Science Policy
Frank Press: Some views on science for eos lli Frank Press is a geophysicist by trade. As such he is | interested in earthquakes and earthquake prediction. 5 For many years he has advised the government on the 1 technical aspects of detecting the tremors from under? ground nuclear explosions and distinguishing them from S natural earthquakes. But in recent times his primary £ concern has been the tremors that have been rippling | through the scientific and technological community in | this country, especially those centered on that community's relationship with the federal government. In fact, he has been at the epicenter of such tremors—first as chief science adviser to President Carter and now as president of the National Academy of Sciences. He has been at the NAS helm since last July when he succeeded Philip Handler. As NAS president, Press is also the chairman of the governing board of the National Research Council, which is the operating arm of both NAS and the National Academy of Engineering. NRC is a primary independent source of expert advice to the government on science- and technology-related issues. Early last month Press sat down with C&EN's Lois Ember and Michael Heylin to express his views on a range of issues including a restructuring of the NRC operation, the role of science in the current arms buildup, the outlook for federal funding of research, and the sharpening clash between the freedom of scientific information, on the one hand, and national security concerns on the other.
C&EN: Your predecessor Philip Handler devoted a lot of his effort to boosting the stature and credibility of the National Research Council. He strove to upgrade the council's reports by enhancing committee selection, trying to contain bias on committees, and strengthening the review process. Do you feel that more needs to be done, or will be done, to increase this credibility?
tween commissions and assemblies will be abolished. Functions will be combined, overlap reduced, and the entire operation made more manageable and efficient.
Press: A great deal of what Phil Handler did in terms of balance and review procedures, of course, is in place. And it has strengthened the organization. But the present structure of NRC is 10 years old. So we are undertaking a major reorganization study to determine whether the present structure is adequate for the issues and problems of the next decade. One aim is to reduce some of the overlap and duplication that have developed over the years. The original proponents of the present structure 10 years ago called for a review at this time.
C&EN: What has changed in the past 10 years to make this shift necessary?
C&EN: What are the nature and direction of the changes? Press: NRC has commissions, defined according to policy issues, and assemblies based along disciplinary lines. This is what we are examining. We find that assemblies are doing policy studies and commissions are doing disciplinary studies. So in all probability the distinctions be32
C&EN April 5, 1982
C&EN: When will the changes be made? Press: We should have them complete and in place in another month or two.
Press: I am not sure. Maybe in the early 1970s we could think of boards and committees looking at issues of physics, or chemistry, or mathematics. But such issues are not divorced, from the broader context of budgets, energy, environment, and other national concerns. The fact is that the groups charged to be concerned about disciplines have enlarged their charter because of the requests that have come to them from government agencies and others. C&EN: So it apparently now makes sense to have a simpler, more streamlined approach. Is this move related to comments we have heard that there should, in general, be more "value" and "social" inputs in NRC reports? Some critics have said that such reports have a tendency to cut off when the
hard part comes and so, in some senses, have not been so helpful to decision makers as they otherwise might have been. Press: I have heard that said. But I also have heard it said that we make too many value judgments. There are certain subjects that are so narrowly defined that it is possible to make specific recommendations based on scientific and technological factors. But there are other issues where we have to operate without full technological information. NRC has to face up to this and do the best it can in terms of balancing interests and biases. Also, in its reports it must make clear how far scientific knowledge takes us and where value judgments begin. C&EN: You get into increasingly gray areas once you have defined the limits to the science. How much beyond that can you go before you start getting into purely political judgments? Press: That's the essential problem. The government, Congress, has to make decisions in certain areas and it needs the best advice it can get. In many areas we can't wait 20 years until we have total understanding. Decision makers want the best advice they can get based on the information that we have available. We can refuse to do that, or we can help the best we can. We choose the latter, making very clear what the limit of our knowledge is and where we are making judgments, or guesses, based either upon experience or on values. If it is values, we have to make that fact especially clear. C&EN: In view of the NRC restructuring toward more of an issue approach, can one infer that you will be tending toward more value judgment in your reports? Press: I would not want to generalize. It will depend on the issue. I'll give you an example. A few days ago we issued our report on marijuana and