>Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 16:53:45 -0500 (EST) >From: AIP listserver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: FYI #22 - Hart-Rudman on R&D > >FYI >The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News >Number 22: February 28, 2001 > >Recommendations of Hart-Rudman National Security Report: R&D > >"Second only to a weapon of mass destruction detonating in an >American city, we can think of nothing more dangerous than a >failure to manage properly science, technology, and education for >the common good over the next quarter century." - U.S. >Commission on National Security for the 21st Century > >As reported in FYI #21, the Hart-Rudman Commission on National >Security for the 21st Century has recommended a series of reforms >that are intended to enable the government to address the >national security challenges of the new century. Several major >recommendations deal with the nation's scientific research and >education enterprises. The report states, "We have made >Recapitalizing America's Strengths in Science and Education the >second section of this report despite the fact that science >management and education issues are rarely ranked as paramount >national security priorities. We do so to emphasize their >crucial and growing importance." >This FYI highlights the specific recommendations for the nation's >science enterprise, along with supporting quotes from the report. >FYI #23 will address the recommendations for education. > >I. "THE PRESIDENT SHOULD PROPOSE, AND THE CONGRESS SHOULD >SUPPORT, DOUBLING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT'S INVESTMENT IN SCIENCE AND >TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT BY 2010." In particular, the >report calls for more funding of basic research and technology >development. "We stand on the cusp of major discoveries in >several interlocking fields, and we stand to benefit, as well, >from major strides in scientific instrumentation. As a result, >the way is clear to design large-scale scientific and >technological experiments in key fields - not unlike the effort >of the International Geophysical Year in 1958, the early space >program, or the project to decode the human genome. In the >judgment of this Commission, the U.S. government has not taken a >broad, systematic approach to investing in science and technology >R&D, and thus will not be able to sustain projects of such scale >and boldness." >II. "THE PRESIDENT SHOULD EMPOWER HIS SCIENCE ADVISOR TO >ESTABLISH NON-MILITARY R&D OBJECTIVES THAT MEET CHANGING NATIONAL >NEEDS, AND TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING BUDGET DEVELOPMENT >WITHIN THE RELEVANT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES." While the >Commission recommends against a single federal S&T agency, it >notes that "the government has to better coordinate" its R&D >efforts. "It is not possible to spend $80 billion wisely each >year, let alone twice that much, unless we know where research >bottlenecks and opportunities exist. There is no one place in >the U.S. government where such inventory stewardship is >performed." The report suggests "that OSTP, in conjunction with >the National Science Foundation - and with the counsel of the >National Academies of Science - design a system for the ongoing >basic inventory stewardship of the nation's capital knowledge >assets." > >According to the Commission, much of the federal R&D budget >"still reflects legacies of the Cold War and the Industrial Age. >We do not suggest that this money is being wasted in any direct >sense, but its benefits are not being maximized. For example, we >believe that defense-related R&D should go back to funding more >basic research, for in recent years it has tilted too much toward >the 'D' over the 'R' in R&D. More important, we could derive >more benefit from our investment in non-defense R&D if the >context for it were a more competitive one." The Commission >therefore suggests "that the President's Science Advisor, beyond >his proposed budget coordination role, should lead an effort to >revise government R&D practices and budget allocations to make >the process more competitive." It also proposes "that the >government foster a 'creative market' for a greater number of >research institutions to bid on government research funds," and >suggests "that a strengthened and more active National Science >and Technology Council preside over an on-going effort to >multiply creative, targeted R&D programs within government." >III. "THE PRESIDENT SHOULD PROPOSE, AND THE CONGRESS SHOULD >FUND, THE REORGANIZATION OF THE NATIONAL LABORATORIES, PROVIDING >INDIVIDUAL LABORATORIES WITH NEW MISSION GOALS THAT MINIMIZE >OVERLAP." The Commission finds the U.S. national laboratories >"remain a national R&D treasure," but are "badly in need of >redefinition and new investment.... Without any compelling force >analogous to that of the Cold War to drive government funding and >the direction of R&D, the labs have been left to drift. Nuclear >research has given way mostly to maintenance of the nation's >nuclear arsenal and efforts to dismantle nuclear weapons and >manage their radioactive wastes. But...these are tasks that a >single major laboratory can handle." The report continues, "the >labs remain critical in fulfilling America's S&T national >security needs and in addressing S&T issues pertinent to the >public good. Each major laboratory needs a clearly defined >mission area." >The report also warns that, in addition to deterioration of the >labs' physical infrastructure, "the security breaches and the >subsequent series of investigations in recent years have produced >a serious morale problem - and made recruitment and retention >problems even more acute. If this cycle is not broken, our >national advantage in S&T will suffer further." > >Additionally, the report states that "the potential for good and >ill stemming from many of the recent developments in the >scientific and technical domain is at least as great, if not >greater, than that of atomic energy.... New scientific discovery >and innovation in information technologies, nanotechnology, and >biotechnologies will have a major impact on social, economic, and >political life in the United States and elsewhere." The >Commission describes the need for "a public-trust >institution...to gather knowledge and to develop informed >judgment as the basis for public policy. We especially need a >permanent framework that brings public sector, private sector, >and higher education together to examine the implications of >today's technological revolution." In order to provide "a forum >for the articulation of all responsible interests in the >implications of new biotechnology and other new technologies," >the Commission recommends "that Congress transform the current >National Bioethics Advisory Commission into a much strengthened >National Advisory Commission on Bioscience." > >The full report, "Road Map for National Security: Imperative for >Change," is available at http://www.nssg.gov > >############### >Audrey T. Leath >Public Information Division >The American Institute of Physics >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >(301) 209-3094 >http://www.aip.org/gov >##END########## -- Dr. Donald G. York Horace B. Horton Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics _______________________________________________ TRA maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cuip.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/tra -- This is the CPS Science Teacher List. To unsubscribe, send a message to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For more information: <http://home.sprintmail.com/~mikelach/subscribe.html>. To search the archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/science%40lists.csi.cps.k12.il.us/>
