NEWS FOCUS
NAS's Frank Press: New Shapes for Science Policy The past decade has been a time of sweeping changes in just about every area of personal, political, cultural, and institutional life. The rise of women and blacks in the professions, the explosion around the world of ideological fervor, the accelerating velocity in the movement of capital, the information revolution through computer and communications developments, the sudden realization that every country in the world had quick access to innovative technology. Developments in science and technology are tantalizing, surrounding, and even engulfing these larger cultural shifts. Videocassette technology has brought forceful, sensual presence to rock music; devotees of artificial intelligence rhapsodize over the inevitability of mimicking the mind and steering social evolution with interactive super computing) biotechnologists spin their own tales of genes doing factory work; even scientific research is itself being transformed by speed and precision in instrumentation. Research now seems to be one system, one common way of life and values. What would seem to be needed, then, is sense and sensibility in understanding the impact of the technical revolution or the new paradigm. If there is any single place to turn to for some perspective on change it should be the National Academy of Sciences. And from the looks of things, the academy, under its president, Frank Press, is gearing up—or in a metaphor more current—changing its software to do just that. The academy has established an industry-government-university unit to study their many common problems. It soon will be establishing programs in the history and philosophy of science. It What are the fundamental shifts going on in the substance of science today and in the political processes that relate to the scientific enterprise? What's remarkable about science today is the rapidity of advance in so many different fields. It is a phenomenon specific to our times and it's due to a number of factors, mainly the large numbers of scientists at work and the new scientific equipment that allows measurements of unprecedented precision to be made. Then when you add to this that the boundaries between science and technology are eroding, and that in many core technologies the time between scientific progress and commercial use is shortening, we are
began a new journal on science and technology policy. This year it will break ground on a new conference center on the West Coast. Advisory capability for state governments and industry is in the works. Its international program is expanding to meet new problems. C&EN senior editor Wil Lepkowski recently visited with Press to discuss this new era of science and technology, and these are some of his thoughts for the late 1980s. really in a period of historical economic transition for industry, agriculture, and the service sector that will be driven by scientific and technological progress. We've seen changes in the university, in its linkages with industry. We've seen restrictions on the flow of technology across borders. The structure for doing science is being transformed before our eyes and I hope we will see the forest for the trees. When do you think this all began? There are components of this that are as recent as this year or last year. There are components that go back as far as Vannevar Bush and World War II, when the March 3, 1986 C&EN
7
News Focus power of science in terms of winning wars was evident. But with respect to the era that I'm talking about, there's no one event that I can point to. The competition with the Japanese certainly captured interest in this country in competitiveness and what we were doing to increase productivity and the quality of our products. I would say that beginning with President Ford we were looking at improved attitudes toward basic research, though a big factor in this might have been inflation. Nevertheless, in terms of the opportunities that we see, where marginal increases in investment in science could reap enormous returns, the budgets in science could have been better, although they have been quite handsome compared with other things.
rate of discovery and there is not enough money to pursue all of the new leads.
What are your major concerns about the health of the university research system? Research universities are beset by a number of problems, some of which are of their own making, some of which are due to conditions beyond their control. There are demographic changes, such as fewer students. If that implies smaller faculties, what you're cutting down is not only teaching but also research capacity because our university departments are in a sense research institutes as well as teaching departments. Second, if you accept my premise that the government now views the support of science as essential to the future economic viability and security of the country, and therefore is a patron of science, you have to criticize the lack of support for facilities for some 25 years now. And as you move into new frontiers of science, you need different kinds of laboratories and facilities. I hope that this will not be a casualty of the Gramm-Rudman era. Third, science is dependent on young, creative people entering the system. If because of future cutbacks or because of the nature of university problems we don't bring new people into the system, then what we're doing is mortgaging the future. And if you go down field by field and ask what are the great discoveries, you see how essential it is to bring the best young people to the system.
