Table Of Content

A,vA y NAS) v THE MISSION OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION | HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MARCH 3, 1993 [No. 2] Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology INFO TION CENTRE CE COPY 2g Wellcome Centre for Medical Science U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 66-821 CC : WASHINGTON : 1993 For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-040759-1 IR_ 51 —— vv-8O -2 9313 - 1] COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY GEORGE E. BROWN, JR., California, Chairman MARILYN LLOYD,Tennessee ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania* DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri Wisconsin RALPH M. HALL, Texas SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York DAVE McCURDY, Oklahoma TOM LEWIS, Florida TIM VALENTINE, North Carolina PAUL B. HENRY, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois RICK BOUCHER, Virginia CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland JAMES A. TRAFICANT, JR., Ohio DANA ROHRABACHER, California JIMMY HAYES, Louisiana STEVEN H. SCHIFF, New Mexico JOHN TANNER, Tennessee JOE BARTON, Texas PETE GEREN, Texas DICK ZIMMER, New Jersey JIM BACCHUS, Florida SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana KEN CALVERT, California BUD CRAMER, Alabama MARTIN HOKE, Ohio DICK SWETT, New Hampshire NICK SMITH, Michigan JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan ED ROYCE, California HERBERT C. KLEIN, New Jersey ROD GRAMS, Minnesota ERIC FINGERHUT, Ohio JOHN LINDER, Georgia PAUL MCHALE, Pennsylvania PETER BLUTE, Massachusetts JANE HARMAN, California JENNIFER DUNN, Washington DON JOHNSON, Georgia BILL BAKER, California SAM COPPERSMITH, Arizona ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland ANNA G. ESHOO, California JAY INSLEE, Washington EDDIE-BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas DAVID MINGE, Minnesota NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia XAVIER BECERRA, California RADFORD BYERLY, JR., Chief of Staff MICHAEL RODEMEYER, Chief Counsel CAROLYN C. GREENFELD, Chief Clerk DAVID D. CLEMENT, Republican Chief of Staff SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE RICK BOUCHER, Virginia, Chairman RALPH MyeHAbbyDexaensu e conein-nseuepg, SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York TIM VALENTINEg,N h . CGoanrl on é ee JOE” : JAMES A; BARCI ) MOLT A’ SAMAIOHNSON, Texas DON JOHNSON, Georgia MVS Serre Michigan AE.N NB.A JOG.H NESSOHNO,O , TCeaxlia s? GOD SOVIETC PhETeE R BLUTE, Massachusettes DAVID MINGE, Minnesota “Ranking RR epubileah meio 101 susD ammoo is j (ID) 7 STRYR Shee = 22501140137 CONTENTS WITNESSES Page March 3, 1993: Panel I: Dr. William H. Danforth, co-Chair, National Science Board Commission on the Future of the NSF, and Chancellor, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri; accompanied by Dr. James J. Duderstadt, Chair- man, National Science Board, and President, University of Michigan, SICA TOOT ICELB ibs, poet ee, ete seve wdccvapedivns cotiacuictsdeiedsaesccscrttit eroesrorsaet Panel II: Dr. Daniel Nathans, Member, PCAST Committee on Research-Intensive Universities, and University Professor of Molecular Biology and Genet- ics, Johns eee University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland; accompanied by Dr. H. Guyford Stever, Chairman, Carnegie Commis- sion Task Force on Establishing and Achieving Long-Term Goals, Washington, DC; Dr. John D. Wiley, Member, Guirr Working Group on the Academic Research Enterprise, and Dean of the Graduate School, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin; and Dr. Brian M. Rushton, President, Industrial Research Institute, and Senior Vice President, R&D, Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Allentown, ekpyelyd b el b Ges arene nares napa i apn Pepe aleelinmpr ams de! <i tieths AES CRN Appendixes: Additional material submitted for the record ...............cceccceceeeeereees (IID) ¥ As oY “@" = ; ics £ z AR4 T, E WaWl APaR Nte&E Dh a Cea Set N eaete eeP ace | en oan oe ih s .m t ae Poe tt a aiS h : get i; tp = © ioe ae ° These : \ | ; si ai2 svs ve SRmt pas a . mse é aee a: x ~~ ‘u k% e) 8 caa e meeh eee=.e ’ ’ ‘ eazy i ies kt re ag - aA atu se ae i= i‘ . 4 ‘ , ™. oy-. BS4 ".3 FCxe ‘ a. h5a e es i7 ae.. af 5 Pi as ~ THE MISSION OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1993 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, D.C. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:40 a.m., in Room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rick Boucher [Chair- man of the Subcommittee] presiding. Mr. BOUCHER. This morning the Subcommittee on Science con- tinues its inquiry into the future of Federal science policy. Today’s hearing, which focuses on the mission of the National Science Foundation, is the first in a series that the Subcommittee will hold during 1993, with the goal of examining the policies which underlie the Federal role in supporting basic and applied research and con- sidering recommendations for changes in those policies. The fundamental rationale governing Federal science policy was articulated more than 45 years ago in the publication, Science—the Endless Frontier, authored by Vannevar Bush. That policy has been refined during the succeeding years of the cold war. The report was the basis for the social contract between government and the research community, and it led in 1950 to the enactment of legislation which created the National Science Foundation. The assumption that underpinned Federal support for research was that direct benefits to society will arise from funding by the Government of undirected basic research. With some modification, that is still today’s policy and today’s operating premise. In 1964, in response to significant changes occurring in society and in the research enterprise in the post-Sputnik era, the Sub- committee on Science, Research, and Development, which was our predecessor subcommittee, initiated a comprehensive review of the operations and functions of the National Science Foundation. The Subcommittee’s final report noted that the Foundation was doing | well in its core competencies, but that in some respects it had “not kept pace with demands of society, nor adequately oriented itself within the shifting machinery of Government.” One reform that was enacted in the wake of that report was a change in the Na- tional Science Foundation Act specifically to authorize the Founda- tion to support