gases could lead to global warming. However, neither
computer models nor paleoclimatic data have been able to specify with any certainty
the magnitude, rate, or timing of any future warming.
General circulation models will continue to improve in the future as computer
power increases, as the modeling of the Earth system becomes more sophisticated, and
as more complete data inputs become available. For example, coupled ocean-
atmosphere models will shed more light on the possible regional effects of climate
change. Also, an important example of better data inputs is the very recent
demonstration that satellite measurements are capable of providing precise
temperature data over the entire globe at various levels in the atmosphere.
We will also learn more about Earth's past climates by continuing to study the
geological and paleoecological record. But in general we should probably expect
incremental rather than revolutionary advances in our understanding of global change
over the next 10 years.
Another area of consensus concerns global temperatures: scientists now
generally agree that the planet has warmed up by about 0.5 C during the past
century. But very few scientists would claim that they are yet able to determine
whether any of that warming can be attributed to an enhanced greenhouse effect or
whether it represents a natural fluctuation. We are also only beginning to understand
what the impacts of a potential warming might be on agricultural productivity, sea
level changes, biological productivity in the oceans, shifting vegetation patterns, storm
patterns and severity, droughts, and the like.
Furthermore, we are totally unable, with present models, to make reliable
climate predictions on the regional and local bases that are essential to improved
understanding of these impacts. This difficulty arises partly from the fact that we
have, at present, neither the computer capacity and speed, nor the resources,
necessary to reduce the grid size and increase the number of model levels in the
atmosphere, both of which are essential to regional predictions. Current grid sizes
inevitably average over the climatic effects of mountain ranges and of such oceanic
features as the Gulf Stream.
THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH CHALLENGE
There are several other outstanding difficulties in understanding and modeling
the Earth's climate. Perhaps the most notable involve the Earth's clouds, oceans, and
ice. Until recently, geoscientists did not even know whether clouds warm or cool the
3
Earth. It is still uncertain whether the increased cloudiness associated with a warmer
Earth would augment or counteract a greenhouse effect. It depends on the nature
and altitude of the clouds.
Regarding the oceans, we know that only about half of the carbon dioxide
released through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation remains in the atmosphere.
For many years, essentially all researchers assumed that the rest was being
sequestered in the oceans, but recent studies indicate that no more than a quarter
probably ends up there. Where does the rest go? We appear to have lost 25 percent
of our anthropogenic carbon emissions. We still have not located this missing carbon,
although some suggest that it is in temperate latitude biomass.
Finally, we still do not fully understand how the world's ice caps and other
major bodies of ice would respond to greenhouse forcing. Present models predict that
warming should be intensified at high latitudes, leading to some melting of ice and a
higher sea level. But recent observations indicate instead an increase in ice
accumulations.
It has not escaped notice that six of the hottest years in the last century in the
United States occurred in the 1980s, and some have associated this with the
greenhouse effect. But over this same decade, precise satellite temperature
measurements have shown that away from the actual surface, where a number of
perturbations are expected, there was no change whatsoever in global average
temperatures. While the northern hemisphere showed a slight increase in
temperature, the southern one showed a corresponding decrease, and the major
fluctuations globally were associated with the El Nino phenomenon in the Southern
Pacific. We need to understand these surface temperature perturbations much better
than we do at present.
There is growing suspicion from the paleoecological data but as yet no more
than that -- that the atmosphere-ocean interface may harbor the possibility of
surprises. It bears emphasis that the top 3 meters of the ocean surface contains the
same thermal energy as the entire atmosphere. If it should turn out that relatively
small, and not as yet understood, mechanisms could trigger ocean circulation patterns
from one stable configuration to another, the potential impacts could be large. We
need a careful program of observing and monitoring the Earth to detect any such
surprises caused by our emission of greenhouse gases.
In general, we must remain aware of the potential for surprises. The
development of the ozone hole over Antarctica was such a surprise. The hole develops
through a mechanism that was not included in earlier models of ozone destruction,
although scientists quickly came to understand how it formed and have incorporated
that understanding into their models.
What the ozone hole has demonstrated beyond question, however, is that,
contrary to long-held assumptions, our atmosphere is not so large, nor its inertia so
great, that human activities cannot affect it on human time scales. Human release of
4
chlorofluorocarbons, combined with unique meteorological conditions, has indeed
created the ozone hole in only a few decades at most.
In recent years, a number of scientists have compared the Earth, in its
complexity, to a living organism. The comparison is certainly apt in this regard: as
much as we still have to learn about the nature of life, about how it developed and
where it is going, we have as much to learn about the nature of the Earth.
THE ECONOMIC RESEARCH CHALLENGE
The comparison is apt in another sense. The behavior of human beings,
economically and politically, will be a major determinant of future changes in the
global environment. My cochairmen will be speaking in a moment about some of the
work that has been done on the economics of global change and about the many
economic questions that remain to be answered.
But I would emphasize that in many cases these economic questions are of
even greater importance and much farther from resolution -- than the scientific
questions. Science-based models of global change need economic trends as inputs.
Yet these economic inputs are often so uncertain that they hamstring the model
results. For example, one recent analysis was able to conclude only that emissions of
carbon dioxide in the year 2050 are likely to be between 1.5 and 12 times what they
are today. We must find ways to reduce such uncertainties or, if they are
unavoidable, to accommodate them in our projections.
A major influence on future economic trends is the state of technology. To
take the case of emissions, for example, the development of more efficient power
plants, biomass and solar energy, inherently safe nuclear reactors -- even something
as mundane as lower cost and more efficient insulation -- could both reduce
emissions and increase our flexibility when deciding on policies related to global
change. In essence, we can hedge our bets on the possibility of future global warming
by investing in these technologies today.
Technology development is also crucial if we are to be fully prepared for the
possibility of global change. Basic and applied research on ecosystems, agriculture,
water supplies, and other important environmental and societal systems can
demonstrate both the ability of society to adapt to different climates and the pressure
points where adaptation becomes prohibitively expensive. Furthermore, the
technologies that emerge from such research such as plants that grow under a
wider variety of climatic conditions will have great benefits even if the climate does
not change.
The future of technology is as difficult to forecast as economic trends. Yet new
technologies will inevitably reshape our world in the coming decades -- just as they
have throughout the twentieth century and we must explore the possible ways in
which this will affect the global environment.
5
One way to increase the reliability of economic and technological forecasts --
and I see this as a major goal of this conference is to increase the sensitivity of
both scientists and economists to each other's data needs. We must agree upon the
uncertainties in our scientific understanding that cause the greatest uncertainties in
our economic models, and vice versa. In this way, resources can be focused on
reducing the uncertainties of greatest importance.
By working together to understand both the scientific and economic aspects of
global change, we will be better able to assess the costs not only of action but of
inaction. We will enable all nations to respond sooner and more effectively to the
possibility of different climates. And we will build a flexibility into our environmental
stewardship that will serve us well no matter how climate changes.
U.S. RESEARCH PROGRAMS
Returning for a moment to our scientific understanding, the U.S. government is
now engaged in a large-scale, integrated program to develop the scientific knowledge
that will guide our future policy decisions and contribute to those of all nations.
That program is known as the U.S. Global Change Research Program and was
established through a working group of our interagency Committee on Earth Sciences.
As the President noted earlier, his Administration has requested over $1 billion
in funding for this program during our next fiscal year. Such a request for what is
admittedly a long-term and complex research program demonstrates the President's
very real commitment to dealing decisively with the possibility of global change.
CURRENT ACTIONS
It is clear that we and other nations are accelerating research in the face of
uncertainty. But what bears emphasis as being even more important is decision
making in the face of uncertainty. We are not despite our best efforts going to
achieve scientific certainty about global change in the near future. Yet we must move
forward on the basis of the information available to us.
The Bush Administration has already instituted a number of policies that will
reduce greenhouse emissions while being fully justified for other reasons. I think of
them as an "insurance policy" against possible adverse effects of global warming.
Among these policies are the following:
0
The United States is committed to phasing out the manufacturing and
use of CFC's by the year 2000 to protect the stratospheric ozone layer --
ahead of the requirements of the Montreal protocol provided safe
substitutes are available. If not controlled, CFC's would account for as
much as 25 percent of the enhanced greenhouse forcing over the next
century.
6
0
The Clean Air Act now being debated in Congress will provide for
substantial reductions in the emissions of greenhouse gases by fostering
more efficient use of energy. It has been estimated that the acid rain
provisions of this legislation alone will have an effect comparable to that
of removing fully one fifth of the U.S. automotive fleet (22 million
automobiles) from our highways for a period of 10 years.
0
The U.S. Department of Energy is developing a National Energy Strategy
that will focus, in particular, on an aggressive commitment to energy
conservation and on the development of non-fossil-fuel sources of energy.
These initiatives address the source component of the greenhouse gas question;
turning to the sink component, this country is again taking concrete steps.
0
The U.S. Department of Agriculture is proposing to plant a billion trees
on private land across America, trees that will eventually absorb 13
million tons of carbon annually.
0
Diplomatic discussions are being conducted aimed at protecting the
remaining tropical forests through such mechanisms as debt-for-nature
swaps.
An underlying theme in all of the United States' policies related to global
change is that they be based on the best possible science and that they be technically
and economically sound. These are criteria that we will continue to apply as we
consider policies in the future. We will do ourselves a great disservice if we adopt
premature policies that later prove to be unnecessary or counterproductive.
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the President has instructed us to
design this conference to complement and support the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change by emphasizing the importance of economic as well as scientific
considerations in the development of global change policies. The United States
supports the IPCC process as an appropriate international approach to the global
understanding and response to a question that knows neither national nor political
boundaries.
At the same time, we would like this conference to be a contributing factor to
the development of an international research program that can provide us with the
knowledge, both scientific and economic, needed to understand and respond to global
change. The first of the three Working Group sessions will give us an opportunity to
explore the dimensions of the scientific and economic research challenge and sketch
the outlines of an international program of science and economic research related to
global change.
7
CONCLUSION
We face a great challenge in the next two days. We must merge science and
economics with policy to a degree that has not been done before. The uncertainties
that surround us are daunting. But humans have never been hindered -- at least not
for long -- by uncertainties. The explorers who we know from history did not let
uncertainties stand in their way. Rather, they saw uncertainties as opportunities, and
in following those opportunities they opened new worlds.
Let me close with a brief vignette about one of those explorers. The year after
next we will be celebrating the 500th anniversary of Columbus's discovery of the new
world, an event of unsurpassed importance in world history. As might be expected,
Columbus was an astute observer of the natural world. While he was anchored off
the coast of Jamaica, Columbus noted in his journal that it rained for about an hour
every afternoon. Columbus also pointed out that the same thing used to occur in the
Canary and Azores Islands, but that the rain had stopped since the trees on those
islands were cut down. In other words, Columbus was one of the first people to
observe the effects of human beings on climate.
I think it very appropriate that Columbus should have done so, because he was
engaged on a great voyage of discovery, and today we find ourselves engaged on a
similar voyage. We are changing the world in ways that it has never been changed
before. And yet human beings, by their very nature, cannot help but change the
world.
We have no reason to fear such changes. But we must keep our eyes open,
and try to understand where we are going, and change course when we have good
reasons to do so. We need not sail blindly into our future. But we must keep
moving forward if we are to achieve the complementary goals of an economically
healthy and environmentally sound world.
OSTP-JTR-1990-3
MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF THE 1990's
J. THOMAS RATCHFORD
Associate Director for Policy and International Affairs
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
Keynote Address to the
National Technical Information Service Users Conference
Washington, D.C.
March 29, 1990
1
Unlike the Atomic Age or the Space Age, it is hard to say exactly when the
Information Age began. But the explosion of information that we face on a daily
basis is undeniable. Whenever I have any doubt of that, I just look at my in-box.
The National Technical Information Service and its predecessor agencies,
dating all the way back to the Publication Board of the Office of Scientific Research
and Development in 1945, have played a key role in managing and disseminating the
ever growing volume of scientific and technical information. Today the NTIS is in the
process of change, as it has been throughout its history. That is appropriate in a
way, both because the NTIS acts as an agent of change and because the products and
services that it provides are themselves constantly changing. The question then
becomes, What kind of NTIS will emerge from this process? And in general, How
does the Federal Government plan to handle the generation and distribution of
scientific and technical information?
I will not be able to answer those questions today. Rather, I thought I would
explore some of the institutional structures that are in place to deal with them and
some of the challenges we will face in the 1990s. A number of entities are now
considering STI issues building on the several excellent reports that have been
produced in recent years and at the end of my talk I'll discuss some of the
directions in which we might go.
One of the bodies that will be heavily involved in STI issues is the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, for which I am one of four associate directors. OSTP
was established in 1976 by the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization
and Priorities Act, which, by the way, also includes a number of provisions concerning
STI. The office is designed to serve two main functions. The first is to provide the
President and the rest of the Executive Branch with the best possible information,
analysis, and advice about how science and technology influence national and
international policy. The second is to help maintain the health and productivity of
science and technology in this country. Allan Bromley, the Director of OSTP, refers
2
to the first of these responsibilities as science and technology for policy and to the
second as policy for science and technology.
A number of changes have recently been occurring within OSTP that have
greatly enhanced our ability to carry out these responsibilities. The first was that
Allan was named Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, which is a
higher position than all previous science advisors have held. That elevation of status
made Allan a full member of the several important policy-making bodies within the
White House, including the Economic Policy Council, the Domestic Policy Council,
and the National Space Council, and he works closely with the Competitiveness
Council and the National Security Council. When combined with the interest that
Dick Darman and John Sununu have in science and technology, it is obvious that
science and technology are much closer to the center of White House thinking than
they have been in the past.
So far, Allan has gotten high marks for the job he has been doing. A long
article in Chemical and Engineering News earlier this month noted that Allen has
brought a "breadth, coherence, and visibility to science and technology of a sort never
before seen in Washington." It also said, "The opportunity has never been grander in
the science office, and [Bromley] and his staff are under pressure not to fail."
Damning with great praise is what I might call that!
Fortunately, we now have enough staff to spread the pressure around. For the
first time in its history, the office is about to have all four of the Presidentially
nominated and Senate-confirmed Associate Directors called for in its founding
legislation. James Wyngaarden, the Associate Director for Life Sciences, was
confirmed last November at the same time as I was. Within the next few weeks, we
expect Eugene Wong, former Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science at the University of California at Berkeley, to be confirmed as Associate
Director for Physical Sciences and Engineering, and William Phillips, who has been
Science Advisor to the Governor of Missouri and Senior Vice President of Science and
Technology for Mallinckrodt, Inc., to be confirmed as Associate Director for Industrial
Technology. Together, Allan expects the four associate directors to work collegially
3
with him and with the rest of the staff in addressing issues of science and technology
that rise to the presidential level.
Besides OSTP, there are two other important groups that influence federal
science and technology policy within the White House. The first is the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, or PCAST. This group consists of 12
distinguished representatives of private industry and academia, with Allan as its
chairman, and reports directly to the President. PCAST held its second meeting last
week, after holding its first meeting in February at Camp David with the President.
One of the main subjects it discussed last week was high performance computing and
communications, and specifically the importance of a broadband national network
that could carry not only STI but other forms of information. It looks very much as
if PCAST is going to be a vigorous addition to the federal science and technology
policy scene.
The other important policy body is the Federal Coordinating Council for
Science, Engineering, and Technology, or FCCSET, which was created by the same
1976 legislation that created OSTP. Its charge is to review and coordinate science,
engineering, and technology activities that cut across the missions of more than one
federal agency.
In the past, several FCCSET committees--such as the Committee on Earth
Sciences and the Computer Research and Applications Committee--have demonstrated
the great advantages to be derived from effective coordination of cross-cutting issues
in science and technology. For example, over the past several years, the Committee
on Earth Sciences has organized all of the formerly disconnected research on global
change into the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is now a coherent,
government-wide approach to the scientific understanding of the global environment.
By the way, the Committee on Earth Sciences has recently endorsed the
activities of the Interagency Working Group on Data Management for Global Change,
which is addressing some of the key STI issues in the earth science area. In
particular, the working group has already begun to investigate the technical standards
needed to facilitate the exchange of data among agencies and to the world's scientific
community over a variety of electronic networks, regardless of host computer for the
4
data. The Interagency Working Group is also attempting to bring to the attention of
other national and international groups the necessity of network coordination, so that
the dissemination of environmental data and information can be accomplished in a
cost-effective manner.
We are now in the process of reorganizing and revitalizing the FCCSET
structure. We had the second meeting of the full FCCSET--chaired by Allan--a couple
of weeks ago. At both that meeting and the first meeting we had excellent
representation from the agencies, with Cabinet secretaries and heads of independent
agencies constituting the majority of those in attendance. In general, we foresee a
substantially altered and enhanced role for FCCSET within the government. For the
first time since the FCCSET was created, it should be functioning as it was designed
to function.
FCCSET is now in the process of establishing and populating several umbrella
committees in such areas as the physical, mathematical, and engineering sciences and
education and human resources. Various subcommittees will be formed under these
committees in areas such as high-performance computing.
We are now considering the most appropriate position and role for STI issues
within this committee structure. I will come back to this subject at the end my of
talk, because I believe it offers the possibility of real change in federal STI
approaches and because I would like to get your input on how best that change might
occur.
First, though, I thought I would discuss some of the characteristics of STI and
the emerging issues that the federal government will have to confront.
SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION
The emerging Information Age and the explosive growth of the technologies
underlying that information are forcing rapid change for STI. To take NTIS as an
example, sales of print and microfiche documents have declined 50 percent since 1980,
while sales of computer products and online searching of NTIS databases via private
5
vendors are growing. These changes will bring new problems, but they also offer a
number of new opportunities.
Scientific and technical information (STI) has several unique characteristics.
First is the character of the information, comprising three broad types--traditional
bibliographic information, numeric data such as that arising from physical
measurements or computations, and graphic images such as those produced by space-
based observing systems. All of these types generally have distinct sources, separate
formats, and often completely separate processing systems, but the trend is clearly
toward electronic or optical systems that will store and transmit all three types.
A second distinguishing characteristic of STI is its audience. Scientific and
technical information is used primarily by specialists. Relatively little STI is directly
of interest to a broad audience, although summary conclusions or findings based on
that information may be. Thus the patterns of dissemination and the issues and
needs regarding access to STI are rather different than those arising with, for
example, census data.
A third distinguishing characteristic of STI is its sheer volume and growth rate.
STI is the primary product of a major Federal activity--research and development--in
which the government invests over $70 billion per year. As a result, the Federal
government is the world's most prolific generator of STI.
The magnitude of science and technology information is generally
unappreciated. According to a recent report by the Office of Technology Assessment,
the bibliographic Federal S&T information base includes an estimated 4 million
technical reports, a volume that is expanding at the rate of 200,000 new technical
documents per year. Added to that are rapidly proliferating databases containing, in
the earth sciences area alone, about 100 terabytes of numeric and graphic data--or
over 10 times as much data as in the entire Library of Congress.
By comparison, the database of the Social Security Administration, one of the
largest non-technical databases in the nation, comprises just 1.3 terabytes, or
somewhat over 10 percent of the total information in the Library of Congress. The
U.S. Bureau of the Census estimates its 1986 digital database at 2.6 terabytes. Thus
6
the volume of STI is already one to two orders of magnitude larger than the volume
of other kinds of archived materials.
Moreover, this staggering amount of information is a mere trickle compared to
the flood of STI that is expected in the 1990's. Between now and 1998, a key NOAA
database is expected to add some 200 additional terabytes of STI. Space-based
systems are expected to send NASA ground stations more than 5,300 terabytes of STI.
Overall, STI is expected to increase by two orders of magnitude--a hundredfold--
during the 1990's.
Present STI budgets and technology do not even allow for such a quantity of
data to be stored, much less efficiently managed or made available to intended users.
Coping with a flow of such unprecedented volumes of information is clearly a
monumental task.
If we are to gain the full return on the federal government's investment in
research and development, we must meet the challenge of storing, managing, and
disseminating STI on a far larger scale that we do today. And that return is vitally
important. In an increasingly competitive world, our economic fortunes as a nation
are closely tied to our success in translating new knowledge promptly into new
products and services. To survive in the Information Age, we must learn to be
information efficient--both in generating new information and in disseminating and
using it.
USING SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFORMATION INTERNATIONALLY
More than ever, scientific and technical information is now a global resource--
one that will be essential to cope with the global challenges ahead. There are an
estimated 80,000 S&T journals published around the world, and perhaps 10,000 key,
front-line journals. Yet with emerging, broad-band communication networks, it is
entirely possible to share this enormous volume of information--and the far larger
volumes of graphic and numerical data--around the world.
