Searching for National Policy on Science

Somewhere, stumbling aimlessly between Pennsylvania and Constitution avenues in Washington, is $18 billion-plus in search of a policy.

That’s roughly what the federal government plans to spend on non-defense-related science and technology this fiscal year. Only in our nation’s capital, where a dash of politics sweetens unpalatable taxes into tasty revenue enhancers, can a phrase such as “science policy” be an oxymoron. That’s not healthy and it’s not smart.

The irony is that, after an initial delay, the Bush Administration seems to have made all the right moves in setting up a policy infrastructure. The appointment of Yale physicist D. Allan Bromley as White House science adviser was well received--as was the upgrading of the post to Cabinet-level status. Bush even reconstituted an Office of Science and Technology Policy to further assure that intelligent policy advice and technical expertise wouldn’t be total strangers.

“I couldn’t have hoped for much more,” says William Golden, president of the New York Academy of Sciences and a longtime player in science policy circles.

Moreover, the speech writer who penned candidate Bush’s campaign commitments to emphasize science and innovation is now deputy to Office of Management and Budget Director Richard G. Darman, overseeing the science and technology budget. At 32, Robert Grady is one of the younger Turks shaping the dollar flow to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation and the nation’s universities, as well as brokering some of the budget trade-offs between Congress and the White House.

“Investments in science and technology are a priority,” says Grady, who is less than thrilled with the way that Congress has trimmed Bush’s initiatives. The Administration’s rationale is crisp and well defined: A dollar spent on science and technology is an investment; a dollar spent on “entitlements” is a dollar destined for consumption.

Darman has publicly decried what he describes as America’s “I want my Maypo . . . NOW!” culture, and it is clear that boosting the science budget sends a clear signal that this Administration wants to bias the budget toward investment and away from consumption. Investing in science and technology becomes a symbol.

Yet the trick is matching the symbolism with substance. Spending money is easy. Making intelligent investments for the long term is not. Despite having sharp people in the right places, the Bush Administration has yet to articulate a real policy to deal with the difficult trade-offs involved in funding this area:

* Are the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health structured the best way for funding research?

* Should the government fund more “Little Science” efforts as opposed to “Big Science” projects, such as the superconducting supercollider?

* What should be the balance between basic and applied research?

* Should the government spend more on science equipment or science education?

* How much science should be funded with an eye toward global competitiveness?

These are precisely the questions that aren’t being answered--and yet, these are precisely the questions that are getting lost amid the budget battles. They are also the questions that will determine what kind of return America’s taxpayers get for their multibillion-dollar investments.

Grady freely acknowledges that “there will be a very healthy debate--maybe even a tension--about ‘investment in emerging technology’ versus ‘industrial policy.’ ” When does one blur into the other? The answer is politically charged because Republican free traders/free marketers loathe “industrial policy” with a passion. They don’t want Washington to be “picking winners.” Instead they want to rely on, as Ronald Reagan put it, “the magic of the marketplace” to determine what emerging technologies are best.

Nevertheless, Grady says Darman is interested in “competitiveness inducing investments” in science and technology. “We’re prepared to push that envelope a little further than our predecessors,” Grady says.

What about the high-definition television technology consortium that Commerce Secretary Robert A. Mosbacher pushed to get U.S. industry back into consumer electronics? Or other consortia to encourage state-of-the-art science and technology? What is the policy guiding the budgeteers? “We’ll decide that on a case-by-case basis,” Grady says.

Which is precisely the point: Case by case means that there is no policy. What you find instead are themes impersonating initiatives. The Bush Administration has expressed intense interest in promoting space exploration. The Administration is also intrigued by establishing a supercomputer network to link up universities and industry. And for good old-fashioned scientific pork barreling, there’s the superconducting supercollider--a high-energy physicist’s dream that will be located in (surprise!) Texas, a state that has more electoral votes than quality physicists.

It’s not that these efforts lack merit, it’s that they lack focus, coherence and context. What is so troubling about the Bush Administration’s approach to science and technology policy is that there seems to be no center. The people that Bush has are, I think and hear, top notch. Unfortunately, you can’t tell this by what’s happened so far.

National Science Foundation Director Erich Bloch, who has seen his agency’s proposed budget double under the new Administration, argues that the Administration’s emphasis on education is a cornerstone of its science policy and that its commitment to science is a necessary precursor to whatever new policies emerge.

Bromley, Darman, Grady and Bloch will perform a great public service if, instead of simply discussing initiatives, they sit down with leaders in industry and science to explain what they think science policy means--and should mean--in an era of deficits. They should talk tough about which priorities of theirs are partisan and which priorities are motivated to keep this country the global leader in basic science.

What’s more, they have to have the guts to be bipartisan. An Administration that gets America’s science and business establishments to explore ways to get more bang for the science buck--instead of just more bucks--will have made a contribution to this country that leaves science in better condition than it found it.