Government
NSF mulls reorganizing applied science Morale sags under possibility of third revamping in three years; major stimulus is threat of proposed National Technology Foundation
For the third time in three years, the National Science Foundation may reorganize its applied science programs. The applied science staff, by now reorganization-weary, is in the words of one, "ready to jump out the windows." They fear applied science, which once sailed high and mighty at the foundation, is in the final throes of disintegration. The NSF administration says the issue merely is being studied and that no reorganization at all could take place. But the disclaimers offer no balm to the staff. They feel bullied about by the games of musical chairs and have all but given up hope that
applied science will survive as a visible entity in an agency always dedicated to academic basic science and the research aspects of engineering. Still, NSF's leaders are telling the staff not to worry. Among them is National Science Board chairman Lewis M. Branscomb, chief scientist at IBM and a strong candidate to become president of the National Academy of Sciences. They insist that applied science is not about to be eaten alive by basic science. It could, in fact, experience a new state of vigor at NSF because if the reorganization contemplated is agreed on, applied science will lose its orphan status. Currently, applied science is combined with engineering in an Engineering & Applied Science Directorate. It is headed by physicist Jack Sanderson, a veteran of the past two reorganizations. In conversation punctuated with sighs, he acknowledges the ennui felt by his applied science staff and says he is dedicated to making as smooth a transition as possible. He adds that the stabs of
pain come from knowing that the applied science program has worked. The structure being proposed would establish a separate engineering directorate, making the academic engineers happy, if not ecstatic, and spreading applied science, discipline by discipline, throughout the basic science sections and divisions. It no longer would be visible as a separate entity at the foundation. An era therefore would come to an end, a grand experiment in bipolar administration that probably was doomed in the beginning. Applied science began its rise in the early 1970's when the call to make science relevant to society's "needs" created a small program called Interdisciplinary Research Related to Problems of Society. Like parish monsignors shocked by the introduction of a non-Latin Mass, most old NSF hands grumbled at the change. It was bad enough, they felt, that NSF was sponsoring research in weather modification. But helping New York City collect its garbage was
NSF's applied research programs have been organized three ways in past four years Research Applied to National Needs (RANN) (1977)
Applied Science & Research Applications (1978)
Engineering & Applied Science Directorate (1979)
Division of advanced energy research and technology
Division of integrated basic research
Division of electrical, computer, and systems engineering
Division of advanced research and technology
Division of applied research
Division of chemical and process engineering
Division of advanced productivity research and technology
Division of problem-focused research applications
Division of civil and mechanical engineering
Office of exploratory research and problem assessment
Division of intergovernmental science and public technology
Division of applied research
Office of programs and resources
Division of problem-focused research
Office of systems integration and analysis
Division of intergovernmental science and public technology
Office of public technology projects Office of experimental R&D incentives
. . . and now may be moved to proposed engineering directorate
. . . and distributed throughout the rest of NSF directorates
Electrical engineering Computer sciences and engineering Chemical and process engineering Civil engineering Mechanical engineering Industrial engineering
Mathematical and physical sciences Astronomical, atmospheric, earth, and ocean sciences Biological, behavioral, and social sciences Science education Scientific, technological, and international affairs
Aug.
18, 1980 C&EN
17
Federal Alert— new regulations This listing covers noteworthy regulations appearing in the Federal Register from July ΙΊ to Aug. '/. Page numbers refer to those issues. PROPOSED Energy Department—Proposes to revise regulations for licensing of DOE-owned patents; comments by Aug. 21 (July 22, page 48910). Proposes general policy for pricing materials and services sold by DOE; comments by Aug. 28 (July 29. page 50355). Environmental Protection Agency—Pro poses seven additional waste materials to be listed as hazardous wastes under Resource Conservation & Recovery Act; comments by Sept. 15 (July 16, page 47835). Proposes health effects testing of chloromethane and all chlorinated benzenes— except hexachlorobenzene under Toxic Substances Control Act; comments by Oct. 31 (July 18, page 48524). Proposes effluent discharge limitations from inorganic chemical manufacturing plants under Clean Water Act; comments by Sept. 22 (July 24, page 49450). National Atmospheric & Oceanic Admin istration—Advance notice of proposed rules for exploration and mining of deep-seabed hard mineral resources; comments by Aug. 31 (July 28, page 49953). Transportation Department—Proposes changes in construction and maintenance standards for railroad cars used to transport hazardous materials; comments by Sept. 18 (July 2 1 , page 48671). FINAL Environmental Protection Agency—Es tablishes procedures for manufacturers to incorporate electric vehicles into EPA fuel economy program; effective Aug. 25 (July 24, page 49256). Establishes procedures that EPA and states will use to assess and collect noncompliance penalties under Clean Air Act; effective Oct. 27 (July 28, page 50086). NOTICES Environmental Protection Agency—An nounces intention not to require any further testing of acrylamide under Toxic Sub stances Control Act; comments by Oct. 31 (July 18, page 48510). Announces availability of draft guidelines for rules to protect visibility in certain federal class I areas; comments by Aug. 25 (July 23, page 49110). Issues policy statement on labeling re quirements for exported pesticides and pesticide active ingredients and procedures for exporting unregistered pesticides (July 28. page 50274). Nuclear Regulatory Commission—An nounces proposed availability of 1981 funds to assist technology transfer and spread nuclear energy process and safety infor mation (July 25. page 49728).
