The White House view.

Next: Supporting Congressional views. Up: The Mikulski View Previous: The Mikulski View

The White House view.

A public document presenting the Administration's position on science policy lauds science and indicates strong support for ``basic'' research [Clinton and Gore, 1994]. However, its title ``Science in the National Interest'' suggests a message; it does not support science for the sake of science. The statement's style is smooth and the unwary reader may therefore miss some important messages which are conveyed by nuance. For example, scientists would applaud the highlighted goal to ``Maintain leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge'' [p 9]. This seems to be all the scientific community could ask, indeed it agrees with first goal in the National Academy report to which Mikulski referred [NAS, 1993]. However, explanatory text pulls the punch stating that leadership will mean U.S. scientists being ``among those'' (not alone) at the ``leading edge in all major fields'' (not all fields), and making a ``significant share'' (neither most nor a proportionate share) of the ``most important scientific advances.'' Further, it states the U.S. should be able to ``capitalize on... key discoveries no matter where they occur''; implying they may well not occur in the U.S [p 9].

Although the document begins with a quote from Vannevar Bush accepting government responsibility for support of science, it later explicitly departs ``from the Vannnevar Bush canon'' [p 17] with respect to the linear connection between fundamental research and benefits. Finally, under the goal to ``Enhance connections between fundamental research and national goals'' it instructs that

``Each agency that depends on or contributes to our science and technology base will, with involvement of the scientific community, delineate its fundamental research and education missions with respect to the national goals; develop long-range plans for its fundamental science, mathematics and engineering investment; and develop measures to evaluate its contribution'' [p 19].

This resembles Senator Mikulski's instructions to NSF.

The same themes are echoed in two memoranda providing guidance to agency heads for the preparation of their FY 1995 and FY 1996 research budgets. The two documents are working-level papers, giving operational instructions to agencies, and thus represent the application of policy rather than the articulation of goals. Both are signed jointly by Leon Panetta, then Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and John Gibbons, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the White House, indicating a significant and powerful consensus on the implementation of policy.

The FY 1995 memorandum describes the President's goal to ensure that R&D funds are invested to ``support the Administration's research and technology goals and provide maximum return to society and the economy'' [Gibbons and Panetta, 1993]. The Administration's technology strategy has three main thrusts:

To stimulate long term economic growth, create jobs, protect the environment;
to make the government more productive and
[4] responsive; and
to maintain world leadership in basic science,
[4] mathematics, and engineering.

It seems to agree with Mikulski's position, but with more explicit support for basic research. This interpretation is strengthened later in the memo: ``Vigorous support of basic research'' is the first R&D initiative listed (others in the list include the national information infrastructure, manufacturing technology, the ``clean car'', and educational technologies). But finally, in the section where agencies are asked to report in specific categories on how they are spending their R&D funds, there is no category for basic research, suggesting it may be considered a means rather than a goal in itself.

The FY 1996 memorandum is similar in striking a balance between practical applications and support for basic research:

``It is expected that your agency's budget will reflect the broad R&D policy principles [herein]... . It is also expected that [you] will move funds into the identified R&D priority areas... . Given the important role that science and technology play in a broad range of Administration policies and the reality of tight budgets, we believe this guidance can ensure that our R&D resources provide the maximum return to society and the economy [Gibbons and Panetta, 1994].''

Again, basic research is given prominent support and listed as a priority. For example, a FY 1996 goal is ``World leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering.'' There is additional support for the interpretation that basic research is seen as a means; for example, a principle is to ``Invest in fundamental science [which] advances the frontiers of knowledge and provides the foundation for advancing agency missions and Administration goals.'' A specific instance of support of basic research as a means occurs under the goal ``A healthy, educated citizenry'' where ``Basic research on learning and cognitive processes'' is listed as a priority activity to help achieve the goal.

Without becoming mired in the terminology of goals, principles, and priorities, the point is that, as in the Mikulski language, there is pressure for practical benefits along with recognition of the need to support science itself by supporting basic research.

Next: Supporting Congressional views. Up: The Mikulski View Previous: The Mikulski View