7
New forms of scientific journals are emerging, as various disciplines experiment
with electronic publishing. In the field of crystallography, for example, it is now
becoming accepted--even required--for an investigator to deposit an electronic file of
the primary diffraction data on which a proposed crystal structure, published in the
conventional way, is based. In the field of DNA base sequencing that is intimately
linked to the human genome project, investigators turn over newly determined base
sequences to one of several electronic repositories. And my former institution, the
American Association for the Advancement of Science, is starting a new and totally
electronic journal to "publish" research such as the voluminous graphic and numeric
output of supercomputers that simply does not fit within the format of traditional
journals. These examples are enough, perhaps, to establish that we are looking at a
new trend in the scientific literature, a trend that can only accelerate.
Another trend that will influence the international use of S&T information is
the growth of megaprojects, which by their very nature must collect, manage, and
disseminate large volumes of information. Some of these projects are inherently
international, with widely distributed sources of data. The Global Change Research
Program is one example. The Human Genome Project is another. But even where the
source of the data is not dispersed but centralized, as in the SSC, the users of the
information will be international.
I think it important to point out, however, that making data available
internationally is not as simple as we might wish. One group of barriers are
technical--a lack of standards and common formats in the way we store, communicate,
search, and manipulate data. As I mentioned earlier, the Interagency Working Group
on Data Management for Global Change is already addressing these problems within
the Federal government, and that is a start. One solution may be the creation of
specialized data centers around the world that are equipped to interact with and help
many different users. But it is clear that we have some ways to go before we have
unbuilt the current Tower of Babel. Given a very fast-moving set of technologies and
a very competitive commercial environment, an agreed-on, universal STI system is still
far off.
8
In addition to technical barriers, of course, there are also policy barriers to the
free international flow of S&T data in electronic form. One is concern about the
implications of such data flows for national competitiveness. Clearly, there will have
to be improved reciprocity before such concerns will disappear. A second policy issue
touches on national security and national sovereignty. In the Earth Science area, for
example, much of the data is gathered by satellites--and some countries are very
concerned about the gathering and use of data about their country by third parties.
There is also the PTT problem--the tendency of national Postal, Telephone, and
Telegraph monopolies in some countries to want to tax trans-border information flows.
In effect, they want to charge by the bit instead of by the wire or the channel.
Finally, there are economic and human barriers. It costs money to operate
electronic data centers, and someone must pay. However, it is my guess that the
people problem--training vast numbers of people to interface with the technology of
the data bases and resolving intellectual property and related market issues, for
example--are much more intractable than the purely technological barriers. Lack of
agreement on such issues has the capacity to hinder international dissemination of
S&T data in electronic form.
Despite such problems, it is clear that we are entering in a real way and at an
ever more rapid rate into a digitally-based, Information Age. How we cope with the
challenges of the 90's in the STI field will help to shape that world, both because of
the catalytic effect of S&T information, and because the sheer volume of S&T data--if
we can learn to manage it so that it is information and not just bits--will help to
forge the techniques on which the Information Age will depend.
CONCLUSION
In this period of rapid change for STI, the management of scientific and
technical information must keep pace. We must vigorously explore the emerging new
technologies and reexamine our institutional structures for STI. We must increase
our flexibility to respond to new needs and new opportunities. We must give
9
adequate support to the planning and maintenance of our critical data repositories.
And, finally, we must seek to improve access to STI wherever possible.
As part of the restructuring of FCCSET mentioned earlier, a new FCCSET
committee is being established called the Physical, Mathematical, and Engineering
Sciences Committee. This committee will have a subcommittee underneath it that
deals with high performance computing and communications.
One option for STI would be to create a parallel, free-standing subcommittee
on STI to deal with standards, dissemination, access, and related issues. Another
might be to create or expand such working groups as CENDI (for Commerce, Energy,
NASA, NLM, Defense Information) or the Interagency Working Group on Data
Management that I referred to earlier.
Whether through these mechanisms or some other, we must address the issues
posed by the special character and explosive growth of Federal scientific and technical
information. If we do not, we risk failing to reap the benefits of the emerging
Information Age.
The challenge I would leave with you is to let us know at OSTP what you
think would be the best way to organize and carry out the federal government's STI
activities. As the users of products from NTIS and other governmental information
sources, you are in a unique position to gauge the successes and failures of federal
efforts. Allan Bromley runs an Office of Science and Technology Policy that is
receptive to your input. You should take advantage of that.
OSTP-DAB-1990-11
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH: CRITICAL ISSUES FOR THE 1990'S
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
and Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
Remarks at the Public Affairs Symposium of the
Annual Meeting of the Federation of American Societies
for Experimental Biology
Washington, D.C.
April 2, 1990
1
It may seem incongruous for a lifelong physicist to be addressing a group of
biologists about critical issues in biomedical research, though I should emphasize that
I am an experimental physicist. Still, I have no doubt that some of the traditional
arrogance of physics has preceded me into this hall. I once heard a biologist refer to
a physicist as someone who, when he sees something that works in practice, wonders
if it will work in theory.
Still, I find it interesting that as the two disciplines evolve, they are becoming
more and more similar. The impact of physics on biology is well known, from Max
Delbruck and the phage group to Francis Crick and DNA to all of the new imaging
techniques that are now available. But biological thought has also had a strong,
though less well recognized, impact on physics. Many of the first instances of chaotic
behavior were found in biological systems; in general, the theory of chaos has revealed
an indeterminacy in large-scale physical systems that was once thought more
characteristic of biological systems. More broadly, biology has produced ideas about
hierarchical structure and evolutionary processes that have subtly but powerfully
shaped the way we think about the physical world.
THE DECADE OF THE BRAIN
One of the best examples of the convergence of physics and biology can be seen
in the theme of this year's meeting: the function of the nervous system. If we are
ever to understand the brain and its disorders, we will have to draw on disciplines
from throughout the sciences: neuroanatomy, molecular biology, computer science,
psychology, to name just a few.
It is propitious that you chose the nervous system as the theme of this
conference, because, as you might know, this is a subject on which the federal
government has also focused its attention. Through a joint resolution passed by
2
Congress and signed by the President, the 1990s have been designated the Decade of
the Brain. This declaration serves two complementary functions. It looks to the past
in recognizing the dramatic advances that many of you have made in understanding
the brain and its disorders. And it looks to the future in highlighting the formidable
challenges that face us in understanding basic processes like learning and behavior
and in developing ways to prevent and treat diseases of the nervous system.
As many as 50 million Americans--one in every five of our citizens--suffer each
year from disorders and disabilities involving the brain, including mental illnesses,
Alzheimer's disease, AIDS-related dementias, addictive disorders, and traumatic
injuries. Great progress has been made in understanding and treating these
afflictions. Drug treatments and behavioral therapies have improved the lives of
many millions of people. Yet we still have a long way to go in dealing with this
source of great human suffering.
Currently, the federal government spends over a billion dollars on research in
the neurosciences. During the 1990s, this funding should grow in parallel with
funding for other high-priority areas of biomedical research. At the same time, the
Decade of the Brain should increase public awareness and understanding of the brain
and its disorders and galvanize the scientific community in exploring existing
knowledge and promising directions in the neurosciences.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy is taking the lead in planning and
coordinating the Decade of the Brain. In consultation with the House Committee on
Appropriations, OSTP has created a panel to plan the effort. We are also consulting
with the many government agencies, academic and other extramural scientists, and
voluntary health organizations involved in the research. As such, we are engaging in
OSTP's traditional function of reviewing and coordinating areas of science and
technology that cut across more than one federal agency.
3
FUNDING FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
OSTP also has the charge of working closely with the Office of Management
and Budget in reviewing the distribution of federal funding for research and
development, including biomedical research. I am working closely with budget
director Richard Darman to ensure that the staffs of OSTP and OMB collaborate at
all stages of the budget process. Lou Sullivan has already discussed many of these
subjects in his remarks, but I thought that I would touch upon them again in the
context of OSTP's role in the Administration.
I know that many of you are quite concerned about the funding rates for
grants in the life sciences. But I should point out that this problem is not limited to
biomedical research. Last year, for the first time ever, the fraction of excellent, peer-
reviewed, new proposals that were actually funded fell below 30 percent not just at
NIH but also at NSF. This problem is particularly acute for new investigators,
although programs like the First Individual Research Award Since Training (FIRST)
program at NIH provide at least some measure of support for beginning researchers.
Being denied funding is a great misfortune not only for young investigators. It
is also a great misfortune for a nation that desperately needs to recruit more young
people into scientific careers.
There are several reasons for this state of affairs. The most obvious is a
stabilization of the growth of federal support for biomedical research. Between 1982
and 1989, the NIH budget doubled, going from $3.5 billion to $7.1 billion. The total
number of research project grants funded increased from about 15,500 to about
20,000. However, since 1987, the rate of growth of nonearmarked funds has slowed--
though total funding has continued to grow and the total number of grants will
increase in FY 1991. Nevertheless, as a result of decisions made in the mid-1980s to
increase the number of new and competing grants, the number of new and competing
awards has hovered around 5,000 for several years.
Much the same thing happened in physics in the 1970s. Throughout the 1960s,
federal funding rates increased dramatically, and many new people entered the field.
Then, in the 1970s, funding not only quit growing but declined. This caused a great
4
deal of hardship for people already in the field and convinced a generation of young
people not to pursue physics as a career. Only in the latter part of the 1970s and
the 1980s did the field again recover.
Another reason for the tight funding situation derives from the traditional
practice of making multiyear awards. These awards generate outyear commitments
that NIH feels it must meet before new awards are made. However, when the rate of
growth of the budget slows, such commitments limit the ability to make new awards.
NIH is making adjustments to try to keep the level of new awards up, such as
reducing the size of its outyear commitments. But this, too generates problems, and
it has to be done outside the traditional peer review system.
The peer review system is also having trouble discriminating among the many
proposals received. As recently noted by Congress, approval rates by peer review
groups have risen from 67 percent in 1970 to 95 percent today. This trend, along
with a dramatic increase in the number of applications received, has reduced award
rates by raising the denominator in the approval fraction.
Finally, we must recognize that, to some extent, we are the victims of our own
success. It has been a remarkable decade not only in biomedical research but
throughout the sciences. The increased funds devoted to research during the 1980s
produced exactly what they were designed to produce: a wealth of exciting new
opportunities. The number of high-quality applications is growing, as is the number
of applicants. We must find some way of dealing with the remarkable progress that
has been made.
THE ROLE OF OSTP
Many factors enter into the allocation of funding across scientific disciplines,
and not all of them strictly scientific. There are many national needs clamoring for
attention--including the federal budget deficit, the AIDS epidemic, drug addiction, and
education--and some very difficult calls have to be made. That is why we elect a
5
President--to make those difficult calls--and President Bush, in the budget he sent to
the Hill, has made the hard decisions that were needed.
But I know that I speak for the President in saying that this Administration
places a very high priority on science and technology, and particularly on the efforts
of individual investigators. As I have said many times in the past, small, university-
based, individual-investigator research is the heart and backbone of American science.
Funding for "small science" must be guaranteed if American science, as a whole, is to
flourish.
OSTP is not a large office; we have only about 40 full-time personnel. But we
sit at an important crossroads in American science: at the intersection of the
Executive Office of the President and the scientific community, and in the crossfire
between the President and Congress on matters of science and technology. One of
our legislated responsibilities is to ensure the health of the science and technology
base in the United States. Without adequate funding for individual investigators, that
base cannot remain healthy.
OSTP's Associate Director for Life Sciences, Jim Wyngaarden, has devoted
considerable time to this issue and has brought it to the attention of a number of
people within the Administration. Funding for biomedical research has also been a
topic of discussion among the President's Council of Advisors on Science and
Technology, which includes both Dan Nathans and Bernadine Healy from the
biomedical community. The second meeting of PCAST was held the week before last,
and at both that meeting and the first meeting at Camp David the President and
several of his top aides listened with considerable interest to the topics being
discussed. As the funding cycle for Fiscal Year 1992 gets under way, I can assure you
that your concerns and recommendations are making themselves heard.
6
THE USE OF ANIMALS IN RESEARCH
There are a couple of other areas of biomedical research in which OSTP is
particularly active, and even though Lou has already discussed them I thought I
would mention them briefly. We, too, strongly support the use of animals in
biomedical research and condemn the illegal activities of those radical animal
advocates who would seek to disrupt this research.
No reasonable person can deny the tremendous impact that research using
animals has had on human health and well being. A hundred years ago, the leading
cause of death in the United States was tuberculosis, and a quarter of all people born
died before their 25th birthday. Today, the leading causes of death are heart disease
and cancer--diseases predominantly of old age--and fully 97 percent of all people born
live past the age of 25.
Some of this increase in health was due to better sanitation and nutrition, but
animal research has eliminated many formerly terrifying diseases as significant causes
of death and illness. It has also brought us much new understanding of ourselves
and of the world we live in. Over two thirds of the research projects that led to the
Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine directly involved animal experiments, and
nearly half of the biomedical investigations carried out in the United States use
laboratory animals.
Jim Wyngaarden and I are both personally on record supporting legislation
that would bring federal sanctions to bear on those who engage in illegal and violent
acts against animal researchers and their work. In our view, such legislation would
strengthen the resolve of scientists to go forward with their essential work. It would
also encourage young people to enter research careers who may now be deterred by
the prospect of harassment from animal activists and the ever-present possibility of
their life's work being destroyed by a night of violence.
7
INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH
Another area in which OSTP is active involves the integrity of scientific
research. In the last several years, the impression has grown that scientific
misconduct is a serious problem in our research enterprise. I believe that impression
to be entirely mistaken, yet the impression itself must be dealt with.
The Office of Scientific Integrity at NIH has recently been gathering data on
this subject to provide a basis for possible actions. Over the past 10 years, the
Public Health Service, including NIH, has supported perhaps 50,000 different
scientists. Out of that total, there have been somewhere around 50 confirmed cases of
misconduct. So trouble has surfaced in something like one in a thousand cases.
That, I would submit, is a better ratio than in virtually any other profession.
Nevertheless, no responsible member of the scientific community questions for a
moment the obligation to account for support received from the taxpayer. Even
though the rate of misconduct is very low, the public deserves to know that research
is being conducted honestly and that problems are dealt with quickly and fairly.
To help provide these assurances, OSTP has held a series of meetings with
representatives from the various agencies that support research and development.
The ultimate goal of these meetings is to develop a common policy statement designed
to foster scientific integrity and deal with misconduct in science. The policy statement
would not specify a unified set of policies to be followed by all federal agencies.
Rather, it would set out common principles that could be incorporated into the
policies developed by individual agencies.
CONCLUSION: A CONSTITUENCY FOR THE FUTURE
This issue of misconduct relates to the final topic I want to mention today,
that of fostering a constituency for science and technology in this country. Because of
the committee structure on Capitol Hill, funding for research and development is in
direct competition with programs that have very active and vocal constituencies.
8
Funding for NIH is dictated by the same appropriations committees that handle the
Departments of Education and Labor. Funding for NSF comes through the same
appropriations committees that handle Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development, and a number of independent agencies. If funding for research and
development is to be increased in any given year, it can only be at the expense of
these other programs.
Agencies representing groups like Veterans or Labor have natural constituencies
that can be expected to provide strong support for the programs affecting them.
Research and development have no such constituency. I was talking with Barbara
Mikulski about this very issue not long ago, and she pointed out that she hears from
advocates for the veterans and the homeless--two groups in direct competition with
funding for NSF--on a daily basis. But she said that she very rarely hears from
scientists.
The people in this room are part of the core constituency for science and
technology, as are the approximately 5 million other individuals employed as scientists
and engineers in the United States. But I also want to mention another, much
broader, constituency for science. We must foster an appreciation and concern for
science among the general public. This will require, first, increasing the level of
scientific literacy among the public, so that they are able to appreciate the vital role
of science and technology in almost every aspect of daily life. It will also require a
substantial outreach program by the scientists and engineers of this country, to
explain how your research affects them and how it can contribute to the national
interest.
I believe that we now have a unique opportunity to foster this kind of
constituency. There is a great deal of concern in this country about the position of
the United States in the global economy and our loss of competitiveness in key
industries. By demonstrating the ever increasing importance of science and
technology to economic competitiveness, we can forge the link between investing in
research and development now and our future economic prosperity. We can forge a
constituency for the future, a collective sense for the great advances in science and
technology that are yet to come.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina
January 25, 1990
Duke University
Page 1
Thank you Dr. Brodie. It's a great pleasure to be here in
North Carolina, and particularly here at one of our nation's foremost
universities, because now I can experience for myself the North
Carolina hospitality I've heard so much about back in Washington.
You might know that two of my office's four associate directors
consider themselves Tarheels first and foremost. Dr. James
Wyngaarden, OSTP's Associate Director for Life Sciences, was
Chairman of the Department of Medicine here at Duke until he left
to become the head of the National Institutes of Health. I notice
that when he went to the Senate for his confirmation hearings he
still gave his legal residence as Durham, North Carolina.
And OSTP's Associate Director for Policy and International
Affairs, Thomas Ratchford, who is with me here today, grew up near
Charlotte, graduated from Davidson College, and even married the
daughter of a Davidson faculty member. In fact, one of Tom's
classmates at Davidson was Governor Martin, and the two of them
remained friends in Washington, when Jim became a Congressman
and Tom was working on the Hill. I'm not sure that I understand all
nuances of the relationships between North Carolina institutions of
Duke University
Page 2
higher education, but it is interesting that the governor and his
science adviser, Earl MacCormac, were members of the Davidson
faculty as well. So the links between our office and the North
Carolina statehouse are very strong, and I expect to draw heavily
upon the expertise here in North Carolina in doing my own job.
One of the reasons why I've come to North Carolina today is
to learn more about some of the initiatives that you are undertaking
in the area of science and mathematics education, and I've just
finished a very interesting tour of the North Carolina School of
Science and Mathematics. Tom has told me that North Carolinians
tend to think of their state as a valley of humility between two
mountains of conceit, but there is no reason for humility when it
comes to the School of Science and Mathematics. It is a superb,
unparalleled institution that has a great deal to teach the rest of the
country about how to train and inspire the scientists and engineers
of the twenty-first century. I firmly believe that one of the most
important responsibilities facing the Office of Science and
Technology Policy lies in the area of science and mathematics
education, and we expect to devote a considerable portion of our
time to the subject.
Duke University
Page 3
I would like to come back to education in a few moments,
because the federal government is now considered some very
promising initiatives in this area, but first I thought that I would
describe the Office of Science and Technology Policy and some of
the activities that we have initiated. OSTP was established by Act
of Congress in 1976 to serve 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. This provision of advice on science and
technology has become ever more important as science and
technology has increased their influence on national and
international policy. Nearly half of the bills that are introduced in
Congress are estimated to entail a substantial component of science
and technology, and I can tell you from personal experience that
many important decisions affecting the Bush Administration require
a careful consideration of science and technology input.
I might note, in this regard, that the states have long
recognized the importance of science and technology to policy.
Over 40 of the states now have positions equivalent to that of
science adviser. For that matter, the first state science adviser
position to be established in the country was established here in
Duke University
Page 4
North Carolina, in 1963, the Earl MacCormac now holds. I might
hope that the preeminence of North Carolina in science and
technology could be attributed, in no small measure, to the
existence of such an adviser.
OSTP's first priority is to provide advice to the President, but
the office was established by Congress and has the additional
responsibility of coordinating its efforts with initiatives coming from
the Hill. We are now in the process of rebuilding our bridges with
Congress and expect close cooperation between our office and the
Hill in the years ahead. I have accepted an invitation from Senators
Gore and Danforth to meet for informal breakfasts on a regular
basis with seven to ten Senators to discuss science and technology,
and I have already started meeting with Congressional staff to
express OSTP's position and hear from them about the issues they
consider important.
OSTP's second major task is to work to maintain the health
and productivity of science and technology in this country--in short,
to establish policy for science and technology. One important
aspect of this task is our coordination of R&D within the federal
government. This can be an extremely difficult function, with
Duke University
Page 5
science and technology as pervasive as they are in the federal
government.