The National Science Foundation has established a series of Engineering Research Centers to apply university basic research to solving what are essentially industrial problems. How do you compare this program with that of NSF's Research Applied to National Needs program of a decade ago? The RANN program was put together in a hurry to protect NSF by showing that it had relevance. They brought in a lot of people who didn't know the NSF tradition. And the main criticism I and others had of RANN at that time was not that they were changing the foundation into an applied science organization but that too much of wha,t they were doing was put together without adequate peer review. There were too many decisions made at the staff level with only window dressing outside review. The engineering centers have some interesting characteristics. They came out of recommendations outside of NSF, and outside of the government. A lot of it was related to some of our own reports on forefront fields. What's different today is that the boundaries between science and technology are eroding. Tech-
It is obviously a fascinating and interesting time for science and technology. But when you go to where these exciting things are happening, university campuses, you find everyone under stress and rush. You don't seem to see much joy on the campuses. Is this an accurate observation? What you're describing is probably an accurate situation. The American scientific community gets treated well compared to other countries. But the rapid pace of discovery that I've just described is real. So many new fields are being opened up. They're expensive to get into. The excitement is so great. But there's not enough money to explore them all. Everybody is trying somehow to piece together different sources of support to get into all of these things—to buy that new piece of equipment, to build this new team. And so there is that state of stress where the impetus is the 8
March 3, 1986 C&EN
Do you fear a decline in the health of U.S. science due to the decline in the numbers and quality of kids interested in science? I don't want to cry wolf because I don't know what's going to happen in the next few years in terms of budgetary support. But what I can say is that I fear unrealized opportunity rather than a decline. On the other hand, state-by-state there are changing attitudes toward education—requirements for graduation, teacher salaries, credentialing requirements for teachers—that are taking place that you didn't see in the 1970s. So there is a new national concern.
Research universities are beset by a number of problems, some of which are of their own making, some of which are due to conditions beyond their control
nology's helping science and vice versa, and many of the interesting problems in technology open fascinating fields for scientists—the next generation of miniaturization of chips opens all sorts of new areas for surface physics and chemistry, new kinds of materials on the atomic scale, providing new instruments such as different types of electron microscopes and surface imaging devices that can see molecules; all made available by technology. So it's a sign of our times that applied science-basic science, the old facile definitions are disappearing. The poetry, beauty, and intellectual content are still there, but the artificial divisions are gone. And I think these engineering centers reflect that. What do you think will be the criteria for success of these programs ? I hope they are evaluated over time, because we have to learn to turn things off when resources are limited. Allocations should go to productive places. And I hope the evaluations are by mixed teams, not exclusively industrial firms, or academic groups, but by teams that will look at a variety of criteria: the generation of new knowledge, the training of students, whether these interdisciplinary teams really work, whether the people stuck to their own specialties and used the Engineering Research Centers as vehicles to support the things they were doing anyway, whether there were symbiotic relationships between the surface physicists and materials engineers, and whether the concept of involving industry worked, and how. Evaluators would ask questions like: Did the new knowledge show up in any improved industrial process or technology? Did the new knowledge show up in any basic conceptual breakthrough in science? What was the record of publication in review journals? Where did the graduates go? Was the training as good as in the conventional routes for the graduate degree? Do you see any danger that science can be oversold and produce a backlash — such as the promises of the Strategic Defense Lnitiative (SDL) and meeting competitiveness through technology? We're making enormous commitment of public monies in science and technology. We still have all the Third World problems and one can question how effective science and technology have been in solving those problems. If you look at the sources of instability in the world, then it is very naive to think science can solve all of them. The issues are mainly political, social, and economic, and scientists are sideline observers of most decisions that are made. So I can't think of any responsible scientist who would say to make this a technocratic world. Nevertheless, scientists can make contributions of significance. But isn't there a perception in the public mind that science can do all these things? Let's get down to a practical example—biotechnology, one of the most hyped fields of science. Think of all the things that have been said about biotechnology
If you look at the sources of instability in the world, then it is very naive to think science can solve all of them
