investment climate for high-tech business through enacting a permanent R&D tax credit, and a capital gains tax cut depending on the size and innovative nature of a company, as well as changing the stmcture and function of industry panels advising the government. • Maintenance of a high level of basic research funding at the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health. NSF will receive an additional $207 million in fiscal 1993 to bring its budget u p to $2.9 billion. NSF also is slated to receive an additional $2.3 billion over the next four years, including funds for university research facilities and instrumentation. The biggest beneficiary of this new emphasis on high technology, however, will be the National Institute of Standards & Technology. Its budget will soar from the current $393 million to $1.37 billion in fiscal 1997. Its Advanced Technology Program of matching grants to industry will rise in four years from the airrent $68 million to $758 million. And the manufacturing extension center program will rise from $19 million to $92 million over the same period. On the other hand, some science and
technology programs are targeted for major cuts. The Superconducting Super Collider has survived, but its construction will be stretched out to beyond the year 2000. The troubled space station will be saved from the axe, but will be substantially reconfigured in light of its vast cost overruns. Research on nuclear power "that has no commercial or other identified application" will be dropped at DOE, while the department increases funding for renewable energy and conservation $1.4 billion between fiscal 1994 and fiscal 1997. And Clinton calls for eliminating the Tennessee Valley Authority's fertilizer research program at Muscle Shoals, Ala. Robert L. Stern, a private consultant in Washington, D.C., likes Clinton's agenda. Says Stern: "I've had a bit of a hand in a lot of past programs and messages involving technology. But this is a far better integrated approach than any of the others. It tells me that technology is no longer a little side show in federal economic policy. It was clear that neither the President or Vice President needed much staff or speech writers to deal with these subjects/' VV/7 L'pkowski, Bette Hilenmn, Marc Reisch
House panel targets academic pork barrel The House Science, Space & Technology Committee is stepping u p its efforts to curb Congressional pork-barrel funding of academic science—the practice of funding specific projects and facilities through unauthorized earmarked appropriations that bypass usual legislative and peer review processes. C o m m i t t e e c h a i r m a n G e o r g e E. Brown Jr. (D.-Calif.) told reporters at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Boston that his panel plans high-profile hearings within the next two months. Witnesses will include university presidents, members of Congress, and lobbyists who promote earmarking. And last week the committee began a mail survey of colleges that receive such earmarked funds. Brown notes that, according to the Congressional Research Service, the total value of earmarks has risen 70-fold since 1980. Academic earmarks between federal fiscal-year 1980 and fiscal 1992 totaled more than $2.5 billion. Fiscal 1992 appropriations bills and reports contained 500 earmarked projects
for academic institutions, with a net value of $707 million. "Congressional pork barreling threatens many of the science and technology initiatives of the new Administration, which risk being sabotaged by parochial political interests," Brown stresses. "Money that is diverted by Congress to fund earmarks comes out of the hide of other programs—publicly debated, peer reviewed, carefully scrutinized programs." After talks with the Administration, Brown expects it to support the panel's efforts. As part of its investigation, the committee sent letters to a sample of 50 U.S. universities that were given a total of $225 million in earmarks by fiscal 1993 appropriations bills. The letters ask for a detailed description of how the money is being spent, whether the schools sought funding elsewhere prior to Congressional action, information on any peer or merit review process the project underwent, and copies of any public testimony to Congress about the program. "I recognize some of the legitimate pressures that lead to earmarking, such
as the absence of an adequately funded, merit-reviewed program to support academic facilities," Brown notes. "I am sure that many of these projects are meritorious. I am not convinced, however, that this is a legitimate way of funding science programs." Rudy Baum
AAAS president sounds warning for scientists Scientists have contributed enormously to human welfare since World War II. But to retain public support for their efforts, they must do a much better job of explaining what they do. And they need to ensure their efforts are focused on seeking remedies to a host of pressing national and world problems— some brought on by scientific and technological errors in the past. That message was delivered by F. Sherwood Rowland, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in a plenary lecture at AAAS's annual meeting in Boston. Rowland is professor of chemistry at the University of California, Irvine, and is renowned for his seminal work on the role of man-made chemicals in stratospheric ozone depletion. Rowland stresses that "if we as a society are unable to discriminate between useful, intelligent opportunities for scientific and technological advancement with real problem-solving possibilities, and relatively useless, big-
Rowland: do better job of explaining FEBRUARY 22, 1993 C&EN 5