But let me describe a recent project that I see as a model for
our coordinating efforts. Last summer the Committee for Earth
Sciences, which consists of representatives from all of the federal
agencies conducting research on the global environment, released a
working group report on the federal government's research plan for
global change during fiscal year 1990. The report sets up a
coordinated national strategy and implementation plan for all federal
research on global change. The President's FY 1991 budget, which
will be released next Monday, is going to call for a substantial
increase in research on global change, and because of the
coordinating efforts of the Committee on Earth Sciences this funding
will be much more effective than if each agency were acting
independently. This is the kind of coordination that I would like to
extend to a number of different areas of science and technology,
such as materials science, energy policy, biotechnology, and
education.
The coordinating activities of OSTP are carried out largely
through an entity known as the Federal Coordinating Council for
Science, Engineering, and Technology or FCCSET. The members of
Duke University
Page 6
FCCSET are appointed by the head of each agency with substantial
R&D funding. Typically, these members are the top science
administrators at each agency, so the FCCSET member from the
National Science Foundation is the director, and the FCCSET
member from the Department of Energy is the head of energy
research.
We held the first full meeting of FCCSET under the Bush
Administration yesterday afternoon, and we have ambitious plans to
reorganize and revitalize the FCCSET structure. We are setting up a
number of committees under FCCSET, including a Committee on
Human Resources, a Committee on the Social Sciences, and so on.
Like the Committee on Earth Sciences, which is a FCCSET
committee, each of these committees will be charged with
overseeing and coordinating large areas of R&D funding that cut
across agency mandates. In this way, FCCSET will be able to bring
a new level of cohesion and organization to federal funding of
science and technology.
One problem with the FCCSET mechanism, however, is that it
makes no provision for input from the private sector to decision
making at the highest levels of government. To that end, the
President will, very soon, announce the membership of the
Duke University
Page 7
President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, or
PCAST, which the President has asked me to chair. This will be a
group of 12 distinguished, broadly based individuals from academia
and industry who will report directly to the President and, at his
request, examine a broad range of issues in science and
technology.
In addition, PCAST will have the authority to form ad hoc
panels of private sector executives, researchers, and academics to
parallel the committees established under FCCSET. By having the
PCAST panels and the corresponding FCCSET committees focus on
related issues, the private sector will be able to provide input to
executive branch decision-making in a way that it never has before.
President Bush has told me that he plans to host the first
PCAST meeting, on an informal basis, outside of Washington early
next month and that thereafter he plans to participate personally in
Council meetings to the extent that his schedule allows. This will
give PCAST much more direct access to the President than has
been the case in recent years.
Finally, I would be remiss in describing the structure of OSTP
if I did not describe the roles of the office's four associate directors.
I have already mentioned Drs. Ratchford and Wyngaarden, but for
Duke University
Page 8
the first time in the history of OSTP we expect to have all four of
the Associate Directors called for in the office's founding legislation.
Last week the President announced his intention to nominate
Eugene Wong as the Associate Director for the Physical Sciences
and Engineering and William Phillips as the Associate Director for
Industrial Technology. Dr. Wong has been Professor of Electrical
Engineering and Computer Science at the University of California
since 1962, and Dr. Phillips has been yet another science adviser, in
his case to the Governor of Missouri, as well as President of the
Missouri Advanced Technology Institute and Senior Vice President
for Science and Technology at Mallinckrodt, Inc. I consider OSTP
very fortunate to have attracted two individuals with such experience
and knowledge, and I look forward to their speedy confirmation by
the Senate.
My intention is that the four associate directors and myself will
work together collegially to address the issues involving science and
technology that have risen to the Presidential level. We will also
keep a watchful eye on emerging issues in science and technology
and, when necessary, develop recommendations for appropriate
actions in those areas.
Duke University
Page 9
As I mentioned, we will be working on a wide variety of issues
at OSTP over the next few years. For instance, since I was
confirmed last August, much of our time has been spent on three
subjects: the effects of science and technology on economic
growth, the environment and global change, and science and
mathematics education.
These three areas may seem quite different, but in fact they
have at least one thing in common. They all entail investments in
our future-investments in this country's science and technology
base, in the protection of the environment, in the education of our
young people. In general, the Office of Science and Technology
Policy is the entity within the Executive Office of the President that
focuses most exclusively on the future, and particularly on the long-
term future. This development of longer-range strategies and their
implementation, which is a major strength of our international
competitors, is one of the greatest challenges facing our country
today.
I want to use education as an example, both because it has
the longest time frame, and because it is perhaps the most
important of the three in determining our future national well-being.
When giving speeches, I often lament the education that the
Duke University
Page 10
precollege students in this country receive, but with this group I
don't think that will not be necessary. If your students are like
mine, you are already painfully aware of the educational gaps of
even quite intelligent, highly motivated students. I once had a
graduate student at Yale, who had been an undergraduate at
Harvard and is now an internationally known physicist. However,
the first sentence of his Ph.D. thesis, when I received it in draft,
read: "This field of research is so virginal that no human eyeball
has ever set foot in it."
At least that student made it to graduate school. Most
students are lost to science and engineering well before that--in
college, in high school, or even earlier. In fact, in reforming science
and mathematics education in this country, elementary school has to
be the first area of focus. In the very earliest grades, second grade
and third grade, science and mathematics are among students'
favorite classes. By high school, those same classes are among
their least favorite. Somewhere along the way we are losing them,
not only as scientists and engineers but as people who are
interested and conversant in the science and technology that
pervade our society.
Duke University
Page 11
I'm sure you are familiar with the statistics, but let me remind
you of some that I find particularly alarming. Between 1980 and
2000, the population of 18 to 24 year olds will have declined by 19
percent, even as the need for scientists, engineers, and technical
workers continues to grow. Furthermore, among college freshmen,
interest in science and engineering has declined substantially. Over
the past 20 years, interest in science and engineering has dropped
by a third. Interest in mathematics has dropped by a quarter in the
past 7 years. Interest in computer science, where the greatest
shortages of trained personnel are predicted, has dropped by fully
two thirds in the last 4 years.
This declining interest in science and mathematics could not
come at a worst time for this country. Already, American students
fail to meet the need for scientists and engineers in many fields,
and if not for a substantial influx of foreign students who chose to
stay in this country, shortages of these personnel would be acute.
Furthermore, an increasingly greater proportion of jobs in this
country require people who are well-versed in mathematics and
science and have greater facility with higher order reasoning skills
than most high school and college graduates now have. If the
schools of this country cannot produce the skilled workers
Duke University
Page 12
demanded by tomorrow's workplace, our standing in the world
economy will inevitably suffer.
Finally, the declining interest in science and technology
parallels a much broader loss of scientific literacy among the
general public. If the public cannot at least appreciate the nature of
the issues involving science and technology, quite apart from
contributing to their resolution, they inevitably will tend to become
alienated from society. This is a trend that no nation can long
endure.
The statistics are indeed grim, but there are many hopeful
signs of change. I saw one of them this morning: if America can
still produce schools like the North Carolina School for Science and
Mathematics, we need never worry about completely running out of
world-class scientists and engineers.
President Bush is also very concerned about education, and
even though education will remain predominantly a state and local
activity, the initiatives emerging from the White House have the
potential to make a real difference. Last April he submitted to
Congress his Educational Excellence Act of 1989, which would
strengthen and reform education by rewarding excellence,
encouraging flexibility, and requiring accountability.
Duke University
Page 13
In the area of science and mathematics education, the act
would support the establishment of magnet schools in mathematics
and science very similar to the North Carolina School of Science
and Mathematics. It would also set up a National Science Scholars
Program to provide college scholarships to high school seniors who
have excelled in the sciences and mathematics, and I have no doubt
that many of those scholarships would come to North Carolina
students.
Then, last September, President Bush convened the
Educational Summit in Charlottesville, which was only the third time
in our nation's history that the President of the United States has
gathered the nation's governors to address a single issue of
national importance. I accompanied the President to Charlottesville,
and even though a great deal of skepticism surrounded that
meeting, I believe that it has had a truly remarkable influence. I
recently returned from Hawaii--where it rained all week and I
managed to catch a terrible cold--and in talking with governor
Waihee he said that the Education Summit was the first time he
could remember a President sitting down and actually listening to
what the governors had to say. Since then, according to the
governor, educational bills have been pouring into his office from
Duke University
Page 14
the statehouse, largely because of the visibility and momentum
given to this issue by the Educational Summit.
One of the most important decisions made at the Summit was
to pursue the development of national goals in education-not
national curricula, since these would imply a degree of coercion-but
standards against which performance can be measured. In this
way, not only students but teachers, the schools, the states, and the
federal government can receive a report card documenting their
progress in education. Our office is now working with the White
House staff and with the governors on those goals and on ways in
which the performance of our educational system can be measured.
At the Summit, president Bush said that "We are here to put
progress before partisanship, the future before the moment, and our
children before ourselves." Bipartisan efforts will be crucial in
reforming the educational system of this country, and in that light
we in the administration are very interested in the educational
initiatives that have been proposed in Congress. Congressman
David Price, who will be joining us at a press conference in a few
moments, has introduced a bill that would develop new curricula
and technologies to teach science and technology and set up
programs to train the technicians that will be in such short supply in
Duke University
Page 15
the future. Congressman Tim Valentine, who is also here today, is
similarly concerned with the state of science and technology in this
country, and we expect to be working closely with both of these
individuals on a wide variety of scientific and technological issues.
These are the kinds of effort we need to turn around the
educational system in this country. We need to learn from the few
stellar examples of educational excellence in this country
and extend those lessons to children everywhere, from Research
Triangle Park to downtown Washington, D.C.. We need to work
together to renew our sense of the future, to promise our children
and grandchildren that the educations they receive will be as good
or better than the educations we received. There is much to be
done, but we are headed in the right direction.
STATEMENT
BY
D. ALLAN BROMLEY,
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, AND
DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ON
S. 324
NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 1990
WASHINGTON, D. C.
APRIL 5, 1990
STATEMENT
by
D. Allan Bromley,
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and
Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy
before the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States Senate
on
S. 324
National Energy Policy Act of 1990
April 5, 1990
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) on S. 324, the National
Energy Policy Act of 1990. OSTP and the entire Administration share
the committee's conviction that our national energy policy must be based
on sound environmental, economic, and technical considerations.
However, we believe that mechanisms now in place offer a significantly
better chance of developing and implementing such policy than do the
measures in the Act. The Administration, therefore, opposes enactment
of S.324.
SCIENTIFIC UNCERTAINTIES REGARDING GLOBAL CLIMATE
CHANGE
There is no question that human beings have significantly altered the
composition of the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, cutting down
forests to greatly expand agriculture, and producing industrial chemicals
such as chlorofluorocarbons. Over the past two centuries, the amount of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen 25 percent. The level of
atmospheric methane, a potent greenhouse gas generated by agricultural
and industrial practices, has more than doubled.
Although scientists have predicted since the end of the nineteenth
century that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide would increase the
temperature of the planet, our understanding of the relationship between
greenhouse gases and global climate change remains imprecise and
inadequate. The scientific challenge is great, and our inability to
separate human impact from natural variability and the uncertainties
surrounding temperature records compounds the problem. Nevertheless,
few scientists would argue with the contention that if we continue to load
the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, we will eventually experience some
degree of warming.
Our general understanding of radiative forcing mechanisms in the
atmosphere leaves unanswered the critical questions regarding how much
warming will occur, the timing of any warming, impacts on sea level,
rainfall and soil moisture, and the regional effects created by all of these
factors. Those who are following the literature know that new, and
sometimes conflicting results on the predictions for future global changes
appear almost on a daily basis.
It is also important to recognize that developing an improved
understanding of geophysical climate processes is only the first step in
developing appropriate policies. Estimates of the human and social
consequences stemming from actions that might be taken to curtail
greenhouse emission, as well as those stemming from predictions on
future warming and ancillary changes associated with it, must then be
developed and used as the basis for policy formulation. Science and
economics research aimed at developing necessary estimates and insights
is a top priority for the Administration.
Our scientific research is making significant progress. Nonetheless, the
state of the science remains highly uncertain. In fact, several recent
studies suggest a move to more moderate predictions of the extent of
global climate change and its potential impacts. For example:
0
In January of this year, a National Academy of Sciences
panel concluded that current climate change models predict
a global warming closer to 2 degrees Celsius over the next
fifty years, not the previous range of 1.5 degrees to 4.5
degrees Celsius.
0
In December 1989, the American Geophysical Union revised
earlier estimates of rise in sea level of between 20 and 120
2
inches by the year 2100 to a new estimate of between 0 and
30 inches.
0
Recently U.K. scientists have introduced a better
representation of cloud processes in their global climate
change model. The new estimate of warming for a
doubling of CO2 dropped to 1.9 degrees Celsius, down from
the previous estimate of 5.2 degree Celsius.
0
In January of this year, NOAA reported new results from
its global climate model, using more realistic ocean
simulations. This model now predicts that even with a
doubling of the current CO2 levels there would not be
warming in the Southern Hemisphere. Indeed, projections
indicate some areas of the globe will be cooler.
Given this level of uncertainty in predictions about global climate
change, it is clear we need to continue the aggressive research program
being supported by various Federal agencies to understand more fully
the ramifications of increased greenhouse gas emissions in the
atmosphere and potential impacts that could be caused by global climate
change. In the meantime, we should embark, on measures to reduce
greenhouse gas emission only if those measures also serve other policy
objectives. That is precisely what the Administration has done.
ADMINISTRATION ACTIONS FOR ENERGY AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
I would like to now summarize several initiatives undertaken by the
Administration that address some of the objectives of S.324. Then I will
describe our recent progress toward establishing a comprehensive
research program in the areas of energy and global climate change, as
well as mechanisms both national and international -- that we have
developed for formulating informed policy decisions and for
implementing these decisions. These actions, in my view, constitute an
effective response to the goals that we all share.
The Administration considers it imperative that we continue to develop,
in cooperation with the Congress, a well-designed program for research
into the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on climate. We must also
evaluate the economic and policy aspects of potential responses. Such a
program will provide the foundation essential for the development of a
3
rational national energy policy that is economically and environmentally
responsible.
I would also wish to emphasize the Administration's position that,
pending the resolution of the significant scientific uncertainties
surrounding climate change processes and their human and social
impacts and concerns regarding economic and social dislocations
stemming from efforts to limit fossil fuel use, our immediate focus
should be on those actions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
but which can be fully justified for other reasons. For example, we have
a commitment to phase out manufacturing and use of CFC's by the year
2000, ahead of the requirements of the current Montreal Protocol,
provided safe substitutes exist - these constitute 25 percent of our
current greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Air legislation currently
under debate in the Congress will also provide substantial reduction in
the emission of some of the greenhouse gases. A strong commitment to
energy conservation is to be a major component of the Department of
Energy's National Energy Strategy; and as an initial step in putting this
strategy forward, the Department of Energy has already announced a
series of conservation and renewable energy initiatives that are included
in the President's FY 1991 budget request.
Turning from sources of these emissions to sinks, the Department of
Agriculture's tree planting initiative (the planting of a billion trees on
private land across America -- trees that could eventually absorb 13
million tons of carbon, annually) presented in the President's FY 1991
Budget, and our continued diplomatic discussions with countries such as
Brazil aimed at protecting the remaining tropical forests, are key parts
of our immediate response to this potential problem.
The Administration has already taken a number of additional steps that
will enhance our understanding of, and response to, the potential effects
of global climate change.
The President proposed in his FY 1991 Budget that funding for the
U.S. Global Change Research Program be increased 57 percent over
FY 1990, to $1.03 billion in FY 1991. The proposed funding would
significantly expand research, data gathering, and modeling activities
through a carefully balanced mix of ground-based and space-based
research.
4
An underlying theme in all of the Administration's activities relative to
potential climate change is that the strategy must be scientifically-based
and technically and economically sound. It must also be dynamic --
responsive to new knowledge and ideas, and to global, environmental and
international changes. A report on the wide ranging public hearings
that represent a step in the process of formulating the National Energy
Strategy, for example, has just been released.
FEDERAL RESEARCH POLICY AND COORDINATION
The Office of Science and Technology Policy is charged with reviewing
and coordinating Federal R&D that cuts across the missions of more
than one Federal agency, and with providing advice to the President on
issues of science and technology policy that affect national and
international policy. As Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology and Director of OSTP, I chair two complementary councils --
one federal, FCCSET and one private sector, PCAST -- that provide
information and advice. In addition, I chair working groups of the
Economic Policy Council and the Domestic Policy Council related to
science and technology issues. These groups, whose functioning I shall
now describe, will accomplish the objectives -- and many more besides --
of the coordinating council proposed in S.324. Thus, the organizational
changes proposed in S.324, I believe, are unnecessary. The
establishment of a coordinating council proposed in S.324 would be
duplicative and would not add significantly to the existing mechanisms.
S.324 also sets out specific R&D criteria that the propsed coordinating
council is required to use as the basis for preparing "management plans"
for the conduct of R&D in certain identified technologies. We do not
believe the overly prescriptive nature of such an approach will be
successful. The proposed approach does not adequately include the
participation of the private sector technology developers and technology
users. Most observers of R&D policy have found that successful
government R&D occurs most frequently when the users or ultimate
manufacturers of the technology are involved in the planning, conduct
and testing of the applied technologies. S.324 does not provide adequate
mechanisms for this critical private sector involvement.
Federal Coordinating Council for Science and Technology
The Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and
Technology (FCCSET) was originally established in 1976 by Public Law
5
94-282, the National Science and Technology Policy Organization and
Priorities Act, which also established the Office of Science and
Technology Policy.
FCCSET is charged with providing more effective planning, coordination
and administration of federal scientific and technological programs.
This includes identifying research and development needs, and
developing and reviewing in close cooperation with the Office of
Management and Budget federal budget plans in cross-cutting areas of
science and technology.
Research on global change is supported by a number of federal agencies
and constitutes an exemplary case of common effort on a science policy
issue. OSTP's coordinating function in global change research has been
carried out largely through the Committee on Earth Sciences (CES),
which is one of the committees under FCCSET.
The CES in turn has two subcommittees that deal with global change,
the Working Group on Global Change, chaired by Robert Corell of the
National Science Foundation, and a new Working Group on Adaptation
and Mitigation Technologies, headed by John Knauss of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
I would like to submit for the record a copy of the document "Our
Changing Planet: The FY 1991 U.S. Global Change Research Program,"
which was developed by the CES Working Group on Global Change and
which formed the basis for the President's FY 1991 budget request in
this area.
The CES has integrated the efforts of the federal agencies conducting
research on global change into the U.S. Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP). The goal of the program is to reduce key scientific
uncertainties and to develop more reliable scientific predictions upon
which sound policy strategies and responses can be based. The CES
expects to update the research plan annually and to change priorities as
research results are obtained and as nonfederal groups provide input
into the research process.
Among the many interesting and important science questions that need
to be investigated, I would mention, in particular, the reliability of
general circulation models, the earth's climatic history, the role of
6
clouds, oceanic influences on the atmosphere and climate, the hydrologic
cycle, and changes in ecosystems.
This existing interagency coordinating mechanism is far preferable to the
establishment of the committee directed in S.324, composed of directors
of national laboratories who, after all, are contractors to the Department
of Energy. In fact, the Committee on Earth Sciences, has done an
excellent job in coordinating global change R&D. Having established an
interagency process that works, it would be a mistake to replace it with
a new mechanism which places contractors on an equal footing with
cabinet agencies.
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)
was established by Executive Order of the President on January 19,
1990. The Council, which I chair, reports directly to the President and
consists of 12 distinguished scientists and engineers from academia,
industry, and other nonfederal institutions. This council provides an
important ingredient that is missing from the FCCSET process -- views
from outside the federal sector.
PCAST has already met twice with the President and his senior advisors.
One of the topics discussed was global climate change, and I shall
request PCAST to form a panel on environmental science and global
change. This panel, with its private sector perspective, will complement
the advice we receive from the CES subcommittee of FCCSET. The fact
that I chair both FCCSET and PCAST insures good communications
between the two groups.
The Domestic Policy Council Working Group on Global Change
President Bush also has asked me to chair a Cabinet-level Working
Group on Global Change under the White House Domestic Policy
Council. The Working Group provides Cabinet-level coordination on
global change issues and is an important source of advice for the
President.
The Working Group, when established last October, called immediately
for three specific studies: (1) an analysis of economic costs of global
change and responses to it, (2) an analysis of private sector concerns,
activities, and issues on global change, and (3) legal precedents for
international agreements and conventions on the environment.
7
Preliminary drafts of these reports have been presented to the Working
Group for use in their deliberations. In addition, the Working Group
has set up a number of briefings by top experts on the scientific,
economic, environmental, and industrial aspects of global change.