health. The committee was certain about the scientific evidence on short-term effects. There was uncertainty in the scientific data on long-term effects on the brain and nervous system. But the committee concluded that prudence dictates concern about the long-term effects even though there is no evidence of harm that will stand up as scientifically valid. That's a judgment of some kind. It is a judgment based, perhaps, on experience in research. Maybe it is a judgment based on values—I don't know. But it's a judgment that goes beyond the data. C&EN: Let's talk about the role of the person in your position of speaking out for the scientific community on public issues. Handler called it "having the gut reaction" for the community and he seemed to handle this part of the job in a very personal way. Do you plan a different approach to this role as spokesman for science? Press: I consider the presidency of NAS to be a position of scientific leadership in this country, one of several. I consider myself one of the leading spokesmen for science in the country—trying to explain what science is, why it should be supported, and what it contributes. I do so in addressing Congress and the executive branch, in speeches throughout the country, in writing articles, and in giving interviews. I think my membership expects that of me. J discuss national issues with my council and we
develop positions. In speaking out I represent the council and through it the NAS membership, which elects the council. It is very difficult in this position to separate my personal views from the institution's views. Most of the time they coincide, so this is not a major problem. C&EN: Under the previous Administration, in which you had a role as Science Adviser to the President, federal funding for basic research started to grow again in real terms after almost a decade of decline. This new Administration came in something like a bull in a china shop as far as science is concerned and generated some extreme concern about the outlook for research funding. You called a special academy gathering last October to talk about this. Of course, since then the 1983 budget proposal has been made and the worst of the cuts proposed for science in fiscal 1982 didn't happen. So do you feel a little less concerned today than you did last October? Press: When we had that convocation last October it was for the purpose of a dialogue between the Administration and the leaders of American science. The 1983 budget proposed by the Administration is not so bad as many thought it would be when we had the convocation. George Keyworth, chief science adviser to President Reagan, told that meeting that "you people are overstating the problem," and that the outlook for science funding was not so bad as was then thought. And if you look at the proposed 1983 federal budget for research and compare it with the rest of the civil sector, you can see that the Administration took special pains to treat science sensitively, although some think it could have done a little more. If you look at the rhetoric and the budget papers you can see that the Administration believes in the philosophy that it is the government's role to keep science healthy in this country. C&EN: Was the initial alarm among scientists last year due in essence to factors not directly related to the funding of basic research in the hard sciences—such as the abolition of the National Science
In the 1970s we could think of boards looking at issues of physics, or chemistry, or mathematics. But such issues are not divorced from the broader context of budgets, energy, and other national concerns
April 5, 1982 C&EN
33
Science Policy Foundation's effort in education and the slashing of funds for the social sciences?
C&EN: But won't it be very difficult to do—especially across disciplinary lines?
Press: I think the big alarm was the Administration's announcement last September of a 12% budget cut across the civil sector, with no exceptions. This would have been very damaging for basic research. But then the processes of government got to work and the Administration realized, both within itself and with Congress, that exceptions had to be made and some things could be cut more than others. Support for science was one of the high-priority items that survived.
Press: I think one can identify fields that offer unusual opportunities. And it doesn't mean that you have to kill field B to do something in field A. It might be possible to adjust rates of growth so that there is a pool of money to go for the unusual opportunities.
C&EN: Do you think Congress may cut back on science budgets? Press: No. I feel that Congress recently has become very supportive of science in the civil sector. It realizes it is an investment in the nation's future strength. I don't think we have a problem with Congress today. I am not sure about Congress' attitude on research in the defense area. C&EN: Do you see a pattern of essentially level research funding for the next two or three years? Press: I don't know. You can't predict in this economic climate because of the uncertainty over the budget deficits. C&EN: What is your reaction to the Administration's position that a pruning—preferably a self-pruning—of science would not be too harmful in the short run and may even be beneficial in the long run? Press: It depends on how it is implemented. I believe the Administration is right if it means that we should identify unusual opportunities in science. Keyworth's challenge is that if scientists don't do this it will be done by lawyers and accountants. It will be very hard to walk away from that kind of challenge.