18
C&EN Aug. 18, 1980
blasphemy in the extreme. Further violations of the foundation's purity came when the Nixon Administration launched a "New Technological Op portunities Program/' which in the main fizzled under the discovery that most technological opportunities al ready were being pursued. But one Friday the Office of Management & Budget called and told NSF to figure out ways of spending an extra $100 million for relevant research. So during the weekend, NSF's of ficials established a program that came to be known as Research Ap plied to National Needs (RANN), and brought over from the National Aeronautics & Space Administration about-to-be-released technocrats who rolled up their sleeves in the thrill of applying space age systems tech niques to the civil sector. Heading RANN was Albert Eggers, an engineer who quickly ran afoul of the entire "other part" of NSF. The problem was that RANN's budget was getting bigger and bigger while holding itself more and more aloof from everyone else. Eggers' breezy, unreflective, "A-O.K." manner was no help and the combination of a personality conflict with NSF direc tor Richard Atkinson and a searing criticism of RANN by a social science panel sent Eggers packing and RANN down the drain. RANN's successor was Applied Science & Research Applications (ASRA), a gingerbread contrivance of every possible way to name ap proaches to applying science to ev erything else. Its plan was interesting in its honest attempt to integrate re search with the search for opportu nities. There were projects driven by problems, projects driven by the op portunities presented by basic re search, projects established simply to explore new opportunities, projects to aid small business, projects to inte grate academic research with indus trial laboratories. The permutations and combinations were infinite. But ASRA soon was laid to rest because engineering at the foundation, more orphaned than any area, was unhap py as part of the directorate for mathematical and physical sciences. Everyone knew that engineering, however basic, was nevertheless re lated to problem solving and belonged back with applied science. The new proposed organization gives engineering the status of a di vision for the first time in its rather unhappy history at NSF, while ap plied science becomes a more passive component of research. Rather than thrusting out like some hydra looking actively for opportunities, it will be told to relax and focus on good disci plinary work.
Branscomb: a lot of wheel spinning
Is this new approach wise, NSF wants to know. Branscomb tells C&EN that anyone interested in furthering the debate should come to the next National Science Board meeting Aug. 21 in Room 540 at the foundation. At that time the board will discuss the current plan and re ceive advice from the outside. "At this point, I can't say whether in the end there will be a reorganiza tion/' he says. "But since I joined the board, I do know that there's been an enormous amount of wheel spinning generated by the ambiguity over ap plied research—whether it is useful, problem-solving, or societal. We need a language that enables people to talk about all three while distinguishing them/' One individual who is all for the change is engineer Carl Willenbrock, dean of engineering at Southern Methodist University. Willenbrock is no stranger to the Washington science bureaucracy, having once headed applied technology programs at the National Bureau of Standards. "NSF," says Willenbrock, "should get off the pot and start giving more support to engineering. Their diffi culty is that they consider engineering as the applications of what they do in science. That simply isn't the case. Engineering has its own tradition that isn't recognized by science." It is no secret that the major shove for the change came from Rep. George Brown (D.-Calif.) of the House Science & Technology Com mittee. Brown has introduced a bill, H.R. 6910, establishing a National Technology Foundation which would pull all applied research and engi neering out of NSF and combine it with technological elements (Patent & Trademark Office, National Bu reau of Standards) in the Commerce Department.