Economic Policy Council Working Group on Science and Technology
Late last month an Economic Policy Council Working Group on Science
and Technology was established to assist in formulation, coordination
and implementation of Administration policies involving science and
technology. The Working Group will also develop science and technology
issues related to domestic and social policy for consideration by the
Domestic Policy Council.
I will chair this Working Group, and members will include White House
officials and senior representatives from all federal agencies and
departments with substantial involvement in scientific and technological
issues. This Working Group will analyze the scientific and technological
components of economic and domestic policy issues.
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH AND POLICY-MAKING MECHANISMS
Global climate change affects all nations and thus requires international
study and cooperation. Within the international scientific community
are a variety of informal mechanisms for planning science programs.
Often these informal mechanisms are used to plan the detailed scientific
elements of a more formal program, several elements of which are
outlined below.
Conference on Science and Economics Research Related to Global
Change
The President has asked me, together with the Chairman of the Council
of Economic Advisers and the Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality, to organize a White House meeting of the three
senior officials in science, economics, and the environment from a
number of countries. This White House Conference on Science and
Economics Research Related to Global Change will take place in
Washington, D.C. on April 17-18, 1990.
8
The conference will be devoted to science and economics research issues
relevant to policy on global change, including climate. The Conference
is designed to address important next steps that substantially enhance
and broaden international understanding of science and economics
research issues, and to frame initial steps toward a strategy for
implementing joint international science and economics research efforts.
It seeks for the first time to join research issues central to both the
science and the economics related to global change.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The U.S. government was instrumental in establishing and continues to
support the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), which is sponsored by the United Nations and the World
Meteorological Organization. The three working groups of the IPCC,
which are studying the scientific aspects of global change, impacts, and
response and mitigation strategies, respectively, met here in Washington
recently to prepare their reports. The final papers of the working
groups will be presented to the full IPCC in August, shortly before the
Second World Climate Conference in October.
In an address to the IPCC Plenary Session here in Washington,
President Bush commended their activities and reaffirmed the United
States' strong commitment to the IPCC process. He said, "We consider
it vital that the community of nations be drawn together in an orderly,
disciplined, rational way to review the history of our global environment,
to assess the potential for future climate change, and to develop effective
programs."
The IPCC process is designed to provide input to an International
Framework Convention on global warming. At the Malta summit last
December, President Bush proposed that the United States offer a venue
for the first negotiating session for this Framework Convention, and he
reiterated that offer at the IPCC meeting.
CONCLUSION
A National Energy Strategy is currently being developed by the
Administration that will respect the environment, meet our nation's
needs for energy, and not damage our economy or international
competitive position. The Administration has already taken specific
actions to begin dealing with the potential problem of global change by
9
taking the initiative on CFCs and Clean Air legislation that will have
the effect of limiting greenhouse gas emissions. A vigorous structure of
coordinating and advisory councils on global change is already in place
and is functioning well.
Title I of the Act would unnecessarily duplicate, and thus complicate
and hinder, aspects of both the National Energy Strategy planning
process and the Executive branch committee structure we have just
revitalized. I would have to oppose, in particular, formation of the
proposed Federal Energy-Environmental Coordinating Council. More
generally, I have a concern with requirements that would set goals or
targets before we have reached agreement on how to evaluate total fuel
cycle costs. Certainly, we should not do so unilaterally. These
requirements could constrain our technical options, weaken our economy
and threaten our competitive position with little environmental gain.
The White House Conference later this month will begin to provide a
basis for more considered actions.
Title II addresses energy efficiency. Increased efficiency and
conservation are being closely considered in the formulation of the
National Energy Strategy. The removal of market barriers to increased
efficiency is relatively noncontroversial. Other steps to raise efficiency
must be evaluated in light of their other impacts and benefits. The
contribution of increased efficiency to lowering greenhouse gas emissions
is clearly relevant. Our greenhouse gas emissions goals must ultimately
be set with reference to the social and economic consequences of the
actions required to attain them and those that would arise in a scenario
where no such goals were adopted.
If significant greenhouse emission limitation over a relatively short time
frame is ultimately judged to be desirable, increased efficiency alone will
not suffice. In my considered opinion, massive fuel switching in our
generation of electrical energy, greatly increased reliance on nuclear
energy as well as other actions will be required. Consequently, to
prepare for this possible policy direction, any long-term national energy
plan should include research on advanced inherently-safe reactor
concepts. These critical elements are missing from the Act. These very
issues, however, are being addressed in a comprehensive fashion in the
development of the National Energy Strategy and in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change process.
10
Title III, in addressing energy research initiatives, would impose in
several instances, detailed micromanagement that could be harmful to
our development of an effective National Energy Strategy. I will defer to
the Department of Energy for specific comments on individual
technologies, many of which can play vitally important niche roles, but
would again note my concern - expressed above - that research
continue, with high priority, on advanced reactor concepts.
In summary, the Administration shares the Committee's commitment to
address global climate change issues in a comprehensive manner based
on sound environmental, economic and technical considerations. We
believe, however, that the mechanisms currently in place are more than
adequate to achieve this objective and we oppose the bill because many
of its provisions are unnecessary, duplicative and overly prescriptive.
That concludes my prepared testimony. I would be happy to answer
questions from the committee.
11
A SENSE OF THE FUTURE
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
Executive Office of the President
Commencement Address
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, New York
May 18, 1990
1
President Schmitt, Distinguished Guests, Members of the Class of 1990, Ladies
and Gentlemen:
Let me begin by adding my congratulations to the Class of 1990. You have
worked hard and have earned the recognition that is yours today. But this is not just
your day. As the parent of two college graduates, I can tell you that your parents
have looked forward to this day much longer than you have. In a very real sense,
this is their day, too. So let me, both personally and on behalf of all of us who are
honored to be joining the Rensselaer family this morning, extend to you -- parents
and students alike -- our warmest congratulations and best wishes on this most
important day.
I plan to keep my remarks brief this morning. But because I didn't know
quite how much time would be appropriate, I called up Roland and asked his advice.
He told me, "Just keep it shorter than the wait for hockey tickets." That shouldn't be
too hard.
President Bush has a story that he likes to tell about long-winded speakers.
It's about the boy who is sitting in church with his parents and asks his mother why
there are flags lining the walkway outside. "Those are for the young men who died in
the service," his mother tells him. The boy replies, "Oh, the 9:00 service or the 11:00
service?"
Yet, in my own defense, I must add that there is a certain timeless quality
about commencement day, and often a real sadness at having this time come to an
end. You have had four sheltered years here at Rensselaer, though I doubt they have
always been comfortable ones, and the friends you have made -- and the knowledge
you have gained -- will last a lifetime. Now life gets more complicated. The stakes,
the challenges, and the rewards all go up.
You are entering a world that is much more complex and fluid than the world
I entered after getting my graduate degrees from another great New York institution,
the University of Rochester, in the 1950s. It is a world in which the only given is
that change is continual -- change in science and technology, change in political
2
institutions, even change in society. Marshall McLuhan once said, "If it works, it's
obsolete." The situation is not quite that bad, but it's getting close.
Think back for the moment to the 1950s and to what we know now that we
didn't know then. The double helix structure of DNA was unknown at the beginning
of that decade. Geologists thought the continents were immovable and permanent,
despite the evidence of their own eyes in the match between the outlines of South
America and Africa. No one had ever heard of quarks or black holes. The idea that
we could put objects into orbit around the Earth was still considered science fiction.
The greenhouse effect occurred in greenhouses, and if you wanted an ozone hole you
had to make one in a laboratory.
One of the most appealing and yet confounding aspects of science is that we
have very little idea what major developments will occur in the next 40 years. Yet we
can be sure that they will be dramatic, and that the world of 2030 will be much
different than the world today. I have often said that science and technology are the
greatest adventure upon which humans have ever embarked. Those of you who will
go on to become scientists and engineers are taking up that adventure at an exciting
time. You are very lucky to be graduating when you are.
We tend to think of the 1950s as a time of optimism, and they were -- we were
eager to tackle the scientific challenges of our day. But some analysts would claim
that the situation is different today. There has been much talk in the last few years
about the decline of America, about how this country is destined to be overtaken by
its competitors. And, for some reason, this speculation has found a receptive
audience: according to polls, over half the people in this country think that America
is in decline.
Yet it is impossible to make a compelling case that this country is in fact
losing ground. Since the mid-1970s, the U.S. share of the gross world product has
risen slightly. Our economy has now been growing for eight consecutive years -- the
longest peacetime expansion in the nation's history. The United States continues to
have the highest standard of living in the world, and because of our wealth we have
made at least as much progress as any other nation in controlling the pollution of
our air and water.
3
It is always tempting to compare the bad aspects of modern life with the good
aspects of years past and lament the difference, or to point to catastrophic problems
that are right around the corner. You know what they say about economists - that
they have predicted seven out of the last three recessions. But the world is much
more likely to enter a period of unprecedented prosperity and peace during the 1990s
than a period of economic contraction or social decline.
In taking issue with the doomsayers, I do not mean to gloss over the very real
problems that we face; in fact, I'll spend much of the rest of my time talking about a
couple of these problems. But I want to emphasize that our problems are soluble if
we can generate the national will to solve them and, if we resolutely pursue the
necessary solutions.
INVESTING IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
These two conditions -- a national will and resolute action - are tied up with a
rather more subtle consideration. One of the most vital challenges we face in this
country is to reinvigorate our sense of the future. The typically American
characteristics of optimism, a willingness to take risks, and a sense of where we're
going still thrive in this country, but they have lost their power to shape broad
national goals. My colleague Richard Darman, the director of the Office of
Management and Budget, calls this sense of the future a "realistic Romanticism," and
despite the seeming contradiction in terms it is a very accurate description, because it
describes the traits that have made America a great country.
One telling indication of how we view the future is how much of today's wealth
we invest for tomorrow's gain. On a personal level, we invest by saving money or by
going to college to learn new skills. On a national level, we invest by building up the
nation's infrastructure of capital goods, scientific and technical know-how, and people
trained to use that knowledge in productive ways.
In that sense, one of the most important national investments that we can
make is research and development. Research and development build the base for
4
tomorrow's economic prosperity, international security, and national well-being. The
lessons of history are unmistakable on this point. Past support from the federal
government, and from the American taxpayers, for research and development has
given the United States the strongest scientific and technological enterprise that the
world has ever seen. It is a national and a global resource; it is essential for our
standing in the world.
Today, we still invest more money in research and development than does any
other nation. But other countries are closing the gap, with what I believe are obvious
effects on our international competitiveness. The United States now spends about 1.8
percent of its GNP on nondefense research and development. West Germany spends
about 2.6 percent, and Japan spends about 2.8 percent. The world leadership that we
have enjoyed for decades in science and technology is at risk. We shall lose this
leadership only at our peril -- militarily, economically, socially.
I personally believe that we do not spend enough on nondefense research and
development in this country. One indication of this underinvestment is that we are
finding it very difficult to maintain balance among the three main categories of public
and private R&D funding:
0
The first is research and development that meets national needs, including
development of the important enabling technologies that allow our industries to
remain economically competitive.
o
The second is the large scientific projects that take us to the scientific
frontier and are an important source of national pride.
o And the third is the individuals and small groups doing basic and applied
research, who remain the heart and backbone of American science.
If any one of these three categories receives too little support, all three suffer, because
all three are interrelated.
How are we to find additional funds for research and development from a
federal government strapped for resources and a private sector that faces stiff
competition from abroad? It won't be easy. But as we lower the budget deficit in the
5
next few years, as economic reforms are instituted, and as international tensions
lessen, the need to invest in our national future must take priority.
I believe that the American public senses this need, not only in terms of
research and development but also in terms of such actions as rebuilding the national
infrastructure and protecting the environment for future generations. The problem is
translating public understanding into political will.
The answer, of course, lies in the American system of government. Benjamin
Franklin said that in America the people govern -- if they want to. In a democracy
such as ours, things do not happen unless our leaders and legislators believe that
you, our citizens, want them to happen. If you feel that investing in our national
future is important, take the time to tell your Representatives and Senators about it.
A thoughtfully written letter or a short meeting can convey a powerful impression --
and I can tell you from being in Washington that politicians do listen. You will have
an effect far beyond what you think possible.
INVESTING IN HUMAN RESOURCES
Research and development are, one important investment in our future, but
there is another investment that is even more important. We cannot do forefront
research and development if we do not have the scientists and engineers to do it.
Nor can we remain at the forefront of high-technology industry if we do not have a
workforce capable of performing high-technology jobs.
This is the one point on which I might agree with the "America is in decline"
school. Each coming generation of bright young minds constitutes our edge in a
fiercely competitive world. It is our young people who can make the difference in an
international marketplace. If we are not able to produce a well-educated populace
able and willing to take up the technical challenges of the modern world -- and not
only at elite institutions like Rensselaer but broadly, throughout the country -- we face
a cloudy and uncertain future.
6
President Bush and the nation's governors have embraced this challenge by
establishing six goals in education to be achieved by the end of the century. Probably
the most controversial goal is that American students should be first in the world in
mathematics and science achievement by the year 2000, whereas international
comparisons now show us to be virtually last.
But I think it was very important for the President and the governors to set
this goal. It shows that they recognize the importance and seriousness of scientific
literacy, and that they are willing to devote special attention to this issue. Already,
their focus on science and mathematics education has led to several new initiatives in
my own office, including an attempt to coordinate the actions of federal agencies that
have previously pursued education in almost complete isolation.
Of course, the news is not all bad for those of you who plan to become
scientists and engineers. Your timing - over which I recognize you had remarkably
little control - is excellent. You will be in great demand, particularly given the
projections that show serious shortages of scientists and engineers developing in the
1990s. What you can accomplish will be limited only by your vision, your
imagination, and your willingness to keep up with the astonishing rate at which your
fields are changing.
But it is also more fun to be working in fields that are thriving, fields that are
full of new people and new ideas. You, too, will experience the pain of personnel
shortages. And without an adequate level of scientific literacy among the population
at large, the funding and social support that you need to do your jobs will be in
equally short supply.
So I would submit that you have both a responsibility and an opportunity to
improve the your own futures. You are the most recent beneficiaries of an
educational system that has prepared you for very promising careers. Now is the
time to return the favor.
There are many different ways to improve the state of scientific and technical
literacy in this country. There is a program at Yale where science majors go into the
community and work with poor and disadvantaged children to spark their interest in
science. Other people become big brothers or sisters or teach classes after work.
7
Some people come to Washington or take state or local jobs in government, and I can
tell you from my own experience that government service is a rewarding and valuable
thing to do. Other people express their commitment by political action, by writing
letters and becoming involved in the issues that concern them.
The important point is to try to give back to others some of what you have
received. It can be your own form of investing in the future, and it is an investment
from which you and all of the rest of us will benefit.
Your years here at Rensselaer have prepared you well for the task. You are
among the brightest and best educated young people in the nation. I know that you
will have an exciting and rewarding time.
So on behalf of those of us whom you may feel have received our Rensselaer
degrees today with considerably less work than was required of you, let me only say
how honored and privileged we are to be able to join this very select group -- the
Rensselaer Class of 1990.
BUILDING ON OUR STRENGTHS:
THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology
Executive Office of the President
Computer and Communications Industry Association
Washington, D.C.
May 22, 1990
1
Last week I was on Capitol Hill testifying before Senator Gore's Subcommittee
on Science, Technology, and Space about the state of the semiconductor industry. He
pointed out, quite correctly I believe, that American industry has taken major steps to
bolster the strength of that industry. He went on to contend that the federal
government has done very little to help the industry, after which he and I had what I
might describe as a spirited discussion.
He didn't change my mind. I still believe that the federal government is in the
process of putting together a comprehensive, long-range, responsible approach to the
problems of the semiconductor industry. Furthermore, it is an approach that will
benefit all sectors of the information technology industry, including computers and
communications. Whilte they may not satisfy all critics, I believe they will ultimately
result in a stronger and more stable industry, one that is well equipped to meet the
challenges of the 21st century.
BUILDING ON OUR STRENGTHS
The information technology industry has a number of components, each with
somewhat different characteristics and different needs. Yet all three are not only
interrelated but interdependent. And all three are united by a common feature: a
rate of change that is virtually unparalleled in science and technology.
It is sometimes hard to believe that Howard Aiken, in a basement at Harvard,
laid the foundation for the computer revolution just 50 years ago. Today, only about
15 years separates the first appearance of a top-of-the-line supercomputer from the
appearance of that same computing power in the higher end of the personal computer
market. In the area of communications, a recent article in Science noted that the use
of NSF's national network has been going up by 20 percent per month.
Of course, not all of the changes that have occurred in the industry in recent
years have been for the better. In particular, the semiconductor industry has
2
experienced a substantial loss of market share as foreign producers, often with the
active participation of their governments, have entered and in many cases come to
control world markets. This situation has been analyzed quite well in a number of
reports -- most recently in the November 1989 report of the National Advisory
Committee on Semiconductors. That report documents a number of deficiencies in
the structure and practices of the industry that have harmed its competitiveness. It
also points out that similar, though not necessarily identical, deficiencies could also
threaten the computer and telecommunications industries.
As I shall describe in a moment, the federal government has an important role
to play in correcting these deficiencies. But the federal role must be built on more
than just correcting deficiencies. A successful strategy must also exploit the strengths
and advantages unique to the United States.
Undoubtedly our greatest strength is the infrastructure for research and
development that exists in this country. Since World War II, the generous support
provided by the federal government, and by the American taxpayer, has given the
United States the strongest scientific and technological enterprise that the world has
ever seen. It is a national and global resource; it is essential for our standing in the
world.
In addition, the United States has a university system superior to any, an open
and hospitable society that attracts the best scientific minds and inventive talents of
the world, a business climate that encourages innovative enterprises, and a financial
system that allows new enterprises to grow quickly into major businesses. Perhaps
most important, we have a culture that continues to prize and reward innovation, the
keystone of modern economies.
The United States needs to maintain the superiority of our science and
technology base if we are to remain a world economic leader. Both the public and
private sectors need to increase their support for basic and applied research in
universities and industry. This research has traditionally been the source of our
strength, and it cannot be allowed to languish as other concerns are addressed.
But another important thing we must do is work at retaining the lead that our
research gives us. As many analysts have pointed out, we need to strengthen the
3
entire innovation process, from basic research to product development, manufacturing,
and marketing.
The federal government is taking a number of actions to strengthen the steps
in the innovation process:
0
We are drawing on the expertise of the hundreds of federal laboratories
around the country to transfer technology from the public to the private sector.
0
We are catalyzing the formation of consortia, such as SEMATECH, among
universities, industry, and government, so that each of our industries, and particularly
the small and medium-sized ones, do not have to reinvent the technological wheel.
0
Recently the Administration proposed relaxing antitrust restrictions on joint
production ventures, building on the success of previous legislation that allow joint
precompetitive research and development ventures.
We clearly have much more to do in each one of these areas, but we have also
at least begun to address the problems.
The federal government also has a role in supporting the development of
generic, enabling technologies. These are technologies that are important in a wide
variety of commercial and defense applications, but no single company can capture
enough of the benefits to justify investing an adequate amount of R&D in them. The
rationale for investing in these enabling technologies is essentially the same as that
for investing in basic research: individual companies cannot bear the cost and risk of
such investments alone given the diffuse nature of the benefits.
In a speech to the American Electronics Association on March 7, President
Bush pointed specifically to the importance of these enabling technologies. He said,
"This Administration is committed to working with you in the critical precompetitive
development stage where the basic discoveries are converted into generic technologies
that support both our economic competitiveness and our national security. Here
again we can help to level the international playing field on which you compete."
This is a policy that I wholeheartedly support, and I shall do my best to assist
in its execution. One of the four Associate Directors in my office, William Phillips, is
4
specifically in charge of industrial technology, and he and I will be working closely
with the rest of the Administration, with the Commerce Department, and with the
Defense Department to promote the federal government's development of technology.
MANUFACTURING MATTERS
I believe that this focus on technology development, and particularly on the
development of manufacturing and production techniques, is critical because it helps
to dispell a very serious misconception: that America has moved beyond production
and manufacturing into an age of services. This is part of what I characterize as a
myth that has developed in this country: that we as a nation have moved, in a rather
leisurely fashion, from an agricultural economy to a manufacturing economy to a
service economy. Nothing could be farther from the truth. It would be impossible for
a country as large and diverse as America to have a services economy without a
manufacturing sector, just as it would be impossible to have either without an
agricultural sector. Unfortunately, this myth has begun to permeate our culture, with
very harmful effects.