C&EN: Does NAS have a role in helping identify these opportunities? Press: I would hope so. We haven't been asked yet. This is a new idea. Many of our members are urging us to become involved, initially in a philosophical way looking into how one makes such decisions, determining what criteria should be used, and examining the historical record to see how well we would have done with such an effort in the past. C&EN: This sounds like a long-term approach. Press: Not necessarily. One can do it in phases. C&EN: Both you and Keyworth have indicated that a review of the national laboratories is long overdue. Press: One of the conclusions of our convocation last October was that we should not resist, but encourage, evaluation of the institutions of science, including the national laboratories. We believe in peer review, in evaluation, and in allocating funds to the most productive people and institutions. So that kind of evaluation would have our support. C&EN: It has been pointed out by you and others that there really hasn't been an overall review of science policy in this country for 35 years. One keeps hearing that science in this country is great, but that it has grown almost by accident based on a structure put in place after World War II. Press: Whatever we have done, we have done well. We are the world's most powerful scientific nation. We are sitting on top of the heap in terms of all the great discoveries. So whatever policy we have had—including the policy of not having a policy—has worked. But in reality we have had a policy—government as the patron of basic research, decentralized support, the building up of the research universities, and peer review—altogether a pretty good policy. C&EN: Will it remain so?
Keyworth's challenge is that if we don't [identify unusual opportunities in science] it will be done by lawyers and accountants 34
C&EN April 5, 1982
Press: I hope so. This doesn't mean that from time to time we should not take stock and examine the institutions to see if they are responsive to changes that normally take place. Society changes. Research styles change. Instruments today are far more complex than they were 30 years ago, so we have to find new mechanisms for rebuilding instrumentation and laboratory facilities. There are shortages of manpower in certain fields. There are demographic changes. We have to be on top of these and understand how they affect the scientific enterprise. And there are all sorts of new things happening today, extraordinary things in terms of university/industry .relationships and the shortening of the time
C&EN: Should the scientific community somehow play a larger role in offering independent appraisals of weapons and security issues, both to the government and to the public? The current scientific advisory system is largely a captive of the defense establishment. It is appointed for and by the military and most of its work is classified.
I think the amount of real growth [in defense R&D] that is proposed is so large that I am not sure that it can be well spent
scale between a discovery in a university and commercialization. These all have policy implications that have to be understood. C&EN: If you look at the 1983 federal R&D budget, 61% of it is directly defense related. If you lump in some space shuttle costs it moves up to 64%. This is a continuation of a strong trend. This total was only 50% four years ago. So we are getting close to having two thirds of our federal R&D going to defense. Do you feel this has implications for the health and vitality of the science community, especially in its role as an independent and objective entity in society? Press: You understand that R&D in the defense budget involves the MX, the cruise missile, the stealth bomber, and other large weapons systems? C&EN: Yes. I understand that one is in some senses mixing oranges and apples when speaking of R&D together. But research and development both draw on the same scientific manpower resources. Press: Now here is an example of when I have to speak as an individual, not as a representative of NAS. I think we should have real growth in defense R&D. I think that real growth on the order of 5% may be overdue because of neglect over the years. But I also think that the amount of real growth that is proposed is so large that I am not sure it can be well spent and that it will drain resources from other important national needs. C&EN: Such as? Press: Education, precollege math and science, the support of basic science, the infrastructure of aging physical plants in this country. A reduced defense budget could see more tax money targeted into capital stock and new investments. It also could mean tax reductions targeted to productivity increases. These are my personal views.