applied research efforts, as distinct from the pre- vious mission which was oriented toward basic research. Today we find ourselves: in a period of even more dramatic change. New opportunities and challenges have been created by the (1) 2 end of the cold war, the rise of multilateral economic competition from abroad, and the emergence of global environmental problems. There are signs of stress in the institutions that perform and support research. Industry’s research investment has stagnated. At universities the rapid growth in the number of researchers and institutions, together with the increased costs of conducting research, has outpaced the ability of government and industry to fund wor- thy research projects, resulting in a rising level of frustration among academic researchers. Public attitudes toward the research community are also chang- ing as a result of incidents of scientific misconduct, the intense scrutiny of indirect cost recovery by universities, the cold-fusion de- bacle, and unmet societal needs that are occurring despite a very large public investment in science and technology. The assumption of a direct linear relationship between basic research and societal benefits has now been called into questions. Taken together, these changes have led the Subcommittee on Science to initiate a broad-based examination of the U.S. research enterprise, including the institutions and Federal policies that underlie Federal support for research. These same factors led the Na- tional Science Board, the governing board for the National Science Foundation, to establish a Commission on the Future of the Na- tional Science Foundation. The Commission’s report commends the NSF for excellence in its core competencies, while recommending changes occur. Today we have asked Dr. William Danforth, the Co-Chairman of the National Science Board Commission, to highlight the Commis- sion’s recommendations. Next, we have asked Dr. James Duderstadt, Chairman of the National Science Board, to describe the Board’s plans with respect to the Commission’s recommendations. And, finally, we have invited representatives from the Presi- dent’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology; the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government; and the Working Group on the Academic Research Enterprise of the Gov- ernment-University- Industry Research Roundtable of the National Academy of Sciences to address the implications of their recently published reports for the future mission of the NSF. We've also invited a representative of the Industrial Research Institute to obtain private sector views and perspectives with regard to the NSF’s future mission. The testimony from this hearing will be taken into consideration by the subcommittee as we draft reauthorizing legislation for the National Science Foundation later this year. I'd like to extend a welcome on behalf of the subcommittee to all of our witnesses and thank them for taking the time to join us here today. We will look forward to each of their comments and Tec- ommendations. Before turning to the first panel of witnesses, I would like to rec- ognize at this time the ranking Republican member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Boehlert. Mr. BOEHLERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Everyone agrees that the United States has the world’s premiere basic research enterprise and system of higher education. The Na- tional Science Foundation deserves a good deal of credit for these 3 accomplishments. But the performance of the U.S. economy meas- ured against its major competitors demonstrates that educational and research excellence alone are not enough to guarantee continued economic leadership. Should we conclude then that the Federal Government ought to stop supporting basic research and higher education? No, far from it. I am convinced that continued leadership in basic research and in educating the best scientists and engineers is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition to restoring America’s economic competitiveness. Clearly, NSF has a role to play in ensuring that we build on these strengths. Yet significant questions about the future direction of the Foun- dation have been dredged up by the competitiveness debate. Among the questions that seem most important are these: Should the NSF realign the mix of its spending between strategic ae mi and principal investigator, curiosity-driven research proposals? Do strategic initiatives, as well as major instrument programs like LIGO, threaten to become entrenched in NSF’s budget to the detriment of flexibility and funding for principal investigators? What role should NSF play in addressing our declining manufac- turing expertise? What steps can NSF take to increase the emphasis on quality teaching in our universities and colleges? Can we establish measures by which we can assess the performance of the Foundation? What role should the Foundation and the National Science Board play in shaping a national vision on science and technology policy? Are NSF’s initiatives on K through 12 science education on tar- get’ I’ve got a lot of questions, Mr. Chairman, and the witnesses we'll have here today are experts and they'll give us some direction in terms of answers. Let me say here and now—let me repeat something that I’ve said many times, but I never miss an opportunity in this town to say this—if we’re going to be serious about moving our economy forward, if we’re going to be serious about recapturing our manufac- turing base, we’ve got to start being realistic in establishing priorities, priorities in the area of science. Now I, for one, am not at all reluctant to take great pride in the fact that [’m trying to realign ~ our priorities. I think, for example, that it’s absolutely obscene for this Govern- ment and this country to be spending the amount of money we're spending on the Superconducting Supercollider when all those wor- thy applications for principal investigators are going unfunded at NSF and NIH. Where are our priorities? We’ve given more money than ever before to NSF and NIH, and to NIST, too, and we should give even more, but we've got to get sensible about our priorities. So I have already informed the Director of the Office of Manage- ment and Budget, a former colleague of mine, Mr. Panetta, that I’ve accepted the President’s challenge and I’m going to be issue- specific. We're going to do away with the funding for the SSC. Were going to redirect those dollars to important research, to some of the activities that are under the jurisdiction of the National 4 Science Foundation, because of all the agencies of the Federal Gov- ernment, this is probably one of the best-kept secrets that does so much so well for so many. Mr. Chairman, it’s a pleasure to open this hearing today and it’s a pleasure to work with you because I know we're on the same wave length with respect to NSF, and I’m going to do my best to get you on the same wave length with the SSC. Thank you. [Laughter.] | Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Boehlert, for those thoughtful comments, and we'll reserve debate on the SSC for a future date, unless the gentlelady from Texas would like to partici- pate in that now. Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I do wish to note that this sub- ee does have jurisdiction over the SSC now, as you well ow. Mr. BOUCHER. There is no doubt about that. [Laughter.] The gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson. Ms. E.B. JOHNSON OF TEXAS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair- man. I’m not so sure I’m happy to be here this morning or not. I left another meeting to come and I came in at the wrong time to listen about the attack on the SSC. I do feel very strongly, Mr. Chairman, that this is an important committee and the issues of which we discuss really will show our vision for the future or our failure to meet the challenges for the ture. And I look forward to listening to the witnesses and working wis this committee and trying to outnumber Mr. Boehlert of New ork. [The prepared statement of Mr. Barcia follows:] Statement Hon. James A. Barcia Committee on Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Science I thank the chair for calling this hearing. The vitality of this nation's premier science and technology agency is of great importance. At a time when the centrality of -military power is diminishing, and the importance of economic and intellectual power is becoming ever greater, a review of the National Science Foundation's (NSF) activities is most appropriate. The contribution's that have come from this agency's activities are immense. And hopefully with a sharpening of the policies that drive the agency I am certain this will continue. The results of the National Science Board's Commission on the Future of the NSF provides this committee, and the Congress, a well thought out and balanced platform from which to begin refining NSF's mission. The need to direct scarce national resources towards science and technology issues is evident. The vibrant activity in the science and technology community, and its contribution not only to our economic well being, but our fundamental understand of the world we live in, is a national asset in itself. This vibrancy is well illustrated in the many bodies that have spent time in formulating recommendations on our science and technology goals. Just one example is the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government which has, as I am sure is well known, published a series of monographs on many aspects in the science and technology policy arena. Again I thank the chair, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses called here today. 6 Mr. BOUCHER. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson. We welcome now our first panel of witnesses: Dr. William H. Danforth, the Co-Chair of the National Science Board Commission, on the future of the National Science Foundation, and Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri; and Dr. James Duderstadt, Chairman of the National Science Board and president of the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Without objection, your prepared statements will be made a part of the record, and we would welcome your oral summary. And, Dr. Danforth, we'll be pleased to begin with you. STATEMENT OF DR. WILLIAM H. DANFORTH, CO-CHAIR, NA- TIONAL SCIENCE BOARD COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, AND CHANCELLOR, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI; ACCOM- PANIED BY DR. JAMES J. DUDERSTADT, CHAIRMAN, NA- TIONAL SCIENCE BOARD, AND PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN Dr. DANFORTH. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I’m William Danforth, Chancellor of Washington University— Mr. BOUCHER. And let me ask if you would turn your microphone on, we'll hear you a bit better. Thank you. Dr. DANFORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m William Danforth, Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis. It’s a privilege to speak here before this panel today, and it was also a privilege to be co-Chair of the four-month study of the National Science Foundation conducted with a talented group of business people and academics, and in the next few minutes I shall try to hit a few high points of our report, offer some personal conclusions, and respond to the questions raised in your letter. | First, it’s important to put the National Science Foundation in perspective. The NSF spends about $2 billion annually on research. That is about 3 percent of the total Federal research and development expenditures of $76 billion. It’s about 1 percent of the national R&D expenditures. The NSF spends $487 million on science and math education. The Department of Education spend $14 billion on all of education. These relatively small expenditures of the Foundation might be thought of as like a vitamin, a small ingredi- ent essential to the health of American science and engineering. Now the National Science Foundation has a special responsibil- ity, one might say a special niche in the total Federal R&D pro- gram. The niche has been scientific research and research fundamental to the engineering processes. How that niche is exploited is important, too. The monies have been spent largely in the Na- tion’s universities with the goal of tapping into the brain power of the country’s scientific minds, asking for their ideas and proposals, and then funding the very best. In this way, the Foundation is de- pendent on the creativity of a large number of minds rather than on the ideas of the few, however wise those few might be. Moreover, it supports the infrastructure and keeps alive a science and engineering establishment ready for problems and opportunities as they come along. Today the NSF funds most of the underlying science for chemistry, geosciences, mathematics, phys- ics, engineering, as well as important areas of biology, computer