One is that in science and technology we continue to focus on the revolutionary
types of discoveries, the ones for which people are awarded Nobel prizes, rather than
on the evolutionary developments. Yet these evolutionary advances are the ones that
allow companies to bring products to the market a little faster, a little cheaper, and a
little more reliably. It is extremely distressing to note that at MIT, one of our most
distinguished engineering schools, less than 4 percent of its engineering graduates
demonstrate even the slightest interest in production or manufacturing.
Much of this problem is a cultural one, and like many of the problems I've
been discussing it will be solved only through simultaneous efforts on a number of
fronts. We have to reemphasize the importance of manufacturing on many levels,
from the boardroom to the classroom. The federal government has instituted a
number of policies that affect manufacturing. These policies also have an important
5
indirect effect: they focus national attention on this important component of our
competitiveness.
THE MACROECONOMIC CLIMATE FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
So far I've been talking about actions that focus specifically on research,
development, and innovation. But the federal government has an even more
fundamental responsibility in the area of industrial competitiveness. It has to help
create the climate in which industrial innovation can flourish. Without such a
climate, other efforts will have only marginal effects.
The single most important factor in the business climate is the availability,
cost, and patience of capital. Many believe that the decline in our electronics
industry can be related directly to a persistent underinvestment by companies in the
industry over the past decade. Furthermore, the most important factor behind
Japan's success as a producer is its persistently high rate of investment.
It is difficult to calculate with great precision the different costs of capital in
different countries, but it is indisputable that at least several factors contribute to
making capital more expensive here than it is on some other countries, particularly
Japan. The federal budget deficit, tax provisions, low savings rates, and uncertainty
about the future can all drive up the cost of capital.
The Bush Administration has taken several important steps in this regard. We
are working to reduce the budget deficit, most immediately through the budget
summit initiated by the President. We have also proposed, mostly recently in the
1991 budget document, several actions that would increase domestic savings and
thereby promote investment.
A proposal that focuses specifically on research and development is the
research and experimentation tax credit. The President has proposed changes to the
present tax credit to encourage U.S. industry to invest in long-range research. These
changes include making the R&D tax credit permanent, extending the credit to cover
expenditures by startup firms, and establishing a two-tier structure for the tax credit
6
that will encourage rapid growth in R&D expenditures as well as sustained
commitments.
Trade policies will also be a major part of the competitiveness equation. We
all agree, for instance, that the U.S. government has a duty to ensure fair trade
treatment for U.S. industry in the global marketplace. Dumping and other unfair
trading practices must not and will not be tolerated. U.S. companies must have
access to world markets free from tariff and nontariff barriers. And our intellectual
property rights must be protected.
The Administration is taking an active role in helping to ensure a level playing
field in the global marketplace by reducing barriers to fair and free trade. For
example, the U.S. representative to the ongoing Uruguay round of GATT talks is
pursuing such issues as governmental subsidies for targeted technologies. Intellectual
property issues are being addressed by the Administration not only in GATT but also
in bilateral negotiations.
HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING AND COMMUNICATIONS
Having described those government-wide efforts, let me turn more specifically to
some of the areas on which the Office of Science and Technology Policy has focused.
Since I was sworn in last August, OSTP has dealt with a large number of issues. But
if I had to pick the topics that have taken up a majority of our time, I would have to
name four: the impact of science and technology on economic growth, global change,
science and mathematics education, and high-performance computing and
communications.
The inclusion of high performance computing and communications is an
indication of its prominent role in modern science and technology. Not only is high
performance computing and communications important in its own right, but it is a
major factor in the other three areas on which OSTP has focused. High-
performance computing and communications will be required to handle the huge
projected growth in numeric and graphic data generated by our study of the earth
7
system. It is a key enabling technology for industrial design and manufacturing,
being used in the aircraft, automotive, energy, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals
industries, to name just a few. And in education the possibilities are virtually
limitless. Imagine the progress that could be made if you brought a single optic fiber
into every classroom and allowed each student to be instructed at his or her own
speed -- not to mention the market it would provide for the domestic computing and
communications industry.
Last fall, OSTP sent to the Congress a report entitled "The Federal High
Performance Computing Program," which was put together by the Computer Research
and Applications Committee of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science,
Engineering, and Technology. This report was designed to take at least the first steps
toward developing a truly national capability at the next level of performance in the
computer world.
The report is organized around four main themes.
1. The first is to develop the hardware that will increase computer and
communications performance a thousandfold. This part of the plan builds on efforts
that the government already supports that have helped to establish U.S. leadership in
high performance computing. It seeks to promote the transfer of these results to U.S.
industry through close collaboration between researchers in universities and national
laboratories and industrial scientists and engineers.
2 The second is to develop the advanced software and algorithms that in many
applications have become the determining factor for exploiting high performance
computing and communications. Many are now recognizing that supercomputers
remain most valuable to those who invented them or are developing them for their
own specific purposes in national laboratories and specialized industrial labs. If we
are going to realize the potential of this new capacity, we must develop more general,
user friendly software than we now have.
3. The third theme is to develop a National Research and Education Network
that will provide a distributed computing capability that links the government,
industry, and higher education research and education communities. Today, all major
8
organizations and government agencies use computer networking to some extent, and
a number of national and regional computer networks have been established to meet
particular needs. However, these networks are far from uniform in type and quality
of service needed, and they do not yet reach the entire research community. Our goal
is to create a national network that operates at rates of gigabits per second
nationwide. This challenge can be reached in the 1990s. Furthermore, this network
could be a prototype of a new national information infrastructure that could be
available to every home, office, and factor in the nation. Wherever information is
used, from manufacturing to high-definition video, and especially in education, the
country will benefit enormously from the deployment of this technology.
4. The fourth is to produce the trained personnel who will be needed to
expand the base of research and development in computational science and
technology. In its most recent analyses, the National Science Foundation has
concluded that the greatest shortages of trained manpower in the United States in the
1990s will be in the areas of computer science and engineering, amounting to
hundreds of thousands of people.
FCCSET AND PCAST
Through the Federal Coordinating Council, the Administration is now building
on last year's report to create an integrated, truly comprehensive program in high
performance computing and communications. Last year's report was released too late
in the budget cycle to be reflected in the budget submission sent to Congress last
January. But high performance computing and communications should receive much
more emphasis in the fiscal year 1992 budget.
So far this year, two meetings have been convened of agency heads and their
deputy directors from federal agencies that support high performance computing and
communications. As a result of this effort, several agencies are in the process of
reprogramming funds within the current fiscal year to deal with this critical issue.
This effort should grow substantially in the next few years.
9
The Federal Coordinating Council has also just been reorganized and
reinvigorated, with the result that we now have a much higher level of representation
among the members of the council. This, in turn, will result in substantially more
visibility in the programs that are instituted by subcommittees of the Council,
including the High Performance Computing Program.
I should also mention that OSTP's liaison representative to the Council in this
area brings a special expertise in information technologies. Our office's Associate
Director for Physical Sciences and Engineering, Eugene Wong, was a professor of
computer science at Berkeley before we lured him away to Washington, and he will be
devoting a substantial amount of time to the issue of high performance computing
and communications.
Finally, you might know that the President has convened a Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology, consisting of 12 distinguished representatives of academia
and industry, to provide him with information and advice about issues of science and
technology that require and deserve Presidential attention. PCAST, as it is known,
plans to convene panels of private sector experts on particular subjects of importance.
The first panel so convened and I have just approved their charter within the past
few weeks is on high performance computing and communications. That panel is
now beginning their work, and we should hear back from them within a few months.
This is the kind of organization that I would like to bring to a number of
subjects in science and technology. In that respect, the efforts of PCAST and the
Federal Coordinating Council in high performance computing will act as models for
other efforts.
So, in conclusion, I believe that you will be hearing a great deal from our
office in the future on the subjects of computing and communications. At the same
time, we will be drawing on your expertise as we consider federal actions that
influence your industries. For many years, people have been talking about the need
for increased cooperation between the public and private sector on subjects of
national importance. Here is one area where we can move beyond generalities to the
specific arrangements that can make a difference.
Rick Yannuzzi
MEMORADUM
January 3, 1990
FROM: Steve Olson
TO: OSTP Staff
SUBJECT: Recent Speeches
Attached are several recent speeches that give a fairly
representative idea of what Dr. Bromley has been saying in public
forums over the past few months. I've included one special
purpose speech--an address on scientific progress and human
rights that Dr. Bromley gave at the National Academy of Sciences.
I've also included one speech by Tom Ratchford that sums up the
office's pre-budget-release position on economic issues.
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND POLICY IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
New York Academy of Sciences
New York City
December 4, 1989
New York Academy
Page 1
I am deeply indebted to the Academy, and to you, President
Thomas, for the honor of the 1989 Presidential Award supported by
A. Cressy Morrison. It is a proud moment to have one's name
added to the list of distinguished scientists who have been given
this award in the past. Just this fall I had the privilege of
calling last year's winner, Joshua Lederberg, and telling him
that he was to receive the National Medal of Science. And during
my confirmation hearings last summer, I was told many times that
I ought to emulate the approach and independence of the 1987
winner, C. Everett Koop. So far my most obvious success in
emulating Dr. Koop has been in hiring away his executive
assistant; she is a superb executive assistant, and to the extent
that an excellent executive assistant stands behind every
successful bureaucrat, I've made a good start.
I had come to New York intending to tell you about the
activities of my office, and about the things we have planned for
the next several years. But first I want to pay a brief tribute
to our Academy, and to the vital role it has played in science
throughout its history. For 172 years the New York Academy of
Sciences has embodied all that is best about American science.
Our academy was founded on the goals of the Enlightenment, on
aspirations of democracy and social responsibility, and in all
the times since then--unenlightened as well as enlightened--that
vision has never faded.
The Academy has always believed that science belongs to
everyone, nonscientists as well as scientists. Since the 19th
century the Academy has been sponsoring lectures on scientific
developments for interested laymen, and organizing receptions and
exhibitions on recent advances in science. The continued support
of The Sciences, a publication that certainly makes the rounds in
my office, bespeaks the Academy's commitment to scientific
communication. At a time when science and technology are
becoming an ever increasing part of our daily lives, and when the
pace of scientific change continues to accelerate, this
commitment to public education has become one of the most
important issues facing the scientific community.
I'll come back to this point in a moment, but first I want
to tell you something of my plans for the Office of Science and
Technology Policy. OSTP was established by Act of Congress in
1976 to serve 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 making
sure that policy makers not only have the science and technology
input but also some realistic feeling for how liable and
trustworthy is that input.
This function of science and technology for policy requires
that I have access to the President, to members of the Cabinet,
New York Academy
Page 2
and to the policy-making process within the White House. I am
very fortunate in this regard, because President Bush has
upgraded my position to be equivalent to that of the National
Security Adviser. That has made me a member of the Domestic
Policy Council, the Economic Policy Council, and the other
groups, at the highest level in the White House, that help
establish and implement administration policy.
Even more important, the President himself believes that
science and technology are essential and ever more important
components of our society and our future; he is prepared to
listen and to take action where appropriate. This Presidential
involvement gives me a substantial advantage over my predecessors
in this office.
OSTP's second major task is to work to maintain the health
and productivity of science and technology in this country--in
short, to establish policy for science and technology. One
important aspect of this task is our coordination of R&D within
the federal government. This can seem a daunting responsibility
with science as pervasive in the federal government and in
society as it is. But let me describe a recent project that I
see as a model for our coordinating efforts. Last summer the
Committee for Earth Sciences, which consists of representatives
from all of the federal agencies conducting research on the
global environment, released a working group report on the
federal government's research plan for global change during
fiscal year 1990. The report sets up a coordinated national
strategy and implementation plan for all federal research on
global change. I shall describe some of our activities on global
change in more detail in a few moments, but this is the kind of
coordinating activity that I would like to extend to a number of
different areas of science and technology, such as materials
science, energy policy, education and training, and
biotechnology, to name only a few.
One of the problems with the FCCSET mechanism, however, is
that it makes no provision for input from the private sector to
decision making at the highest levels of government. I shall
return to this point in a moment.
Of course, it would be impossible for me to pursue these
activities on my own, and so I have placed a very high priority
on recruiting very senior, very experienced scientists and
engineers to join me in OSTP. The legislation that established
OSTP allows the office to have up to four Associate Directors who
are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. In
terms of Senate-confirmed officials, this makes us the second
largest agency in the federal government; unhappily, the
legislation falls short of providing us with the second largest
budget in the federal government!
For the first time in OSTP's history, I intend to have all
four of the Associate Directors called for in our founding
legislation. Two of these Associate Directors were sworn in last
week. My Associate Director for the Life Sciences is Dr. James
New York Academy
Page 3
Wyngaarden, formerly Director of the National Institutes of
Health. Dr. Wyngaarden will be working on the broad range of
life sciences issues, including biotechnology, the human genome
project, drug abuse, AIDS, and the overall health of our national
biomedical programs.
My Associate Director for Policy and International Science
is Dr. Thomas Ratchford, formerly Associate Executive Director of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I had
the great pleasure of working with Dr. Ratchford when I was
president of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, and I consider myself very fortunate to have been able
to convince him to join us in the White House.
In the White House, as in all other organizations, parking
privileges and office space are the true indicators of influence.
Although it gave me, even as a 30-year veteran of Ivy League
faculty affairs, new insight into the meaning of mortal combat, I
am happy to be able to report to you that I have succeeded in
carving out offices adjacent to mine for my four Associate
Directors--and they all have parking permits!
The President has not yet forwarded the names of the other
two Associate Directors-Designate to the Senate, although I
expect that to happen in time so that they will be confirmed very
soon after the Senate reconvenes. I can tell you, however, that
the new Associate Director-Designate for the Physical Sciences
and Engineering is a very senior academic engineer, and the
Associate Director-Designate for Industrial Technology--which is
an entirely new post at OSTP--will be a very senior R&D executive
from the private sector. I think you will be very impressed by
their qualifications when their names are announced by the
President.
My intention is that the four associate directors and I will
work together collegially to address, cooperatively, the issues
involving science and technology that have risen to the
Presidential level. We will also keep a watchful eye on emerging
issues and, when necessary, develop recommendations for
appropriate actions that will shape those issues.
I have mentioned the importance of having input from the
private sector to our activities. To that end, the President
will, very soon, announce the membership of the President's
Council of Advisers on Science and Technology or PCAST, which the
President has asked me to chair. This will be a group of 12
prestigious individuals from academia and industry who will
report directly to the President and, at his request, examine a
broad range of science and technology issues. In addition, PCAST
will have the authority to form ad hoc panels of private sector
executives, researchers, and academics to parallel the committees
that we establish within OSTP under the Federal Coordinating
Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology or FCCSET. By
bringing the PCAST panels and corresponding FCCSET committees
together frequently, a mechanism will be available for the
New York Academy
Page 4
private sector to provide input to the government at the highest
levels.
President Bush has told me that he plans to host the first
PCAST meeting, on an informal basis, outside of Washington in
late December or early January and that thereafter he plans to
participate personally in Council meetings to the extent that his
schedule allows. This will give PCAST much more direct access to
the President than has been the case in recent years.
We will obviously be working on a wide variety of issues in
OSTP over the next few years. At the moment, a very large
fraction of our available time and effort is being devoted to
working with senior staff of the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on the preparation of the President's fiscal year 1991
budget, which will be delivered to the Congress in January. Each
year the preparation of the budget will occupy much of our
attention as we work to integrate and coordinate science and
technology issues government-wide. Richard Darman, Director of
OMB, and I have agreed that our staffs will collaborate closely
through the entire year of the budget preparation, not just in
its concluding phases, as has been the case in the past.
However, rather than give you a laundry list of activities,
let me pick two of particular importance--global change and
education.
Global Change
Many people have the impression that the Bush Administration
is doing less than other countries about global warming and other
major environmental problems. That impression is entirely
mistaken. If we measure progress in terms of concrete actions,
we find that the United States is doing more than any other
country to understand and address these problems--and by more
than a factor of ten in terms of commitment of both financial and
human resources.
As everyone here tonight knows, global change includes
global warming, ocean pollution, clean air, pure water,
biodiversity, and an enormous range of other topics. But let me
focus on global warming. The greenhouse effect is nothing new;
it is what has made our planet livable. But the burden of
greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons
(CFC's) that we have dumped into our atmosphere in the process
of industrialization is the largest impact--by a substantial
margin--that man has had on this planet.
Our understanding of the details of the greenhouse process,
however, is far from complete. There are relatively large
uncertainties associated with our present global climate models
and their predictions. But few will argue against the contention
that if we continue to load our atmosphere with greenhouse gases
at the present rate, we will eventually experience significant
warming.
New York Academy
Page 5
We are only beginning to understand what the impacts of such
warming might be on agricultural productivity, sea level changes,
biological productivity in the oceans, shifting vegetation
patterns, storm patterns and severity, droughts, and the like--
and we are even further from any quantitative understanding of
what the corresponding economic impacts might be. Much of this
understanding requires global climate models of much higher
spatial resolution and accuracy.
As chairman of the Domestic Policy Council Working Group on
global change, which is charged with the development of the
official U.S. policy in this area, I have initiated government-
wide activities aimed at getting a much better understanding of
these matters within the next year. The Working Group is also
scheduling meetings with distinguished groups of scientists,
economists, and environmentalists working in this area, selected
for us by the National Academies of Science and Engineering.
But it is important for me to emphasize that we are not
waiting for the results of these activities before taking action.
There are a great many things that we can and should do
immediately, in effect as an insurance policy against the
possible effects of global warming.
First of all, we are committed to phasing out the
production of all ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons, which
account for about 25 percent of our total greenhouse gas
emissions, by the year 2000--earlier than is called for by the
Montreal protocol.
The United States is also taking a number of aggressive
steps to improve energy conservation, which is the most immediate
means of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases, since 57
percent of our greenhouse emissions come from the combustion of
fossil fuels. The Clean Air Act is being reauthorized, auto
emission standards are being tightened, and new appliance
efficiency standards have recently been released by the
Department of Energy. The Department of Energy is also
conducting a thorough review and revision of our National Energy
Policy. The new strategy will emphasize both energy conservation
and the development of alternate energy sources that do not emit
greenhouse gases, including specifically a new generation of
inherently safe nuclear reactors--the only technologically
available alternative for the production of large blocks of
electrical energy--and more widespread use of solar energy.
We are also working, through diplomatic and other channels,
with countries like Brazil in the hope of developing programs to
save tropical forests that are, apart from the oceans, the
largest sink for carbon dioxide on the planet. These forests
also contain more than 80 percent of the remaining
uncharacterized gene pool on the planet--an absolutely
irreplaceable human treasure. Yet they are in danger of being
totally destroyed in 15 to 20 years.
All these activities work to reduce future greenhouse
warming, and most have other compelling rationales as well.
New York Academy
Page 6
What this Administration insists upon is that all its
activities in this area be solely based on the best scientific
and economic understanding that we can get. To that end, in late
spring, at the President's request and as announced in Malta, I
will host, in Washington, a meeting of the senior scientist, the
senior economist, and the senior environmentalist in the
governments of a large number of the world's nations, with the
goal of developing agreement on how to best bring the available
expertise, data, and understanding--worldwide--1 to bear on the
global warming problem, its impacts, and its costs.
In parallel, the United States is an active participant in
the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). The three IPCC working groups will meet in
plenary sessions in Washington in February. The IPCC process
will conclude its first phase prior to the Second World Climate
Conference scheduled for Geneva in November 1990. Finally, and
most important, this ongoing process under the auspices of the
United Nations, to which the United States is committed, will
lead to an international Framework Convention on global warming
within the next 18 months.
Taken together, all of the activities I have noted will
provide us with the information needed to consider quantitative
proposals for stabilizing and/or reducing emissions of
greenhouses gases, something we were unable to do at the recent
Noordwijk ministerial conference in the Netherlands. In this
way, they will lead to a Framework Convention that is
economically realistic, politically feasible, and based on the
best available science at the time.
There is one other important point I would like to make on
this issue. The industrialized nations bear a leadership
responsibility in the area of global change, since a very large
fraction of the current manmade greenhouse burden reflects our
industrialization and our burning of fossil fuels. The United
States and other industrialized nations therefore have a very
real responsibility for seeing that the developing countries have
the technology they need to continue their own industrial
development without further gross damage to the environment. By
taking a proactive stance in this matter and acting before we are
pressured into doing so, we in the United States and the other
industrialized nations can reap handsome dividends--both
environmental and political. The Bush Administration is
aggressively exploring how best this should be accomplished.