Press: It is not so bad as you imply. When Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger wanted help with the MX missile basing mode he called in Charlie Townes [an eminent physicist at the University of California, Berkeley] and asked him to organize a committee of leading scientists. There is the Defense Science Board, the Engineering Research Advisory Board, and the National Science Board. And these boards are used. We have a Naval Studies Board and an Air Force Studies Board in NRC. And an Army Studies Board has just been established at the request of the Army. Defense and military systems are highly technological and enormous sums of money are invested in them. And I think scientists can help avoid expensive errors by debunking, by questioning, by expressing skepticism, by offering alternative routes, and by looking at procedures for testing and evaluation. This is just what these committees do. Keyworth now has his own science advisory committee. And if you look at its membership you will find some evaluators with lots of experience and a record of toughness on military systems and a capability to provide this kind of service to the White House. Now if you are proposing something completely outside this system I have described . . . C&EN: Yes, something that is genuinely independent, not appointed for or by the military. A sort of PSAC, President's Science Advisory Committee. Press: I don't want to prejudge Keyworth's new White House science advisory committee. I know the people on it. Many of them are experienced and won't hesitate to criticize. Let's see how they do. C&EN: We understand it will consider only matters brought to it by Keyworth. So it apparently won't have much independence. Press: That was really true for PSAC. When it showed too much independence it was fired. If you want to serve on a White House committee you need to know what's on the President's mind, what his preliminary views are, and what intelligence he is receiving in order to make decisions. If you want that kind of input, it seems to me that you have to give up certain prerogatives of speaking outside. In other words, there is a certain discipline in being a White House adviser. If you are unable to accept such discipline, you should not take on the job. C&EN: What about the role of providing disinterested appraisal of military systems to the public? Ultimately these are public issues, they are public decisions. Does science have an independent role in providing an appraisal to the public? Press: I think the public has a need to know... the best possible advice. And individual scientists on important issues do speak out. They testify, they make speeches. If you look at the MX debate you find prominent scientists speaking out to the public. I remember seeing a number April 5, 1982 C&EN 35
Science Policy information is freely available. We also will look into the damage to our ability to maintain world leadership in these areas if we control the flow of information. C&EN: Will it address more than military and defense issues and look into the leakage of technological information to friendly economic competitors? Press: Possibly, but the national security aspects will be the prime concern. It is a good question because there are some proposals already being put forward for regulations simply as an economic protectionist measure. We may look into that. But we will not look into industrial research. That's another subject entirely. Those in the Administration who want to restrict some aspects of university research make it quite clear that basic science is a special category, not to be restricted. What they are concerned about are the more applied subjects such as high-speed integrated circuits, advanced computer design and programing, materials, and lasers. Controls would compartmentalize and restrict the flow of information in some of the hottest fields of science and seriously damage them
of debates on public TV between government scientists and scientists on the outside on the MX basing mode. We will see the same on many other issues. C&EN: Let's move on to another issue that has been coming to a head lately—the issue of freedom of scientific information versus national security concerns over the free flow of technological information to the Soviet Union. Maybe you could tell us about the committee that NAS is establishing on this topic? Press: Yes, we have decided to go ahead and establish a committee. And we have found a chairman, Dale Corson, president emeritus of Cornell University. It will be a committee under our Committee on Science, Engineering & Public Policy. That's the highest committee level we have in this institution. We are looking for the best people we can find who understand the universities' position and the government's position on dissemination of scientific and technological information. I am certain the committee can start work this month. We have talked to the Department of Defense and other government agencies. We also are soliciting contributions from nongovernmental organizations. However, funding is not the rate-determining step. We definitely are going ahead. C&EN: What will be the broad charge to the committee? Press: The charge will be to review university research, both basic and applied, for which it is claimed there is some damage to the country if it is widely disseminated via publication, visits by foreign scientists, or other means. We would like to understand what kinds of research are critical in this sense. We also would like to know what the damage to the country would be if such 36
C&EN April 5, 1982
