Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, September 7, 1993 TAG: 9403090009
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: PHILLIP A. GRIFFITHS
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
National fiscal decisions are being dramatically negotiated before the national media. In such a climate, the government's role in supporting science and technology will inevitably be a target for public - and the budget balancer's - scrutiny.
But this nation's scientific and technological strengths are too important to be determined by short-term political expediency. Policy-makers will make allocations based on the wrong reasons unless we as a nation set definite scientific and technological goals.
Since World War II, the goals that have driven science and technology have been determined largely by the Cold War and by this country's economic supremacy. But today the Cold War is over and our economic leadership is being challenged.
Putting first things first: We have to redirect the discussion away from the absolute dollar figure for governmental support for research and development. The United States is already among the world leaders in most areas of science and in many areas of technology. The federal R&D budget is also adjusting to the realities of a post-Cold War world. At least in the short term, this country should be able to remain at the forefront of science without additional spending on research and development.
U.S. science and technology remain the strongest in the world. Our scientists lead the world in papers published and prizes won. U.S-based companies, despite a few areas of weakness, are unequaled in developing new technologies and introducing them into the marketplace.
Yet scientific supremacy has not given us universal, affordable health care. Nor have pioneering technologies kept foreign companies from improving on U.S. products and making their own versions more quickly, more cheaply, and with better quality.
Clearly, scientific and technological supremacy are not enough by themselves to bring about human progress. The central question therefore is: What role should science and technology play in broader social and institutional systems?
According to a committee that I chair of the National Academies of Science and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine, that role can be summarized in the form of national goals - two for science and one for technology.
First, the United States should seek to be among the world leaders in all major areas of science. Remaining at the forefront of science enables the United States to absorb and benefit from new advances, regardless of whether they occur here or in another country. For example, high-temperature superconductivity was discovered in Switzerland, but U.S. researchers were able quickly to repeat and extend those findings, giving this country an immediate presence in a promising new field.
Second, the United States should seek to maintain clear dominance in those scientific fields likely to contribute substantially to important economic, social, or cultural objectives. For example, the field of condensed-matter physics drives technological advances in such industrial sectors as microelectronics, advanced materials, and sensors.
The national goal for technology parallels the goals for science. The federal government should cooperate with the private sector to maintain U.S. leadership in technologies that promise to have major impacts on industrial and economic performance. We as a nation should not allow technological backwardness to cause the loss of important industries.
This approach would offer a coherent way of dealing with scientific and technological "megaprojects" such as the space station and super collider. If a megaproject is in a field where the United States does not need to maintain clear leadership, the government should provide funding only through an international consortium. If the country has decided to maintain a lead in a particular field, the government might choose to pursue such a project even without international partners.
We cannot expect - and it would not be fair to expect - politicians to be the best judge of scientific work. Nor can politicians alone always keep in perspective where scientific research fits into the broad national purpose.
A more coherent federal approach to science and technology clearly will not solve all of the nation's societal or political problems. But it will ensure that the dollars we do spend help meet broad national objectives.
\ Phillip A. Griffiths is director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J.
by CNB