Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, January 10, 1995 TAG: 9501120055
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
American science led the way in waging a Green Revolution to keep the world fed, in eradicating smallpox and bringing other infectious diseases under control, and in beginning the development of an understanding of the complex interactions of man and nature.
American science landed a man on the moon and, in the words of Nobel laureate physicist Leon Lederman, "gave to the world ... observations of our planet's location in an expanding universe."
Impressive evidence, in other words, of just how dominant American science and technology have been. Today, that lead is in jeopardy. Countries like Japan and Germany are mentioned as prime candidates for the globe's next science dynamo.
Even in recent years, after-inflation federal dollars for civilian science grants have continued to grow. Not too shabby - except that (1) since 1987, drops in defense spending for research, which often has nonmilitary applications, have offset all increases in civilian funding, (2) private-sector research-and-development giants like AT&T, IBM and General Electric have cut back, sacrificing long-term potential for immediate productivity and profits, and (3) the number of scientists in the United States has risen by more than half since the late '70s.
The consequences, many scientists say, go beyond the fact that more scientists are having a harder time making a living. They also include, for example, the forcing of younger scientists to leave fields for which they were highly and expensively trained, which raises questions about the quality of America's scientific future.
And it could well mean that increased competition for scarcer research dollars is yielding subpar science. The race is more competitive, yet ironically goes increasingly to the slower and least imaginative - because stodgy, incremental science is also the least risky to fund. Over the long run, however, science that is the least risky is also the least productive.
President Clinton is supposed to be a science guy. New House Speaker Newt Gingrich is known as a supporter of science and technology. So is Pennsylvania Rep. Robert S. Walker, new chairman of the House Science Committee. All that's encouraging.
But budget constraints could hobble the most ardent supporters of an America strong in science. Just as an America no longer strong in science could hobble the nation's future.
by CNB