in the health area, in the cure and prevention of disease, agriculture, energy, new industrial processes. Think of the enormous new investments that have been made, the thousands of companies that have been started. There's very little money being made today in biotechnology despite all these investments. But I don't think that there is any doubt in anybody's mind who understands what the biotechnology revolution is about, that most of what's predicted eventually will happen. It's a tool that's unimaginable, getting down to the molecular nature of living things. The big companies, the venture capitalists, those who don't throw their money away, know it, too, and are sticking with it. Let's turn to SDL. Do you think it's been over-hyped? Do you think there's been too much din in the debate over it? And is the academy prepared to have a debate over the whole issue? I've just had regional meetings of the academy in seven cities. And in every city the issue came up. We have a long-term history of being a friendly ally and adviser to the government. With a Presidential initiative like SDI, I think the academy should be invited by Congress or the President or by a Cabinet officer to render any advice on this question. But SDI falls into a different category. To present knowledgeable advice you need access to classified information. That's not true with developing a national strategy for AIDS [acquired immune deficiency syndrome], which we are undertaking on our own. Certainly if you're requested to help out, then the requesters will listen to what you have to say because they've asked you. The House of Representatives in its appropriation bill specifically asked the academy March 3, 1986 C&EN
9
News Focus to undertake such a study. The Senate didn't have it. And in conference it was dropped. In the future it may come back. We may be asked to play a role. I'm hesitant to initiate a study on our own for the reasons I outlined. But if we were asked we could do it fairly and in a balanced way. Is it likely you'll be asked during the present Administration ? I don't know. It's technologically an extremely complicated issue, with a lot of difficulties and uncertainties. In the history of NAS, regardless of the Administration, whenever an issue like that has come up, we've always been asked. We'll see what happens. Could you take less than a comprehensive critique — policy, strategic? Isn't there some limited approach you could take such as defining the issues at least? The SDI issue is one of those where you can't isolate a particular part and explore it in depth without its connections to everything else. For example, if the number of warheads on both sides goes down, the feasibility goes up. So it's related to arms control. SDI is related to manpower and money. It has technological spillover. Why did the Europeans start Eureka? They're worried about an increasing technological gap becaue of SDI. So it's a very complicated question that enmeshes science and technology, arms control policy, economic policy. If specific SDI questions come to us, we will be responsive, as our charter requires. But we are not oblivious to the need for an overall review in the years ahead. Is the militarization of research a concern to you — the increasing amount of federal R&D dollars for defense? If you talk about the research universities, where most basic research occurs, there is no militarization of research. The Department of Defense basic research budget is still small compared to the National Institutes of Health and NSF, and covers areas of interest to universities. If you don't see a problem at the university level, do you see problems in that military R&D still involves demands on the same type of resources? We're doing a study on the manpower aspects of the changing R&D budgets. It's not unrelated to spillover effects from defense into the civil sector. Many of the principals who do defense technology also have nondefense programs. It has been said that the spillover effects are getting less and less because the defense technologies are so specialized. On the other hand, the Europeans and the Japanese believe that DOD R&D is the biggest government subsidy for technological leadership in the world. They look at SDI as an initiative that will widen the technological gap in our favor. 1/ you look at the numbers since the 1980 budget, defense R&D has gone in current dollars from $15 billion to $44 billion. And nondefense has gone 10
March 3, 1986 C&EN
SDI issue is one of those where you can't isolate a particular part and explore it in depth without its connections to everything else
from $15 billion to $16 billion. It's an enormous shift. It's true we're getting out of civil sector " D " and into defense "D." So far as getting into defense D that's another issue. I have mixed feelings about that in terms of rapidity of buildup level and productive use of funds. But that's another question. What about the industrialization of science through technology? What must one watch out for there? I'm on the boards of two universities. I give lots of speeches on campuses. And I talk to a lot of university people. I think university scientists know how to take care of themselves and protect their environment. Keep in mind that with all of this talk of industrialuniversity cooperation, the industrial contribution to universities is still less than 10%. Everybody is sensitive about the new relations between biology departments and universities, seeing if graduate students are restricted from free conversation, monitoring whether any professors are holding back disclosure or research results because they have something patentable. There are so many watchdogs in any university that the whistle would be blown by a zillion people. So far the relationships seem to be symbiotic. I'm pleased that the concerns that worried us have not become a problem. Let's talk about small science. If you can classify chemistry as small science, were you satisfied with the Pimentel report? Is it being implemented as it should? The biggest fractional increase in the NSF physical science budget went for chemistry and mathematics. NSF in making that decision could justify them with the David report on mathematics and the Pimentel report on chemistry. Both were well done in describing opportunities, gaps, the history of the past decade