Education and Training
The other major topic that I thought I would discuss with
you tonight is education. I speak here not just of mathematics
and science education--although they are critically important in
a technologically advanced world--but of education in general.
It is impossible to separate science and mathematics education
New York Academy
Page 7
from the larger problem of restructuring and upgrading our
schools.
I have noted elsewhere that in this country we are
perpetrating a fraud on many of our precollege children. For the
first time in the history of this nation, the education our
children are receiving is substantially inferior to the education
that we received. That is a national scandal and disgrace.
At the college level, we, as the only developed nation that
has no centralized control over what constitutes a college
education, have peaks of excellence and troughs of mediocrity.
But on the average we are competitive with the rest of the world.
At the graduate level, we continue to set standards for world
activity.
The answer as to why we are so good at the graduate level
and so bad at the precollege level is surprisingly simple. We
are prepared to sacrifice an unacceptable fraction of our young
people along the way. Only about 0.2 percent of high school
sophomores complete a Ph.D. in any area of the natural sciences
or engineering. That is the lowest of any developed nation.
Last September I had the privilege of going with the
President to the Education Summit in Charlottesville, and despite
the skepticism that surrounded the meeting I came away
tremendously heartened. There was a freshness of outlook and a
unanimity of approach that offered the promise of real progress.
The governors of the nation are to be commended for their
innovative steps toward school reform and for their commitment to
making a difference.
We in the federal government will take on the challenge of
spreading the successful innovations now in place in isolated
states across the nation. It was agreed at the Summit that the
federal government also must share in preparing our children--
both physically and mentally--for education when they reach
school age; this will involve increased emphasis on, and support
for, programs such as Head Start. And the White House is now
working on the development of national goals in education--not
national curricula, since these imply a degree of coercion--as
well as mechanisms whereby performance can be measured against
these national goals. In this way, not only each student but
also the teachers, the schools, the states, and the federal
government can receive an annual report card documenting progress
in this all-important question of education.
With respect to science and mathematics education in
particular, the governors and the educational community in
general could learn much from the activities of this Academy.
Several of the programs that you administer could serve as models
for the kinds of activities that should be in place across the
country, and we at OSTP will certainly be looking at them as we
consider our own initiatives. The Scientists in Schools program,
which sends scientists to elementary and secondary school
classrooms to give lectures and demonstrations, is an excellent
way to stimulate a student interest in science and to overcome at
New York Academy
Page 8
least some of their misconceptions about scientists. If we do
not reach students at a very young age, before their junior year
in high school, we have lost most of them forever, because
research has shown that most scientists and engineers decide on
their future careers at this early stage.
The Science Research and Training Program, which gives
students a chance to learn about science by working in a
university or company professional laboratory, is another
excellent example of how young people can be introduced to
science and perhaps attracted to it as a career. Finally, the
Junior Academy program, which now has over 1,000 members, has
proven immensely successful in producing young and enthusiastic
scientists. These are the kinds of programs that will produce
not only the Nobel Prize and Presidential Award winners of
tomorrow but also the scientists and engineers responsible for
the evolutionary discoveries that will retain U.S.
competitiveness in an increasingly demanding and sometimes
hostile international marketplace.
Let me then conclude by expressing to my old friend Lewis
Thomas-and to all of you--my deep appreciation of the honor you
have done me in awarding me your Presidential Medal. It is an
award that I shall cherish. And let me also thank all of you for
the leadership that this Academy has provided in the past in
fostering excellence in science, education in science, and public
interest in science. I know that we can look to you for
continued leadership; it is truly an investment in our common
future.
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND GRADUATE EDUCATION
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
An Address to the National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
Washington, D.C.
November 20, 1989
Graduate Education
Page 1
It gives me great pleasure to talk with this group, because
I have long felt that the Morrill Act of 1862 marked one of the
most significant turning points in American history. By
recognizing the importance of higher education, the Land Grant
Act committed the federal government to a program of support for
higher education that, over the years, has expanded and
diversified to produce truly spectacular results. By having at
least one such educational institution in each state, the act
also emphasized the importance of making higher education
available to a broad segment of the population. I'm delighted to
be addressing a group that embodies the ideals and successes of
that remarkable vision of higher education.
Today, the United States has a unique dependence on its
colleges and universities, both for new knowledge and for young
minds trained to use this knowledge in innovative and creative
ways. We alone in the developed world believe--as a matter of
fundamental policy--that higher education and research are
synergistic and inextricably interwoven. As a result, support of
university-based research has both an immediate payoff--well-
trained young scientists and engineers--and a longer-term
benefit--the fruits of the new fundamental and applied knowledge
that result from that research. It is this system that has
enabled the United States to build the strongest science and
technology enterprise that the world has ever known.
Yet if one examines the full range of education in the
United States, one is struck by a picture of stark contrasts. At
the graduate level, the United States continues to set world
standards. The number of foreign students enrolled in the
graduate schools you oversee is dramatic testimony to the
tremendous successes you have achieved in offering an education
unequaled anywhere else in the world. We should not forget that
this education is one of the United States' most valuable
exports.
At the undergraduate level, we, as the only developed nation
that has no centralized control over what constitutes a college
education, have peaks of excellence and troughs of mediocrity.
But on average we are competitive with the rest of the world.
At the precollege level, I can only describe the situation
by saying that in many cases we are perpetrating a fraud on many
of our children. For the first time in the history of this
nation, the education our children are receiving is substantially
inferior to the education that we received. That is a national
scandal and disgrace.
The reason why we are so good at the graduate level and so
bad at the precollege level is surprisingly simple. We are
prepared to sacrifice an unacceptable fraction of our young
people along the way--particularly, in science and engineering,
our women and minorities. Only about 0.2 percent of high school
Graduate Education
Page 2
sophomores complete a Ph. in any area of the natural sciences
or engineering. That is the lowest percentage of any developed
nation.
I would like to discuss both ends of the educational
spectrum this morning, starting with graduate education and
concluding with precollege education. Although I will spend the
bulk of my time on higher eduction, I must emphasize the
importance to us all of precollege education. It is something on
which my office is going to be spending much time over the next
few years. And, I would submit, it is something on which you
will need to spend much more time if the tradition of excellence
that you have established is going to be maintained.
Graduate Education and the Federal Government
Turning first to graduate education, I think that
Congressman Justin Morrill of Vermont would be amazed at what his
Land Grant Act hath wrought. Today, as you well know, a
substantial fraction of the operating expenditures for
universities--particularly private ones--comes from governmental
grants and contracts. The growth in federal involvement has been
especially dramatic since World War II. But that growth has
hardly taken the form of a smooth, steady increase. Rather, it
has been marked by severe contractions and expansions, which have
caused colleges and universities great problems over the years.
The flight of Sputnik in 1957 galvanized our society, and
from 1958 to 1968 support from the federal government for
university activities rose at roughly 20 percent per year.
When, in 1968, the federal government noted that the goals that
had been established for manpower production for 1970 had already
been met, not surprisingly the crash program of support was
turned off. At this point, American universities, which should
have known better, found that they were diode-coupled. During
the period of rapidly increasing funding, they had constructed
many new facilities, which now required expensive maintenance and
modernization. Much worse, they had greatly expanded their
tenured faculties beyond the needs of any equilibrium student
body. In many cases, taking advantage of readily available
funds, they had also lowered standards for tenure. Indeed, by
loading its tenured ranks, higher education in the United States
in the 1960s essentially froze out a whole generation of young
people in the 1970s from access to academic careers.
During the first half of the 1970s, the level of real R&D
performance in colleges and universities was essentially flat.
After 1975, academic R&D once again began to increase, but the
damage had been done. Universities and colleges found themselves
with aging facilities, obsolete equipment, growing shortages of
faculty and students, and not enough funds to recover from the
years of neglect.
Graduate Education
Page 3
This was the situation that we faced in 1984, when I was
Vice Chairman of the White House Science Council's Panel on the
Health of U.S. Colleges and Universities. As you well know, our
main conclusions was, and I quote, that "our universities simply
cannot respond to society's expectations for them or discharge
their national responsibilities in research and education without
substantially increased support."
I am happy to report that support for the nation's colleges
and universities has increased since that time, that some very
real progress has been made. Since 1985, the level of R&D done
in colleges and universities has gone up by an average of 6
percent annually in real terms. But in many important areas, the
record has been less than satisfactory. Whereas the federal
government provided two thirds of the R&D funds for colleges and
universities at the beginning of the decade, that figure is now
down to 59 percent. The needs of academic laboratories for new
facilities and instrumentation also remain largely unfulfilled.
In general, of the $132 billion expended nationally for
research and development this year, only about 11 percent will
find its way to the nation's colleges and universities. By any
standard, I find this percentage inconsistent and incommensurate
with the demands being made upon our institutions of higher
education.
Regarding the research infrastructure, several independent
studies have concluded that the universities can be brought back
to a state from which they could be self-sufficient at a cost of
roughly $10 billion over the next decade. There is also general
agreement that half of this money ought to come from nonfederal
sources, with the rest provided by federal matching funds. It is
important to emphasize, however, that such a program should be
limited in time and not a program that universities can expect to
rely on in perpetuity. Rather, mechanisms must be put into place
that allow universities to catch up and then be self-sustaining
on a continuing basis.
Regarding the overall level of funding support, you will
recall that one of the major recommendations emerging from the
Reagan Administration was that the National Science Foundation's
budget should be doubled within five years. That recommendation
has been endorsed by President Bush and by the Congress. But
because the NSF budget is dictated by matching House and Senate
subcommittees that also consider Housing and Urban Development,
Veterans' Affairs, NASA, EPA, my own office, and a number of
other agencies under the same appropriations bill, research funds
inevitably come into conflict with appropriations for the
homeless, veterans, and other programs that have much larger and
more vocal constituencies. As a result, the NSF budget has
actually been growing at about 4 to 6 percent a year rather than
the 17 percent that would be necessary for it to double in five
years.
This trend is particularly troubling because of the
demographics of scientists and engineers at present. At this
Graduate Education
Page 4
moment, about 87 percent of all the scientists and engineers who
have ever lived on the planet are still alive and working,
whereas only about 5 percent of the human beings every to live on
the planet are still alive. As a result, the pool of applicants
for NSF funding is growing significantly faster than are the
foundation's resources. At this point, the only way that the NSF
can fund some of the bright, young investigators who are going to
produce tomorrow's dramatic advances is by cutting out some of
the senior investigators who have done--and are continuing to do
-distinguished and productive work.
Restructuring Support for Higher Education
Addressing the problem of federal support for higher
education is not going to be easy, particularly at a time of
pressures on the budget from large federal deficits. But dollars
and cents are not the only answer. We need to examine the entire
relationship between the universities and the federal government
and between the universities and the private sector. The time
has come to return to an earlier view of the support of
university activities as reflecting an investment in the national
future rather than the procurement of necessary goods and
services.
One clearcut need is for a reassessment of the interface
between the defense department and the academic community. In
the postwar decades, the defense department and this nation's
universities had a close and productive relationship. To give a
very early example, from 1839 to 1879 the Navy had what was
essentially a one-man Office of Naval Research in the person of
John Ericsson, a Swedish engineer about whom much more should be
known. He, for example, was the individual who first decided to
put iron armor plating on a battleship. Why he decided to call
the ship the U.S.S. Princeton I simply do not know! In about
1840, Ericsson decided that his new armored battleship needed 12-
inch rifles, and not having any he contacted seven of the
nation's best engineering schools with the request that they
design such a rifle to be built at the Navy's expense. Following
construction, the different designs would be subjected to a
series of competitive tests and the winning design would be
accepted by the Navy and the winning university would receive
very handsome rewards both in payment and in opportunities to
become involved in the continuing production of their design.
On a bright morning in 1845, the Princeton steamed out into
Chesapeake Bay, and the first 12-inch rifle to be tested,
fortunately, was that designed by the Navy itself. When it
exploded, as it did, it killed the Secretary of the Navy, the
Secretary of State, the Governor of Maryland, three Congressmen,
several Navy captains, and, as the newspaper reports of the day
expressed it, "sundry other dignitaries." This is the sort of
thing that gives technology a bad name.
Graduate Education
Page 5
During the 1950s and early 1960s, the Department of Defense
was, by a large measure, the dominant supporter of fundamental
research in the nation's universities. Unfortunately, during the
latter part of the 1960s and early 1970s--during and after the
Vietnam conflict--many of the bridges that had been carefully
built between the Defense Department and the academic community
were destroyed. I am convinced that these are exceedingly
important channels and that one of the challenges now facing us
is that of rebuilding them and reestablishing the easy flow of
ideas and people between the military and our academic
establishments. I believe that both have much to gain.
At the beginning of the 1980s, research and development in
the United States was split about 50-50 between defense and
nondefense areas. Now the split is two-thirds going to defense
R&D and one third going to nondefense R&D. In fact, of the
growth of research and development in the 1980s, 90 percent has
occurred in the areas of defense.
Yet it is important to draw the distinction between these
two categories of funding. Of the defense department's spending
on R&D, about 92 percent goes toward the development and
demonstration of specific weapons systems. Only about 8 percent
goes toward what would be considered R&D according to the usual
definition of the terms.
I believe that because of the present lessening of tensions
between the Warsaw Pact countries and the United States, it is a
particularly appropriate time for the Department of Defense to
increase its support of basic research. Times of lessened
tension are when we have to protect ourselves as a nation against
scientific and technological surprises and when the Defense
Department needs close contact with some of the best minds that
the country has to offer. Changes to bring this about would be
to the advantage of both the military and the academic sector.
Scientific and Engineering Personnel
The military faces a problem that is of great concern
throughout science and technology: a growing and quite alarming
shortage of well-trained personnel. Over the next 17 years, the
NSF estimates that there will be a cumulative shortfall of more
than 100,000 Ph.D. scientists and engineers. At the college
level, the situation is equally dire: next year the number of
college graduates in science and engineering will fall short of
the need by 50,000, which is about a 30 percent shortfall.
These projections are substantially more accurate than most.
The time constants of American education are such that it takes
roughly ten years from the time a student graduates from high
school until he or she finishes graduate training in a chosen
field. We already know the number of people in this educational
pipeline, and there is not a thing that we can do to affect
directly the shortages that are now projected for the 1990s. It
Graduate Education
Page 6
is simply too late, and we must start work now if we are to have
any impact on the late 1990s and into the 21st century.
As you well know, particularly in engineering, but in a
number of other fields such as mathematics, the fraction of the
advanced degrees being awarded each year in the U.S. to foreign
students is growing. This does not mean, however, that there are
too many foreign students. Rather, it means that there are too
few U.S. students choosing to enter these fields. This reflects
the fact that our elementary and high school educations are such
that students receive inadequate exposure to both mathematics and
science to attract them into these fields in colleges, or to
prepare the fraction that does SO choose for their subsequent
careers.
Precollege Education
The pipeline effect is critical in science and technology.
The American students who will be in your graduate schools in the
1990s and beyond are now in the high schools and elementary
schools of this country. What kinds of education are they
getting? Will they be able to carry on the traditions of
excellence that your graduate schools have established?
I need not dwell on how bad our national report card in
science and mathematics education really is, but let me remind
you of a few statistics. In the 1988 International Assessment of
Educational Progress, the United States ranked 9th of 12
industrialized countries in science and 12th--last--in
mathematics. More than half of the nation's 17-year-olds appear
to be inadequately trained to perform jobs that require technical
skills or specialized on-the-job training. Only 7 percent have
the prerequisite knowledge and skills to perform well in college-
level science courses.
These are alarming numbers. In an increasingly competitive
international marketplace, our ability to provide jobs and to
improve our standard of living depends greatly on how well we
innovate technically. If we do not wish to risk becoming, as
some have put it, "the only industrialized third-world country,"
we must pay close attention to our science and technology base,
and therefore to science education.
The problem extends beyond scientific and technical
personnel. In a democratic society whose technological content
is increasing at an accelerating rate, all of our students should
acquire a sufficient degree of literacy in mathematics and
science to enable them to function effectively. If people cannot
understand the broad issues under discussion, even if they do not
contribute personally to their resolution, they will become
alienated and disengaged from the important issues of the day.
No nation can remain healthy for long under such conditions.
Graduate Education
Page 7
Addressing the Failures of Precollege Education
In the last few years, we have begun to recognize the
dimensions of the problem and to take some significant steps
toward solutions--especially at the state level. Several weeks
ago I had the privilege of going with the President to the
Education Summit in Charlottesville, and despite the skepticism
that surrounded the meeting I came away tremendously heartened.
There was a freshness of outlook and a unanimity of approach that
offered the promise of real progress. The governors of the
nation are to be commended for their innovative steps toward
school reform and for their commitment to making a difference.
With regard to my office, we have been charged with
developing national goals in education--not a national
curriculum, which would be unproductive in this country--but
national levels of performance. In this way, it will be possible
to measure performance each year so that teachers, students,
school districts, states, and the federal government can receive
a report card on how they have fared in matters of education. We
will be calling on you, on your colleagues, on the professional
societies, and on a great many other inputs in carrying out this
important work.
You might ask what your role can be in improving precollege
education in this country. I see a very significant role for
administrators and faculty from higher education. You serve the
state and have close connections with your governors and the
state educational system. You have a great deal of influence,
and I would urge you to apply it in this area.
There are also steps that each of us can take as
individuals. You can talk to superintendents, visit classrooms,
convene meetings with public school teachers. These activities
need not take a great deal of time. I have done them myself in
New Haven. And they can make a very real difference in the
education that our young people are receiving.
Your own association has undertaken some particularly
noteworthy programs in this regard. Under your association's
Urban University-Urban School Collaborative Program, 16 of your
members in urban areas have initiated innovative programs between
university presidents and school superintendents to bring the
expertise of the university to bear on local problems of
precollege education. In Kansas City, for example, the
University of Missouri and local districts established a
Mathematics and Science Institute that bring urban and suburban
high school students to the campus for intensive work in
mathematics and science. In Providence, the University of Rhode
Island helped to set up a magnet elementary school concentrating
on science and mathematics. These are the kinds of initiatives
that can make a difference.
I might also point to the effort by Fermi National
Laboratory, in collaboration with Argonne National Laboratory and
the University of Chicago, to adopt a number of Chicago inner
Graduate Education
Page 8
city schools in a pioneering program that will bring a major
concentration of the nation's scientific and engineering talent
to bear on some of the schools' problems. Such programs can be
particularly vital in concentrating on minorities, who will have
to assume a much larger role in science and technology if the
achievements of the past are to be extended.
Finally, I think it is important for us to recall that the
problems of precollege education extend far beyond science and
engineering. We cannot reform science and mathematics education
separately from the larger problems of restructuring and
upgrading our schools. Probably everyone has a favorite story of
a student who brings the failings of our education system into
sharp relief. My own favorite is a graduate student I had at
Yale, who had been an undergraduate at Harvard and is now an
internationally known physicist. However, the first sentence of
his Ph.D. thesis, when I received it in draft, read: "This field
of research is so virginal that no human eyeball has ever set
foot in it."
I realized then that the problems were not confined to
science, and that we had no option but to make common cause. I
hope that I can count on you to join me in this effort.
HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
D. ALLAN BROMLEY
ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
National Academy of Sciences
Washington, D.C.
October 27, 1989
Science and Human Rights
Page 1
Because of scheduling difficulties, President Bush was not
able to attend this distinguished gathering. But he sent with me
the following message:
[MESSAGE PREPARED SEPARATELY.]
It is a proud moment for me to stand before you tonight and
deliver that message from the President. When I was formally
sworn in two weeks ago as Assistant to the President for Science
and Technology, I took an oath to "support and defend the
constitution of the United States,' to bear "true faith and
allegiance to the same." In that colorful, 18th century wording
I find one of the true rewards of government service: to be part
of a tradition that extends through history to the founding of
this country. To serve in the federal government is to share in
a higher vision, a vision that inspired the founders of this
nation more than two centuries ago.
I am also here in another capacity: as a representative of
the international community of scientists, a community with a
vision no less grand than that of the founding fathers. When a
scientist looks back two centuries, to the events that this
symposium commemorates, other milestones are equally apparent.
