government
OPPONENTS FAIL TO KILL ATP Despite efforts of some members of Congress, White House support saves Advanced Technology Program
T
he Advanced Technology Program is supposed to be history. When the Republican Party took control of the House of Representatives nearly two years ago, federal research assistance to corporations became anathema. Part of the Department of Commerce, itself targeted for oblivion, ATP seemed doomed. Yet it survived. Whether its continued existence is seen as a triumph of reason over blind ideology or as the unfortunate result of political compromise in an election year, the program is funded through fiscal 1997 and plans new award competitions. At the National Institute for Standards & Technology, from which ATP operates, there is a feeling of relief and encouragement. "We're very happy to be alive and have the money for fiscal 1996 and 1997," says NIST Director Arati Prabhakar. "It means we can keep our commitments on existing awards—and that is critical—and even allows us to keep the pot brewing to a small degree by having new competitions." But the struggle has left the program far from what had been envisioned. ATP began life in 1988. With bipartisan congressional support, it was included in the Omnibus Trade & Competitiveness Act of that year with the aim of encouraging the transfer and development of precompetitive technologies with broad application across industries. Its initial budget was $10 million for fiscal 1989. In 1995, Congress appropriated $441 million for ATP. The program was supposed to get $680 million in fiscal 1997. But this rocket of growth was shot down in 1995. Republican budget cutters deleted $100 million from ATP's fiscal '95 budget, leaving it with $341 million, and set its 1996 budget at zero. The reason: a significant change from the competitiveness concerns of Congress in the 1980s to the deficit reduction intensity of the 1990s. Politically, too, many Republicans 26 NOVEMBER 11, 1996 C&EN
strongly believe that the government's role is to provide support for very basic research only, and that funding more "applied" research, research that is aimed a developing a specific product, is "corporate welfare" and inappropriate. Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Science Committee, believes very strongly in this and was a leader in the effort to kill ATP. Despite the relatively small size of the program—its funding is less than one-half of 1% of the federal research and development budget—support for ATP became a serious matter. An industry group called the Coalition for Technology Partnerships formed to lobby Congress for support for ATP and other technology-based funding programs. The coalition has more than 100 corporate members. This support, plus Congress' problems in trying to eliminate the entire Department of Commerce, led to some budgeting compromises and to the program's fiscal '96 funding at $221 million. "ATP is still around for the very simple reason of the commitment of the White House and of the [industrial] community to make sure it didn't die," Prabhakar says. She credits staunch Administration support in negotiations with Congress for keeping the program viable. "The president has a real commitment to the idea that technology is essential to any overall economic strategy. Programs like ATP are viewed as a key part of building a link between the $70 billion we spend on research and development with taxpayer money and the rest of the economy. This program is a very highly leveraged piece of that link. I think that is why the commitment has been so strong." That commitment has not made the issue go away. Appropriations for the fiscal 1997 budget for ATP were very small. The House voted the program only $110 million and the Senate a barely sustainable $60 million. Again, Administration and industry support rescued the budget, which
Prabhakar: we can keep our commitments
was finally set at $225 million, just under 40% of NIST's total $588 million budget. This is the first time ATP administrator Lura J. Powell has had a budget in place at the start of a new fiscal year. "We definitely have money to pay our ongoing obligations, and we will be able to run a general competition," Powell says. When that competition will occur isn't settled yet, but it will happen unless an obstinate Congress takes funds away again next year. The general competition ATP held this year resulted in 309 proposals. "When you consider we had $25 million to give out, that is a pretty good showing," Powell says. "And that includes the fact that we have not run a competition in over a year. I've been talking to people at a number of our own workshops and other meetings and people seem to be enthusiastic." ATP's roller-coaster funding might have made some companies, especially larger ones, leery of taking NIST on as a partner, given the chance of sudden money cutoffs, but industry support remains strong. "This is a very important issue for us because the whole point of partnerships has to be a sense of trust," Prabhakar says. "This past year has been tough on the trust relationship." The controversy surrounding ATP has made it one of the most heavily evaluated technology programs in government. Over the past year, several studies seemed to either support or oppose the program's ideals. More are in the pipeline. "We have some longer term studies coming out looking at spillovers," Powell says. "In other words, how the technology developed under ATP can cascade throughout the