as compared to the needs of the future. So in terms of implementation, I'm very pleased. I don't like to waste the time of 40 panelists and see nothing come of it, especially in chemistry where hundreds were involved. You talked about fundamental changes in science earlier. Do you think the scientific advice rendered to President Reagan by his just-departed science adviser, George Keyworth, was wise? Will the decisions made have lasting effects? It's too soon to say. None of us know about the personal conversations among Keyworth, the President, and Presidential advisers and assistants. We don't know what his counsel was on the inside and how he operated. Maybe he'll write a book and tell us. Do you see any continuation between policies of the Carter Administration, for which you were science adviser, and those of the Reagan Administration? Although every Administration likes to begin with a clean slate, eventually they adopt many similar policies. The shift from civilian development to basic research was begun during the Carter Administration. The increase in basic research budgets was begun in the Ford Administration and continued through the Carter and Reagan Administrations. There was less readiness in the Carter Administration to recognize the importance of industrial innovation than in the Reagan Administration, yet the reduction in the capital gains tax came during the Carter years. That Administration did conduct an extensive policy study of industrial innovation under Jordan Baruch. The accelerated depreciation and the R&D tax credits that were in the recommendations from that study were not adopted by Carter but were by Reagan. The R&D defense budget has gone up very fast under Reagan, but not so fast under Carter. National security restraints on technology transfer were first invoked by Carter—the first technical meetings that were ordered closed came after the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan in the Carter Administration. A similar policy was adopted by the Reagan Administration. The Reagan Administration's executive order on national security controls of university research adopted a few months ago would have been quite acceptable by the Carter Administration. Back to industrial competitiveness, the Reagan Administration report by its Commission on Industrial Competitiveness chaired by John A. Young was a very important piece of work. People were diverted by the proposal to establish a Department of Science & Technology. But a lot of other things were in that report worthy of consideration. None of them have been implemented but I hope they're still alive. If you look at that report, you'll find a lot of similar concerns about competitiveness of U.S. industry that you would have found in the Baruch exercise. Of course, the times have changed, the nature of the competition is different today than it was six years ago. But the concern about technological innovation, patents, the antitrust system—they were all raised in the Baruch effort on innovation.
In your relationship with this White House, do you find yourself restrained in expressing criticism? I've been reading the history of my predecessors in this job. It's interesting that no matter which Administration is in power, there's a sensitivity about being in a private organization, one with a special relationship to the government. From one point of view, we are independent and we explore issues that may not be on the agenda of any sitting government. From another point of view, if we're not considered a friendly ally, then we weaken a century-old relationship. So it is a narrow line that we walk, of maintaining a relationship that's unique, that's the envy of every other academy of science in the world, yet maintaining independence and usefulness. I have that problem, as did all my predecessors. What were your first thoughts — outside the immediate emotional reaction — to the recent space shuttle disaster? The tragedy aside, I always knew that these were dangerous missions, that they were pushing the state of the art of materials and technology, and that this could happen. I marveled at the Apollo program, that we brought men back from the surface of the moon. I remember debates during the Kennedy Administration, when we were trying to figure out the probability of an accident, of losing an astronaut, and the consequences of that. And the shuttle technology is even more complicated than the Apollo program in many respects. I would say that the scientific community always understood the dangers. We had two or three reports in the past that urged caution. What science policy questions and problems interest you most today? The rapidity of scientific progress today. It's mindboggling. The U.S. is the world's strongest scientific
There are so many watchdogs in any university that the whistle would be blown by a zillion people
March 3, 1986 C&EN
11
News Focus power. Yet the unrealized opportunities are immense, and could be realized if we had the facilities, the instrumentation, the funds to attract young scientists. The payback to society in material and intellectual gains would be enormous. And we have to make that case in a time of budgetary constraint. That to me is the key issue for American science. Second, I think that the economic viability of the large industrial democracies in the years ahead will depend on their ability to incorporate the new science and technology throughout their traditional industries and their high-tech industries. Only in this way will they be able to maintain their standards of living and employment levels. Because the mini-Japans are doing very well in traditional industries, the only way to maintain our economic position is through our comparative advantage in science and technology.