C&EN: But there are gray areas, such as in computer science, where basic ideas move to a product very quickly. Press: It is almost a matter of definition. Is basic science connected with computers an applied subject or a basic subject? But I agree with you that the critical area will be research that is readily applicable, easily commercializable, or easily divertible to a military system. C&EN: Your study will be in progress for about a year? Press: An interim report in six months and a final report within a year. C&EN: The Department of Commerce is moving ahead on this issue. Will NAS be able to influence the decision process? Press: Yes. There are certain issues that are so important that I will speak in advance of our committee's report. C&EN: Do you have an idea now of what these issues might be? Press: I am concerned about a proposed executive order on which some Congressional members have been invited to comment. I would argue very strongly against it if it proposes a new, vaguely defined, classification category on scientific research—not because it is directly related to defense or to military systems but because a relative advantage that we might have might be dissipated. Controls would compartmentalize and restrict the flow of information in some of the hottest fields of science today and seriously damage them. Not only that, they would drive the universities out of research in these fields. And in many of these fields the universities are our best research performers. So we would be tying our hands— paralyzing ourselves from becoming the leaders in these fields. If decisions are imminent, I would have to speak out in advance of our report. C&EN: I assume you have read the presentation of Adm. Bobby Inman, deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, at the American Association for
the Advancement of Science meeting in Washington, D.C., this January. He suggested that national security considerations should be included in the peer-review process for seemingly very wide areas of science. Press: I would have to talk to him about that to see specifically what he has in mind. It is one thing if he has in mind delays in publication in certain very critical areas that are similar to delays universities already tolerate, to a certain extent, to protect a patent or because of some agreement with an industrial firm. If he means stopping publication altogether for an indefinite amount of time it will drive universities away and damage the country. But I think the spirit of his talk was to open a dialogue. He is one of the most open people in the intelligence establishment. C&EN: What is your interpretation of the sudden, intense increase in the concern over this apparent leakage of science and technology, particularly to the Soviet Union? It seems to have become a crucial issue with this Administration. Press: Some of it started earlier—such as a voluntary review system for cryptology research. Some of it also started after the Soviet move into Afghanistan. There is no question there has been a technological flow from the West into Soviet military systems. Sometimes it has been through third countries in the western alliance, sometimes through the clandestine acquisition of hardware. But many of those in the Administration who are concerned about this don't have scientific backgrounds and they can't differentiate between somebody getting manufacturing know-how by buying equipment for integrated circuits illegally and the normal processes of scientific research—publications, meetings, and so on. Those in government with technological backgrounds understand this and they are trying to explain it to the policy makers.
C&EN: This education process is apparently heavy going, judging by recent comments from Department of Defense officials. Press: I don't think decisions have been made yet. Also, there are some in Congress we have to talk to on these issues. That is why we want to undertake the NRC study and do it as fast as we can. I think these issues still will be with us six months, even a year from now. They are not going to go away. C&EN: But won't new regulations be in place in six months or a year from now? Press: Some may. Most may not. There are Constitutional questions involved and it takes a long time to come through with a policy proposal and clear it with the Justice Department, other agencies, and Congressional committees. C&EN: When you were Science Adviser you were advised that some provisions of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations of the Department of State could be unconstitutional. Can revisions to these regulations and to Commerce's export control regulations be written narrowly enough to avoid raising Constitutional questions? Press: I am not a lawyer, but I am skeptical, especially if they were applied to lecturing, publishing, and teaching: C&EN: To what extent do you see the scientific community resisting proposed constraints on the normal practices of research? Press: Professional societies, AAAS, and many universities have protested. I would say they will resist any regulation that will change the character of openness of the university such as differential barriers for certain kinds of students. Universities would contest these proposals and get out of those affected fields on which controls are imposed. C&EN: Have the scientific exchanges between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. been as one-sided as the Defense Department and the intelligence community claim? Press: Not in recent years. C&EN: The Commerce Department claims that U.S. scientists don't want to go over there to study. Is that true?
There are lots of proposals for symposia and seminars in those fields where the Soviets are just as good as we are
Press: We don't have any problems filling our quota of scientists who want to go to the Soviet Union. Moreover, there are lots of proposals for symposia and seminars in those fields where the Soviets are just as good as we are—condensed matter physics, astrophysics, fusion physics, particle physics, catalysis, and certain aspects of metallurgy and earthquake prediction as well as the study of coronary disease and certain cancer agents. In the future, for many reasons, I doubt that we will cooperate in any field with the Soviet Union except when we are equals. For one reason, American scientists don't want to waste their time unless they can get something out of it. • April 5, 1982 C&EN
37