The idea horrified everyone in all the agencies affected and has sent them scurrying to satisfy Brown with alternative plans. (Brown says an NTF could be unnecessary if they manage to raise the visibility of technology.) Nevertheless, the engineering community and all its major societies have endorsed Brown's idea of establishing an agency fully the equal in size and dollars of NSF. Says M. Kent Wilson, NSF's director of planning and resource management: "The big concern is how best to serve the community. It is certainly true that we have no intention of coming up with an organization that would jeopardize applied research. Nor should anything we do be perceived that we would jeopardize basic research. Putting them together might just be better for both of them." Maybe not worse, but certainly different. The era of fancy-Dan systems approaches to science application appears over at the foundation in
the management of applied research. It is retrenching in the face of Brown's demand for a large technological bureaucracy and will try to focus on giving good money for good work without laying heavy claim to social relevance. Enough literature in science policy now exists to make a convincing case that the social climate really drives science—whether basic or applied. NSF has never really taken the measure of that climate in establishing a successful, stable applied science program. But even the staunchest of NSF's governing body will have to admit that but for RANN, NSF would not be the billion-dollar agency it is today. And indeed, one NSF observer sees history moving full cycle in five years when someone at the foundation will discover the "need" to systematically apply science to social problems and will beat the bushes looking for a new, improved Eggers. Wil Lepkowski, Washington
NSF chemistry funding draws praise A review of the way the National Science Foundation's Chemistry Division dispenses its grant money has drawn unanimous praise from a group of previously skeptical but now admiring chemists. Seven committees, one for each of the division's seven program areas, all conclude that the chemistry division operates extremely well and that the individual program directors are doing their duties conscientiously and with good judgment. Paul G. Gassman, chemistry professor at the University of Minnesota and chairman of the NSF Chemistry Division Advisory Committee, says that some of the committee members were so impressed by the quality of the operation that they commented it is unfortunate that more individuals cannot see firsthand how well the system works.
The study is part of a continuous program at NSF to review all divisions to weed out problems. The first review of the chemistry division was three years ago, and, even then, the division received good marks from its examiners. The seven panels each were comprised of two members from the division's permanent advisory committee and two to four scientists from the chemical community at large. The outside members were chosen by NSF staff members, based on recommendations made by the advisory committee. Chemistry division director Richard S. Nicholson says that a beneficial part of the process is that scientists get a chance to see how value judgments are made. Each panel spent one day discussing its own program and a second day cross-examining two other pro-
NSF chemistry program budgets made big jumps this year $ Thousands
1980
Structural chemistry and 10,717 thermodynamics Quantum chemistry 8,500 Chemical dynamics 10,030 5,862 Chemical analysis Synthetic inorganic and 5,725 organometallic chemistry Synthetic organic and 6,152 natural products chemistry Chemical instrumentation 4,226 Note: Fiscal years. Source: National Science Foundation
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
9424
8847
8767
7705
7225
7388 8506 5174 5158
6950 7747 5008 4861
6728 7133 4597 4392
5859 6103 4283 3807
5705 5611 4231 3530
5559
5168
4604
3735
3574
3505
3243
2712
2596
2591
Nlcholson: already making changes
grams. The grants and proposals seen by the panels were selected by the NSF staff. Some were picked because they were good, others because they were bad, Nicholson says. However, the majority were in borderline areas for which program directors often have to make value judgments on whether to fund. Reviewers had access to all the files, however, Nicholson says, except those of their own institutions. Although the program is being run well, all the review teams were consistently dismayed at the large number of good research proposals that had to be declined for lack of money. The committee believes that this problem is most prominent in synthetic organic chemistry, structural chemistry, quantum chemistry, and chemical dynamics programs, but agrees that the cutoff point for ap>rovals in all the programs is at a high evel of quality. Money, of course, is at the base of the issue. If NSF were to get larger appropriations from Congress, the situation would improve by itself. In 1980, the chemistry division spent more than $51 million on almost 900 grants. For fiscal 1981, it is slated for about $58 million, an increase of about 15%, but the budget has yet to be approved. The number of grants is expected to stay about the same. Some of the panel members, including Jean'ne M. Shreeve, head of the instrumentation panel and chemistry professor at the University of Idaho, say that grants need to be larger to enable researchers to do the quality science they are proposing. Shreeve says that the situation has reached the point where, unless NSF is given a lot more money, "I would be in favor of giving fewer grants in larger amounts even if it meant cutting off some research."
[
Aug. 18, 1980 C&EN
19