economy. We have studies looking at some of our projects that are completed and some of our earlier joint ventures and the benefits evolving from those." Some of these evaluations might be out by the end of next month, according to Powell. One study will look at the socalled 2-mm project, which is designed to produce much tighter dimensions on automobile parts. Powell notes that the project, which involves not only the major automobile makers but also the whole supplier chain, led to the creation of a big consortium of universities and large and small businesses. ATP projects devoted directly to chemistry are relatively few, Powell says, and most of those are the result of a focused competition of a couple of years ago on catalysis. But, she adds, a review of all the funded projects shows that about 30% of them have heavy chemical components, including chemistry at interfaces, materials projects, and biotechnology. Arguments that such technology research should not be funded by the government, or specifically by the Commerce Department, are refuted by Prabhakar and Powell. Congressional plans to split NIST away from Commerce and put it into another research office do not sit well either. Prabhaker says, "I spent seven years over at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and saw some very important government-industry partnerships in the defense context and some very important partnerships happen at NSF. They are not substitutes for ATP. What we're trying to do at NIST and the Commerce Department is unique because it is explicitly focused on the economic objective." "NIST is the only federal technology agency that has a specific mission of service to U.S. industry," Powell says. When ATP was created, Congress believed that NIST "with the support its laboratories have with a broad breadth of technology and its very strong industry focus would be the best place to implement the program." She adds that the expertise at NIST labs is essential to the smooth functioning of ATP. "We need it from the point of view of reviewers for our proposals and because NIST people can be used as technical consultants as the projects go along. Working closely with the ATP companies, the projects also give NIST researchers a very good idea where industry is heading so we see what standards, calibrations, and other measurement technologies are going to be needed in the future," Powell explains. The future might depend somewhat on
communities around the eight continental stockpile locations informed. But, the committee argues, the Army must move quickly beyond public relations and outreach. "Unless the Army takes the additional step of ensuring public involvement . . . opposition to the disposal program will probably delay disposal and thereby increase the cumulative risk," the committee warns. More so than differences in available disposal technologies, delays increase the risk to the public, the committee states. Delays translate to continued storage of the weapons, which, in turn, increases the possibility of chemical agent releases caused by leakage or exThe Army's program to destroy the na- ternal events such as earthquakes. tion's chemical weapons arsenal is way The committee suggests that an imover initial budget and far beyond its ini- portant conduit for public input could be tial completion deadline. One of the key the citizens advisory commissions that reasons is that the Army has failed to in- have been set up at each of the eight volve the public in a meaningful way in chemical weapons disposal sites. These its decision-making process. commissions, however, need more fundThis point was hammered home once ing from the Army for travel and techniagain by the National Research Council's cal assistance, the committee says. Stockpile Committee. In a recent report, And it says the Army's participation in the public involvement process must be deep and visible, involving senior program management. In the past, however, that management has expressed concerns that more public involvement would shift the reins of control from the Army to the public. Not so, the committee counters. Public participation in decisions regarding the disposal Army's chemical weapons destruction facilityin Toole, Utah. program does not translate to public control of the committee noted that the Army's the program. Ultimately, program deciChemical Stockpile Disposal Program sions must reside with the Army, which, (CSDP) "is at a critical juncture" in its after all, bears responsibility for the conpublic affairs strategy, and must now sequences of those decisions, the commove "to increase substantially and insti- mittee explains. tutionalize public involvement." But the committee suggests the pubLack of public participation, the com- lic does have a legitimate interest in— mittee states, has resulted in "lack of trust and should have input into—decisions afin the Army on the part of the stockpile fecting the selection of disposal technolcommunities. . . . The Army's program is ogy, monitoring operations to ensure widely perceived as being unresponsive safety and environmental protection, and to community concerns." And, the determining the fate of the facility after committee believes, restoring commu- all weapons are destroyed. nity trust in the Army will be difficult. The Army agrees with NRC's concluReluctant at first to even have a public sions "that public involvement activities relations program, the Army has made need to be enhanced." Says Maj. Gen. great strides—it now has a viable public Robert D. Orton, program manager for outreach effort, one that through fo- chemical demilitarization, "We've made rums, workshops, and surveys keeps great strides in our public information
last week's elections. The Republican chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that works out the Commerce Department's and NIST's budget has already indicated that he will target ATP for elimination next year. Referring to ATP and other corporate grant programs, Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) says they are examples of government waste and he will set their budgets at zero. David Hanson
Public needs voice in chemical arms disposal
NOVEMBER 11, 1996 C&EN 27