Could the academy find a place for this activity? We're thinking of growing in that direction with programs in the history and philosophy of science, and hopefully art and music if we can find an interested community.
Is there enough of a science policy capability to study these things? The academy does science policy through all its National Research Council panels in contract studies. But what about science policy as a specialty field in itselff as a field of inquiry with an academic status? Is that in good shape? Is there a need for that? There is a need for it, but nobody has found a good formula as far as I've seen. I don't know what the problem is. But I don't see that these centers have had the impact that I think is needed. If what I have just said is correct, then in my view, science policy should be making an important contribution to understanding these issues. The need is there, the product is not yet available in quality, quantity, and impact.
Speaking of the international aspect, what is the academy's current relationship with the Soviets? That area has loosened up lately, it seems. It has loosened up considerably. I was pleased that the communique that came out of the Reagan-Gorbachev summit singled out cooperation between our academy and the Soviet academy. We have ratified a new agreement with the Soviets. It hasn't been signed by the presidents, but that's a matter of their getting together. We will release it as soon as it's signed. It is better than previous agreements in that it gives us access to the best Soviet scientists in fields where they are advanced. Some possible areas are cosmology, mathematics, materials, astrophysics, and theoretical and particle physics. The Soviets are investing enormous amounts in the new biology. They're not in our class yet. If we work with them in that field it's a matter of their rapid growth producing results of interest to us.
Do you think it's a field in need of a theoretical base? Perhaps it's more of a social science in the sense that it has to integrate management, economics, political science, as well as deep knowledge of what science and technology are about. Techno-economics is an extremely important field. Maybe it should be located in an economics department, or refashioned engineering schools. Science policy analysts have to find a home and a route to having influence. Look at the impact of business schools in American life. In the 1960s and 1970s their graduates moved throughout the economy and quickly rose to the top of major firms. I'd like to see the same thing happen with people who know technology and economics and management. That's where I think science policy should goScience policy also relates to the humanities. Have you noticed your colleagues in the humanities taking an interest in the way science and technology are affecting human activities? It's true that science is changing human life, and that it's understudied. There may be seminars in different universities that address these issues. But there aren't enough great intellects like Bertrand Russell, Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, Jerome Wiesner, Herbert Simon, who move freely among the sciences and humanities. 12
March 3, 1986 C&EN
Which general direction is the academy taking in coming years? If science and technology will be affecting the lives of every American then I think this institution, as the country's only academy, has to be concerned with reaching all those sectors of society. We're becoming concerned with issues affecting the states and industry, and seeing whether our processes can help them. So that kind of outreach will be the hallmark of our next decade. The international aspects of science and technology must continue on our agenda.
You deal with an enormous number of issues as the president of the country's premier scientific organization. If you had the time to take a sabbatical and have your run of a major university, what courses would you take to broaden your background for handling all the issues you face? If I had a year and only a year—this will disappoint you—I would catch up with my field because this is the primary source of credibility a scientist has. Actually, I interact with literally thousands of scientists, engineers, social scientists from all sectors h e r e at the academy. In that sense, my job is self-broadening. But as I think about it, science fiction seems to come closest to engaging many issues of science and values. Carl Sagan's new book, "Contact," addresses these issues in a deeply philosophical way. The approach is the impact on the world of the first communication with another civilization: the philosophical issues involved, the less than satisfactory response of government and religious leaders all over the world. It's a fascinating blend of science, politics, philosophy, religion, and human values—better than any university course or at least as interesting. •