In England two centuries ago, James Hutton has just published his
Theory of the Earth, which introduced for the first time the idea
of the earth's great antiquity. In that essay's memorable last
line--that nature has "no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of
an end" we can see the opening movement in an intellectual
chorus that would lead inexorably to the ideas of Charles Darwin.
In France two centuries ago, Lavoisier published his Traite
elementaire de chimie, which laid the foundations for modern
chemistry, and Laplace was working on his Systeme du monde, which
would represent for many years the final synthesis of the
Newtonian worldview.
In other words, it was a time of great ferment in science,
just as it was a time of great ferment in the political and
social affairs of man. Science was moving toward a more accurate
and faithful understanding of the antiquity of the earth, its
place in the cosmos, and man's place in nature. At the same
time, in the political sphere, society was moving toward a more
faithful understanding of the natural and civil rights of man,
which found its resounding affirmation in the documents we are
here to celebrate.
It was no coincidence that scientific progress and human
rights were so firmly linked. Science has many characteristics
that ally it with a respect for human freedom and dignity. It
seeks the truth through a process of examination and dissent. It
seeks to verify observations through free communication and
dissemination of results. It seeks a common language to convey
Science and Human Rights
Page 2
its findings, a language that extends beyond national and ethnic
boundaries. As Louis Pasteur wrote, "Science knows no country
because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which
illuminates the world.'
The links between science and human rights are especially
apparent in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. In
that document, Jefferson called human rights "self-evident, in
the form of a proposition in science. These rights were inherent
and unalienable, justified not by God or the government but by
the nature of man.
Today, of course, science and technology have become
dramatically more powerful influences on our society than they
were two centuries ago. Scientific and technological change has
become the hallmark of our age. Not only have these changes
irretrievably altered the character of our society, but they have
transformed how we as a nation view ourselves and our future.
Yet in the midst of this change, the connection between
science and human rights remains strong. When free communication
is impeded, science is weakened. When the truth is subverted,
science is debased. When dissent is outlawed, science cannot
progress.
Your presence here testifies to the continued symbiosis
between science and human rights, as do the many efforts that
have been made by scientific, engineering, and medical
organizations on behalf of human rights. In particular, the
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
and Institute of Medicine, through the Academy's Committee on
Human Rights, has been very active in defending the rights of
scientists, engineers, and medical personnel who have come into
conflict with their governments. The committee works by
appealing to the governments concerned, providing moral support
to individuals and their families, sending delegations to
particular countries, and on occasion making public statements.
It also relies on the support of other national academies,
including very notably the French Academy of Sciences through its
committee on human rights under chairman Francois Jacob.
Much of the committee's work is private, operating through
private channels using private funds, so its accomplishments are
not well known. Yet its successes have been dramatic. Since the
committee's formation in 1976, it has taken on the cases of more
than 330 scientists, engineers, and medical personnel who have
been prisoners of conscience, and more than 245 of these cases
have been successfully resolved. For example, last March, 12
scientists were released from prison in Somalia, after spending
more than seven years in solitary confinement. This release
occurred soon after a commission from the academy and the
Institute of Medicine traveled to Somalia and met with government
officials to press for their freedom.
Also not well known is the fact that, of the memberships of
the National Academies of Science and Engineering and Institute
of Medicine, over 1,200 individuals have volunteered to become
Science and Human Rights
Page 3
active supporters of the committee's work, writing letters,
meeting with government officials and with detained scientists,
and otherwise working to further the committee's goals. In
addition, the Institute of Medicine has its own Committee on
Health and Human Rights, which has done much in this area. The
courage and conviction of these individuals working selflessly in
behalf of human rights are actions of which all scientists can be
proud.
Another group that has taken a prominent role in the
struggle for human rights is the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. Under its Science and Human Rights
Program, the AAAS has worked steadily for the freedom of many
scientists and technologists detained or silenced because of
their convictions. When I was president of the AAAS in the early
1980s, the program added a specific focus on health care
professionals: both those who had been involved in the
administration or concealment of torture and those who spoke out
against it or treated its victims.
Most recently, the AAAS has been involved in an innovative
effort to apply the tools of science and technology to the
protection of human rights. At the invitation of the Alphonsine
government, it sent a delegation of forensic scientists to
Argentina to exhume and identify the skeletal remains of people
who had been killed in the so-called "Dirty War." The team also
trained a group of Argentine graduate students who have since
carried on this work. These activities not only can bring to
justice those responsible for these terrible crimes; they can
also have a powerful deterrent effect on individuals who might
consider similar crimes.
The AAAS has also been involved in a program to use genetic
markers to identify the children of the disappeared so that they
can be returned to their rightful families. So far, about 60
children have been identified using these sophisticated
biological techniques.
I would also like to mention the activities of the
International Council of Scientific Unions, which has long been
involved in protecting the rights of scientists to free speech
and movement. When a violation of these rights is reported to
ICSU's headquarters in Stockholm, its human rights division under
the leadership of Olaf Tanberg works through the many contacts it
has available in most countries to bring about the resumption of
those rights. This is another example of how the commitment of
scientists to human rights finds concrete expression.
I have mentioned just the largest groups, and only some of
their activities. But many other groups and individuals have
been involved. Whenever a single scientist writes a letter, or
travels to another country and brings up the case of a repressed
colleague, progress is being made.
Of necessity, scientists, engineers, and medical
professionals have tended to focus their efforts on their
colleagues, because that is where they can have the greatest
Science and Human Rights
Page 4
effect. But that leaves open the broader question: What part
can science play in extending human rights to all people? We
should not forget that more than basic civil and political rights
are needed by people who do not have enough to eat, or who lack
proper medical care, or who are subject to the devastation of
natural disasters. Nor do universal pronouncements of human
rights guarantee their existence. Thomas Jefferson had slaves,
and many of us sitting in this room would not have experienced
the rights we enjoy today if we had lived during the French
Revolution.
I do not think that the commitment of scientists to human
rights can be questioned, as demonstrated by the examples I have
cited. But science has a much more pervasive, though perhaps
more subtle, influence on human rights. On the ceiling of the
great hall outside this auditorium, there is a passage from
Aeschylus's Prometheus Bound, and I would encourage all of you to
look at it during dinner, because it describes an attribute of
science that has not changed in over two millennia. In that
passage, Prometheus says, "I taught [humanity] to discern the
risings of the stars and their settings
And numbers, too,
chiefest of the sciences, I invented for them.
If
ever
a
man fell ill, there was no defence, but for lack of medicine they
wasted away, until I showed them how to mix soothing remedies
wherewith they now ward off all their disorders."
That is the true promise of science: to act as a force for
human progress, to reveal all that is best and most noble in
mankind. That promise is as strong today as it was during the
time of the Greeks, or during the time of the French and American
Revolutions. It is the promise of universal human rights, of a
world in which the dignity and liberty of all people can be
realized. Thomas Jefferson put it best: "The main object of all
science," he said, "is the freedom and happiness of man."
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 ;10-26-89 ; 4:55PM ;
2023953261-
2023953462;# 2
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 25, 1989
I am pleased to offer my warmest greetings to all those
gathered in our Nation's Capital for the Symposium, "Les
Droits de l'Homme and Scientific Progress," sponsored by the
National Academy of Sciences and the Smithsonian Institution,
in cooperation with the University of Virginia.
This series of discussions is a wonderful way to observe the
200th anniversary of two documents that have shaped the
course of modern democratic government: our Bill of Rights
and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the
Citizen. In July, I met with French President Mitterand and
X
the heads of government of five other industrialized nations
at the Economic Summit in Paris. In a joint statement on
human rights, we noted the bicentennial anniversary of the
French Declaration and reaffirmed our commitment to respecting
and protecting, without fear or favor, the rights and liber-
ties of individuals. We also noted that developments in the
human sciences, such as advances in genetics and organ
transplantation, must be applied in accordance with those
rights if the dignity of all human beings is to be preserved.
Because their work has such a great impact on virtually
every aspect of human life, it is fitting that scientists
reflect upon the rights of individuals and how they can help
protect them. I am pleased to note that, over the years,
many scientists around the world have been champions of
human rights. With great conviction, and often at great
risk to themselves, they have advocated the free exchange
of ideas and information, the right to self-determination,
and freedom of speech and of association. They have been a
credible and influential voice for human rights in nations
ruled by totalitarian regimes, and they have helped to bring
about the release of political prisoners around the world.
Scientists have also helped prominent colleagues to emigrate
from countries where they have suffered political repression
and religious persecution.
SENT BY:Xerox Telecopier 7021 :10-26-89 ; 4:55PM ;
2023953261-
2023953462:# 3
2
However, much work remains to be done. As we celebrate
the human rights enshrined in our Bill of Rights and the
French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, we
should renew our determination to cherish and defend them.
Your efforts to promote consideration of the relationship
between human rights and scientific progress represent an
important step toward that end.
Barbara joins me in sending best wishes for a most enjoyable
and productive symposium. God bless you.
ag Bush
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY AND THE NATION'S ECONOMY
J. THOMAS RATCHFORD
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
An Address to Participants in the
Academy-Industry Program
National Academy of Sciences
Washington, D.C.
December 11, 1989
Academy-Industry Program
Page 1
I should begin this evening by conveying to you Dr.
Bromley's greetings and sincerest apologies for not being able to
attend this session. At this moment, he is cloistered with the
President and several members of the Cabinet reviewing requests
for additional funding in the President's FY 1991 budget. I'll
be talking about that process in detail in a few minutes, but for
now I'm sure that Dr. Bromley would agree with the old saying
that the road to good intentions is paved with hell.
This is a particularly appropriate time for a representative
of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to be talking with
you, because our office is currently caught up in the preparation
of the President's budget, and much of our time between now and
January 22, when the budget is scheduled to go the Hill, will be
taken up with that task. But I do not mean to imply that the
budget will occupy us just a few months out of the year.
Coordination and oversight of the federal R&D budget is going to
be an ongoing concern of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, and we expect to have a significant impact on the budget
in coming years.
In fact, as Dr. Bromley stated in a talk at the Brookings
Institution last week, economic concerns, as represented by the
preparation of the budget, are going to be perhaps the most
important issue that we will be facing both within OSTP and
within the administration as a whole. To quote Dr. Bromley, "The
simple fact of the matter is that if the United States does not
remain healthy economically, we will be unable to achieve all of
the things we would like to achieve in other areas of national
concern--in defense, in health care, in education, in the
protection of the environment. Economic productivity is the
foundation on which we build our national policy, and we ignore
that foundation at our peril."
You more than anyone are aware of the many connections
between science and technology, on the one hand, and economic
health, on the other. These connections are intuitively obvious,
and any reading of economic history since the turn of the century
makes them apparent. But I think it is also interesting that
these connections have been quantified. A recent economic study
by Edwin Mansfield of the University of Pennsylvania of 76 major
American corporations in 7 industrial sectors has shown that the
average social rate of return on the investment in academic
research is about 28 percent. This is one of many reasons why
this country cannot afford to shortchange basic science and
technology.
billion
In 1989, out of a national R&D budget of $132, from both
public and private sources, the United States spent about $19
billion on basic research. This is probably the wisest
investment that the citizen makes in both the short-term and
Academy-Industry Program
Page 2
long-term future of the nation, even if few have any direct
control over it or, indeed, even think about it.
The private industry of this country is especially to be
commended for its commitment to basic research. Private industry
in this country conducts 72 percent of the nation's total R&D,
with about two-thirds of the funds for that work coming from its
own coffers. During the 1980s, company funding of industrial R&D
has grown at an average annual rate of 3.8 percent in real terms.
Even more impressive, since 1975, industry's support for basic
research has grown by 5.8 percent a year. By any measure, this
is a remarkable investment in our country's future, and it does
much to belie the notion that private industry in this country is
focused only on the next quarter's profits.
But the competition is fierce, and we can only expect it to
get worse. We are all familiar with the statistics that civilian
R&D funding in the United States amounts to only 1.7 percent of
our GNP, whereas the corresponding figures in Japan and West
Germany are 2.8 and 2.6 percent. Even more apparent are the
headlines that document a continuing loss of market share to
other countries.
Particularly troubling is the continuing erosion of market
share in high-technology industries. Our office has focused much
attention over the past month on the semiconductor industry. But
in many ways, what has and is happening to the semiconductor
industry is a paradigm for what could happen to many other U.S.
industries, such as the computer and telecommunications
industries, unless corrective actions are taken in the immediate
future.
I'm going to come back in a few moments to the specific
actions that the Office of Science and Technology Policy will be
undertaking in the area of economic competitiveness. But first I
thought I would go over some of the general policies of the Bush
Administration to establish a context in which to place the
actions of our office.
The Federal Role in Enhancing Competitiveness
The Bush Administration recognizes that the federal
government cannot help but be an important factor in the
competitiveness equation. In fact, the administration is
committed to several policies designed explicitly to enhance the
competitiveness of American industry. For example, the
government has a duty to insure fair trade treatment for U.S.
industry in the global marketplace. Dumping and other unfair
trade practices must not and will not be tolerated. Our
intellectual property rights must be protected. And U.S.
companies must have access to world markets free from tariff and
nontariff barriers.
Some would point to the loss of market share in key
industries and advocate that the U.S. government should go
Academy-Industry Program
Page 3
farther--that it should move to bolster those industries through
direct federal involvement. But the Bush Administration believes
that private industry, not the federal government, knows what is
best for private industry. The Bush Administration will not
adopt a policy that has the effect of picking winners and losers
in the marketplace. Such a process is often a political,
non-analytical process that results in some industries receiving
preferential treatment and others not. I'm speaking for Dr.
Bromley when I say that our office sees that process as a risky,
short-term fix for perceived immediate problems, not as a
strategy for long-term competitiveness. In fact, in the long
run, it could hurt competitiveness.
But the options available to the federal government do not
necessarily fall into the stark categories of massive government
subsidies of favored industries on the one hand and a total
"hands-off" approach by the federal government on the other. At
OSTP, we strongly believe that the real choices lie in another
direction.
O To take the more obvious choices first, the government
should clearly fund research, development, and demonstration in
areas where it is the primary customer, such as defense
applications. It is also appropriate for the federal government
to fund areas where the private sector cannot take the risks
associated with uncertain returns and long incubation periods,
such as basic research.
O It is also the responsibility of the federal government
to create the macroeconomic conditions that are conducive to
investments in research and development by private industry. In
his message to Congress that accompanied last year's budget,
President Bush outlined a number of actions designed to establish
such conditions, such as making the R&D tax credit permanent,
cutting the capital gains rate, and reducing the deficit. The
administration remains committed to those priorities.
O The government also has an important effect on
competitiveness through its regulatory policy making. Government
regulation can shape not only a company's domestic markets but
its international markets, through the degree of harmonization
between regulations here and abroad.
O In the long term, there is no more important determinant
of our future economic prosperity than the strength of our
educational system. Dr. Bromley is the first science adviser to
have made science and mathematics education one of his top
priorities. He intends to work in a number of ways, both within
the administration and in public forums, to promote the need for
restructuring and upgrading our schools.
O A specific area in which the federal government can play
an important role is with respect to generic, enabling
technologies. These are technologies that are useful for a large
number of industries but are relatively peripheral for any one
industry, so that the total private investment for that
Academy-Industry Program
Page 4
technology is less than optimum. These technologies have the
potential to exert a high leverage on many industrial sectors, SO
governmental support in this area can have a substantial return.
O Finally, the government must try to eliminate both real
and perceived disincentives to industrial collaboration. These
collaborations, from R&D through joint precompetitive ventures,
provide a means for companies to share risk and pool resources,
and they are common in other countries. Ironically, they are
also common between U.S. firms and foreign firms. But this
country has been slow in adjusting to the new reality that we are
now competing in a global marketplace, and new mechanisms need to
be found that allow companies and the federal government to work
together to better meet this competition.
One example of industrial collaboration that combines both
horizontal and vertical collaboration is SEMATECH, the consortium
of semiconductor companies that focuses on precompetitive
research and development. Dr. Bromley has stated in testimony to
Congress that we need more such efforts in other high-technology
industries of interest to the economic and military security of
this nation.
The federal role in such consortia has to be determined on a
case-by-case basis. Increased federal spending, per se, is not
necessarily the answer for increased U.S. competitiveness. But a
governmental role may be accompanied by federal dollars, as in
the case of SEMATECH. That decision can only be made after
carefully weighing both national security and competitiveness
considerations.
The Budget Process
As is clear in my being here rather than Dr. Bromley, the
Administration is in the middle of a very complex budget review.
Tough budgetary times lie ahead for all federal programs, not
just those involving research and development.
In the current fiscal year, the Gramm-Rudman law calls for a
deficit level of $110 billion. In the President's budget for FY
1991, the budget deficit must be cut to $64 billion. There will
obviously be severe pressure on those parts of the budget that
are not already tied up in entitlements, including research and
development.
This year, Dick Darman of the Office of Management and
Budget has introduced a new process in apportioning funds among
competing programs. Various agencies that can make a case for
increased spending will have to compete for a limited amount of
funds. Current requests for add-ons and new initiatives amount
to something like eight times the discretionary funding that is
available. So there will have to be an eight-to-one compression
of these programs--a truly Procrustean task--carried out
ultimately by the President, before the budget can be released in
January.
Academy-Industry Program
Page 5
The federal government obviously has a number of national
objectives in science and technology, and it must balance its R&D
funding across a number of areas to meet these objectives. What
is needed is a carefully constructed, balanced portfolio of
programs and projects. One aspect of this relates to the balance
between individual, principal-investigator-initiated projects and
the megaprojects in science such as the superconducting
supercollider, the space station, the human genome project and so
on. As Dr. Bromley has stated, the high quality of American
science and technology depends on continued, adequate funding of
the individual principal investigator. The megaprojects must, in
all cases, be weighed against this need.
With respect to the funding decision being made for the
broad portfolio of science and technology needs, all I can say at
this point--and all that Dr. Bromley would be able to say--is
stay tuned. Some very difficult decisions are in the process of
being made, even as we meet. I'm sure that the results are going
to be very interesting.
The Role of OSTP
One very favorable indicator regarding the science and
technology parts of the budget is Dr. Bromley's strong
involvement in the process. As you know, his position has been
elevated within the Administration to that of Assistant to the
President--which is not a Cabinet level position, as has
sometimes been reported--but carries a much more important cachet
than the position of OSTP Director formerly did. For instance,
Dr. Bromley has been made a full member of the Domestic Policy
Council, the Economic Policy Council, and the Space Council--and
he is involved with the National Security Council and the
Competitiveness Council--all of which are responsible for
establishing and implementing administration policy.
In general, the Office of Science and Technology Policy is
working closely with the Office of Management and Budget to
develop those parts of the President's budget that deal with
research and development. In fact, we have an agreement with OMB
to work at all staff levels and throughout the development of the
budget, not just in its final stages, as has often been the case
in the past.
OSTP will be undertaking a number of other activities that
deal specifically with economic and industrial concerns. Most
important, one of my fellow associate directors will focus on
industrial technology. This is an entirely new post at OSTP, and
Dr. Bromley has spoken often of its importance. This individual
will work in close collaboration with the occupant of the newly-
created post of Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology to
coordinate federal activities in support of engineering and
Academy-Industry Program
Page 6
technology R&D and to catalyze the growth of pioneering state and
regional technology initiatives.
The President has not yet forwarded the name of this
Associate Director-Designate to the Senate, but I can tell you
that he is a very senior R&D executive from the private sector.
I think you will be very impressed by his qualifications when the
name is announced.
There will be four associate directors within OSTP--Dr.
James Wyngaarden in the life sciences, the associate director for
industrial technology, an associate director for physical
sciences and engineering, and myself. Dr. Bromley's intention is
that he and the four of us will work in a collegial manner, with
no firm boundaries drawn between our various responsibilities.
In this way, we will be working together on one of the office's
two main responsibilities--what Dr. Bromley calls science and
technology for policy--namely, providing to the President and the
Administration with the best information, analysis, and advice
that the scientific and engineering communities can produce.
Our other main responsibility is what Dr. Bromley refers to
as policy for science and technology. The legislation that
established OSTP in 1976 calls on the office to evaluate the
federal effort in science and technology, recommend ways in which
that effort might be improved, and coordinate the R&D programs of
the federal government. One of the primary mechanisms by which
this coordination is achieved is the Federal Coordinating Council
for Science, Engineering, and Technology or FCCSET. FCCSET is
the entity within the executive branch, established by OSTP's
organic act, that is responsible for coordinating R&D across the
federal government. The members of FCCSET are appointed by the
heads of each agency that funds substantial R&D. Typically these
members are the top science administrators at each agency, SO at
NSF the FCCSET member is the director and at the Department of
Energy it's the head of energy research.
FCCSET, in turn, sets up special committees consisting of
agency officials who work to coordinate specific areas of science
and technology. For example, one FCCSET committee that we see as
a model for future efforts is the Committee on Earth Sciences.
Last summer a working group of the committee released a report
entitled Our Changing Planet: The FY 1990 Research Plan, which
described the efforts of the eight federal agencies involved with
research on global change and meshed these efforts into a
coordinated research plan and budget. That is the kind of
coordination we would like to see throughout the federal
government's R&D activities.
One problem with the FCCSET structure, however, is that it
has no formal mechanism for input from the private sector.
Toward that end, Dr. Bromley is putting together a new body
called the President's Council of Advisers on Science and
Technology or PCAST. PCAST will consist of 12 distinguished
scientists and technologists from the private sector and
academia. It will examine a wide range of issues in science and
Academy-Industry Program
Page 7
technology and report directly to the President. In addition,
PCAST will have the authority to form ad hoc panels of
executives, researchers, and academics to parallel the committees
that we put together within OSTP under FCCSET. By bringing the
PCAST panels and FCCSET committees together frequently, a
mechanism will exist to provide input to the highest levels of
government from the private sector.
Future Challenges
Once these three layers of personnel are in place--OSTP's
internal staff, a revitalized and enlarged FCCSET structure, and
PCAST--the office will be able to move forward at full speed on
some of the major challenges facing the nation in science and
technology policy. For instance, in the area of regulation,
bringing together FCCSET committees with groups from the private
sector under PCAST will provide a means for competitiveness
concerns to enter into regulatory decision making. For example,
one area where such public-private coordination would be
especially valuable is biotechnology, where regulatory actions
undertaken in the next few years will have a substantial impact
on the ability of U.S. companies to compete worldwide.
This three-tiered structure will also be able to focus
federal efforts on the problem of mathematics and science
education. It is anticipated that a new FCCSET committee -- most
likely called the Committee on Human Resources -- will be set up
to coordinate on a continuing basis the activities of all federal
agencies with significant responsibilities in science and
mathematics education. The President also plans to ask PCAST, as
one of its first tasks, to form a group to look at the federal
role in mathematics and science education.
But even with the assistance of FCCSET and PCAST, the Office
of Science and Technology Policy cannot do what it has set out to
do without a great deal of additional help. In that regard, I
would like to leave you tonight with a challenge. I mentioned
earlier the importance of generic, enabling technologies to many
industries and the important leveraging effect that can be
achieved through federal support of these technologies. This
issue was eloquently framed in the statement on Technology and
Competitiveness, issued earlier this year by the Council of the
National Academy of Engineering. The question we face now is:
how do we do this right? What are those technologies that could
make a difference to your companies but are too long-term or
speculative to satisfy the pragmatists in your financial
management departments? Dr. Bromley has proven himself very open
to suggestions from the private sector regarding the activities
and concerns of our office. I encourage you to let him know your
thoughts on this. I can assure you they will meet a receptive
audience.
Academy-Industry Program
Page 8
We have laid out a very ambitious program for the Office of
Science and Technology Policy, and there are some who say we will
be hard-pressed to do everything currently on the drawing board.
But it is a very exciting time at OSTP, with Dr. Bromley's
arrival, a revitalization of the staff, and the excellent White
House environment. All of us view the next few years as a time
of great opportunity; I hope that when an accounting is made of
our stewardship, it will show that these opportunities were
grasped.
Dr. Norman Borlaug
International Maize and Wheat
Improvement Center (CIMMYT)
Apartado, Postal 6-641
Norman
Delegacion Cuauhtemoc
06600 Mexico D.F.
Dr. Solomon J. Buchsbaum
Executive Vice President
Sal
Customer Systems
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Crawfords Corner Road
Holmdel, New Jersey 07733
Professor Charles Drake
Department of Earth Sciences
Dartmouth College
603-646-3338 charles (Pares Trasy)
228 Fairchild
Hanover, New Hampshire 03755
Dr. Ralph E. Gomory
President
Ralph
The Sloan Foundation
530 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10111
Bernadine Healy, M.D.
Canin Rogers Bundine 212 4445 1643
Chairman, The Research Institute
The Cleveland Clinic Foundation
9500 Euclid Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44106
Dr. Peter Likins
Pate
President
Lehigh University
Alumni Building No. 27
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18015
Dr. Thomas E. Lovejoy
fom
Assistant Secretary for External Affairs
The Smithsonian Institution
1000 Jefferson Drive, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20560
Dr. Walter E. Massey
Vice President for Research
walter
and for Argonne National Laboratory
The University of Chicago
5801 Ellis Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60637
Dr. John P. McTague
Vice President, Research
John
Ford Motor Company
Scientific Research Laboratories Building
20000 Rotunda Drive
Dearborn, Michigan 48121
Professor Daniel Nathans
Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
725 North Wolfe Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21205
The Honorable David Packard
Dave.
Chairman of the Board
Hewlett-Packard Company
1501 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Harold
Dr. Harold Shapiro
President
Princeton University
One Nassau Hall
Princeton, New Jersey 08544-0015
A
OSTP-WP-1990-1
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
WILLIAM PHILLIPS
Associate Director for Industrial Technology
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Executive Office of the President
An Address to the Spring Meeting of the
Laboratory Products Association
March 20, 1990
Washington, D.C.
1
I should begin by extending Allan's sincerest apologies for not being able to
meet with you today; he very much wanted to do so. The second meeting of the
President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology is this Thursday, and he is
deeply involved in the preparations for that meeting. For the first time in almost two
decades, a scientific advisory committee has been formed to channel science and
technology advice to the President. PCAST, as it is known, consists of 12
distinguished industrial and academic leaders in science and engineering. At a time
when science and technology are at the core of our industrial competitiveness, I think
you will agree that this is an important endeavor.
I would like to focus on competitiveness for much of my time this afternoon,
but in a broad fashion. I will be looking at an important short-term influence on
competitiveness--federal funding for R&D--and on a much longer-term influence--the
state of precollege education. And before I get to either of those topics, I thought I
would briefly describe our office and some of the activities that we will be pursuing
that have an effect on industrial competitiveness.
PCAST is one of three components of the science and technology advisory
apparatus within the Executive Office of the President. Another component is the
Office of Science and Technology Policy itself, of which I am one of four Associate
Directors. OSTP was created in 1976 by the Congress to serve two main functions:
(1) to provide the President and the rest of the Administration with the best possible
information, analysis, and advice regarding the influence of science and technology on
national and international policy and (2) to review and coordinate research and
development within the federal government, taking into account the simultaneous
efforts of industry and academia. Allan tends to describe these two functions as, first,
science and technology for policy and, second, policy for science and technology.
Much of the coordinating function of our office takes place through the third
component of the science advisory apparatus: the Federal Coordinating Council for
Science, Engineering, and Technology. FCCSET was created by the same 1976
2
legislation that created OSTP. It is charged with reviewing and coordinating science,
engineering, and technology activities that affect more than one federal agency.
In the past, several FCCSET committees--such as the Committee on Earth
Sciences and the Computer Research and Applications Committee--have demonstrated
the great advantages to be derived from effective coordination of cross-cutting issues
in science and technology. For example, over the past several years, the Committee
on Earth Sciences has organized all of the formerly disparate research on global
change into the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which is now a coherent,
government-wide approach to the scientific understanding of global change.
Allen is now in the process of revitalizing and reorganizing the FCCSET
structure. An array of umbrella committees are being established in such areas as
health and the life sciences, the physical, mathematical, and engineering sciences, and
education and human resources. Various subcommittees will be formed under these
committees in such areas as high-performance computing, the social and behavioral
sciences, and materials science and engineering. Through this revitalized mechanism,
we hope to focus attention on areas of R&D that are particularly crucial in our
international competitive stance.
Allan is the chairman of both PCAST and FCCSET, besides being the head of
OSTP, so he is able to coordinate the activities of all three. For example, he is
considering the prospects of setting up committees under PCAST that would parallel
some of the committees under FCCSET. This would allow input to the FCCSET
committees from the private sector to a much greater degree than has been possible
before.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET
I've described this long institutional apparatus to make a relatively simple
point: science and technology are much closer to the center of White House thinking
than they have been in the past.
3
One of the best reflections of that changed status for science and technology
can be seen in the 1991 budget. As I.F. Stone has noted, in Washington "the budget
is the message." I doubt that many of you have seen much of the budget--though this
year it is actually a quite lively and enjoyable document--but the two chapters on
research and development are preceded only by a chapter on increasing savings. To
the extent that you can read priorities from a table of contents, science and
technology have done quite well.
The budget calls for a record $71.2 billion for research and development, a
healthy 7 percent increase in what is otherwise a tight budget year. But our office is
even more encouraged by some of the trends within that total. Civilian R&D would
go up 12 percent, from the $23.8 billion that was enacted in FY 1990 to $26.7 billion
in FY 1991. Basic research would rise $1 billion, from $11.4 billion to $12.4 billion,
an increase of 8 percent. At a time of declining real defense expenditures, basic
research by the Defense Department would go up by about 6 percent.
There are several aspects of the President's budget that are of particular
interest to the Laboratory Products Association. The budget calls for the funding of
the National Science Foundation to increase by 14 percent, to $2.4 billion, so that
NSF's budget would resume its track to doubling by the year 1993. Funding for the
National Institutes of Health would rise to $7.9 billion, which marks a doubling of
NIH's budget in current dollars since 1983.
However, you as well as know, the funding situation at these two agencies is far
from optimum. During fiscal year 1989, for the first time ever, the fraction of
excellent, peer-reviewed, new proposals that were actually funded by these two agencies
fell below 30 percent. The discouragement caused by a lack of funding is particularly
unfortunate at a time when the nation has a very serious need to recruit more young
people into scientific careers.
There are several reasons for this distressing state of affairs, including a rate
of inflation for scientific research that is higher than the consumer price index, a
greater number of multiyear grants, and the simple fact that scientific research has
been so successful at generating new opportunities. We are very aware of the problem
in our office and will be looking for ways to ease the pressure on individual
4
investigators. Allan has often said that individual investigator and small group
research is the heart and backbone of science in this country and that support for
this kind of science must come first.
Another section of the budget that you would find particularly interesting is
that on developing advanced technologies to meet government and civilian needs. For
instance, robotics research is slated for a 28 percent increase to $192 million. High-
performance computing is proposed to increase 5 percent to $469 million. Research
on semiconductors remains about the same at $537 million, as does research on
superconductivity at $215 million and research on advanced imaging technologies at
$118 million.
At the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and
Technology, the budget proposes $10 million for the new Advanced Technology
Program to support a number of consortia doing generic, precompetitive research into
promising technologies. The budget also proposes $5 million for grants to the
Regional Manufacturing Technology Centers that will transfer advanced
manufacturing technologies to medium- and small-sized businesses.
Despite these relatively targeted programs, most federal support for R&D
remains mission oriented, as has been the case since World War II. Nevertheless, we
in the United States have built the largest science and technology base in the world.
How have we managed to do this without engaging in the targeted R&D funding
common among our major competitors?
I believe that much of the reason lies in the complementarity of federal and
industrial support of R&D. Research results have broad applications and tend to
diffuse rather quickly. As a result, the private sector tends to underinvest in such
research because it is difficult for a single firm to realize exclusive benefits from these
investments. But the long-term benefits are so large that the federal government
cannot afford not to invest in this research, especially in university research that also
produces trained scientists and engineers for industry, academia, and the public
sector.
Meanwhile, private industry in this country has historically proven itself the
best in the world at converting the results of basic research into commercially
A
5
successful products. I think your industry is a prime example of that uniquely
American excellence in innovation.
INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
The question then becomes, Can we continue to rely on this traditional
approach to the innovation process? I certainly don't need to recite for the people in
this room the by now familiar litany of declining competitiveness within our
manufacturing sectors. Should the government take a more activist role in moving to
stem these declines?
I think it is important, in answering this question, to recognize not only the
weaknesses but the continuing strengths of the United States in the international
marketplace:
o
We continue to have the world's largest research and technology base by a
large margin.
We have a large number of research universities that set world standards
for excellence.
We have a system of federal laboratories that are among the world's best.
We have a culture that accepts and encourages entrepreneurism.
And we have a tradition of successful federal civilian R&D in agriculture,
health, and aeronautics.
However, these many strengths of the U.S. system must be weighed against the
weaknesses--some perceptual, some real--of the United States in international
competition.
The cost of capital in the United States is higher than for our major
competitors, and there is an emphasis on short-term returns on investments.
6
There is a reduced willingness to take technological risks, especially in large
corporations and in the financial community.
0
The quality of the technical workforce is declining in terms of education,
training, and the flexibility to adapt to technological change.
There is an inefficient coupling between industrial R&D and production.
Other countries are outperforming the United States in transforming
discoveries quickly into high-quality products and into processes for designing,
manufacturing, marketing, and distributing these products.
There is a lingering fear of antitrust measures that inhibits company-to-
company cooperation.
Too often, there is an attitude of mutual distrust that inhibits cooperation
between industry and the government.
The coupling between federal laboratories and industry is weak, particularly
with small- and mid-sized companies that could benefit most from federal assistance.
0
There is a tendency for federal technology transfer programs to be
decoupled from state programs.
ENHANCING INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS
If these problems are to be solved, actions must be taken on many fronts
involving all components of our society. For the federal government, the challenge is
to develop and exercise intelligent and visionary leadership emphasizing the long-term
economic vitality of the nation.
Some people have advocated that the U.S. government should move to bolster
industries that have lost global market share through favorable tax treatment or
direct subsidies. But the Bush Administration believes that private industry, not the
federal government, knows what is best for private industry. The Administration will
not adopt a policy that has the effect of picking winners and losers in the
marketplace.
7
But the options available to the federal government do not necessarily fall into
the stark categories of massive government subsidies of favored industries on the one
hand and a total "hands-off" approach by the federal government on the other. At
OSTP, we strongly believe that the real choices lie in another direction, and we have
been working within the Administration to promote some of these options.
First of all, it is obviously the responsibility of the federal government to create
the macroeconomic conditions that are conducive to investments in research and
development by private industry. President Bush has outlined a number of actions
designed to establish such conditions, such as making the R&E tax credit permanent,
cutting the capital gains rate, and reducing the deficit.
Secondly, the government has an important effect on competitiveness through
its regulatory policy making. Government regulation can shape not only a company's
domestic markets but its international markets, through the degree of harmonization
between regulations here and abroad. For example, harmonized international
protection of intellectual property will allow more benefits to be recovered from R&D
investments made in the United States. Harmonization is also important between
different states within the United States to decrease the risk for private investment.
Third, the government must try to eliminate both real and perceived
disincentives to industrial collaboration. These collaborations, from R&D through
joint precompetitive ventures, provide a means for companies to share risk and pool
resources, and they are common in other countries. Ironically, they are also common
between U.S. firms and foreign firms. But this country has been slow in adjusting to
the new reality that we are now competing in a global marketplace, and new
mechanisms need to be found that allow companies and the federal government to
work together to better meet this competition.
Fourth, the government must make R&D activities at federal nondefense
laboratories more relevant and accessible to the private sector. The objectives for
such work should be set by the potential users. The results of federally financed
R&D should also be diffused more broadly by actively licensing inventions and
removing barriers to commercial development and marketing of federal computer
software.
8
Finally, the government has a very important role to play in supporting the
development of generic, enabling technologies. These are technologies that are
important in a wide variety of commercial applications; however, no single company
can capture enough of the benefits to justify investing an adequate amount of R&D in
them. The rationale for investing in these enabling technologies is essentially the
same as that for investing in basic research: individual companies cannot bear the
cost and risk of such investments alone. Examples include certain materials
technologies (such as superconductors), information technologies (an example is high
performance computing), and biotechnologies (such as the development of scale-up
technologies).
In a speech to the American Electronics Association last week, President Bush
pointed to the importance of these technologies. He said, "This administration is
committed to working with you in the critical precompetitive development stage where
the basic discoveries are converted into generic technologies that support both our
economic competitiveness and our national security. Here again we can help to level
the international playing field on which you compete."
Later in the speech, the President said that he was going to charge the
Competitiveness Council, which is chaired by the Vice-President, with a new task: "to
find ways that American industry can better translate new ideas and technologies into
marketable products."
At OSTP, we believe that this is an important function for the Administration.
We will be working with the President, with the Competitiveness Council, and with the
other parts of the Administration to further this work on leveraging technologies.
The FY 1990 Defense Authorization Act requires OSTP to set up a panel to
identify critical technologies of importance to the long-term national security and
economic prosperity of the United States. We are now in the process of setting up
that panel and beginning the examination of candidate technologies. The panel's first
report will be submitted to the President on October 1 of this year and transmitted to
Congress 30 days later. This will be an important process within OSTP, and we are
planning to devote a considerable amount of time to it this spring and summer.
9
EDUCATION
So far I've been discussing actions that could improve our competitive stance
in the short- to medium-term. But in the long term, one factor emerges as of
paramount importance--the education and training of American workers.
In an age of information, human capital is just as important as physical
capital, and in many sectors it is more important. Yet if current trends continue, we
will soon be running this country on the human equivalent of baling wire and scotch
tape.
In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education, in its report A
Nation at Risk, warned of a "rising tide of mediocrity" that threatened to engulf our
elementary and secondary schools. Yet in the seven years since then, despite a wave
of school reform efforts, standardized tests show very little improvement in student
achievement. Some have said that the three R's of education really ought to be the
six R's: remedial reading, remedial writing, and remedial rithmatic.
Education is one of the most important concerns of the Bush Administration,
and the science and mathematics component of that education will be a major
concern of OSTP. Last September Allan accompanied the President to the Education
Summit in Charlottesville, and even though a great deal of skepticism surrounded
that meeting, he came away considerably heartened. Many of the states have
instituted excellent and very innovative programs in education that could act as
models for similar programs around the country.
The President and Governors agreed at Charlottesville that education will and
should remain predominantly a state and local responsibility. But there remain many
areas of responsibility and opportunity for the federal government. It has been said
that "every problem that exists in education has already been solved somewhere." The
federal government can monitor and identify the very innovative programs that
originate at the state and local level and help to disseminate those programs to other
locations.
During his State of the Union message three weeks ago, President Bush
announced six national goals in education, including that U.S. students be the first in
10
the world in science and mathematics achievement by the year 2000. These are very
ambitious goals--and achieving them will require the best efforts of everyone
associated with science and technology, including those of you in this room.
The Administration takes this set of national goals very seriously. The
President and the Governors have agreed to work with Congress, with education
groups, and with business to institutionalize a process to oversee the development of
ways to measure progress against these goals and report regularly to the nation on
whether they are being achieved.
We need to pursue a number of detailed steps to achieve the goals and
objectives that the President and Governors have established. We need more magnet
schools for science and mathematics that can inspire our most gifted young people.
We must focus on the "forgotten middle"--the technicians who will be running the
high-technology factories of the future. We need to encourage more women and
minorities to study science and engineering and to pursue technical careers. And we
must foster a level of scientific literacy in our society that permits people to
understand, at least in outline, the vital role science and technology play in almost all
aspects of contemporary life.
THE ROLE OF THE STATES
Education will be a responsibility shared by everyone at OSTP. But what I
bring to OSTP, not only in education but in the broad range of issues covered by our
office, is a somewhat different perspective. My background has been at the state
level, and even though state governments and the federal government are quite
different entities, there is much that each can learn from the other.
I believe, for example, that the federal government must consider the agendas
of the states when it sets its own agenda. Unlike the federal government, the states
can pick specific industries to support, based on their own histories, policies, and
goals. The federal government must be aware of these activities and can act, through
its own funding and programs, to maximize their potential for success.
11
The federal government can also learn from the states about the kinds of
programs that work most effectively at the state and local level. This year's budget
book has a chapter entitled "Advancing States as Laboratories," and even though the
focus there is on services of various kinds such as transportation and education, the
same general principles apply to industrial development. In turn, the federal
government can act as a catalyst to spread programs that have proven successful in
one location to other locations, where their success can be repeated.
These are the kinds of activities I will be trying to foster as OSTP's Associate
Director for Industrial Technology. There is a great deal to be done in this area, and
the obstacles to be surmounted are great. But Allan believes very strongly in the
need for the federal government to address the problems of industrial technology, and
together we hope to have considerable impact in the next few years.