SCIENCE POLICY
National Academy of Sciences Sets Ambitious Agenda for Policy Arm Committee for Science, Engineering & Public Policy aims at strong, timely role; followup to study on science and national security planned When Frank Press took over the National Academy of Sciences two years ago, one of his many goals for the academy was to revive in it a central role in national science policy debates. Up to then, the unit that had been established to remark in a broad way upon the health of the country's scientific and technological enterprise was the old Committee on Science & Public Policy, or COSPUP, established in 1963. COSPUP had enjoyed many vigorous years u n d e r its first two chairmen, the late George Kistiakowsky and Harvey Brooks, both of Harvard University. But during the 1970s, COSPUP lost its vigor. Despite the populist challenges hurled at the technical establishment from all sides during that decade, and despite the lack of a forceful science policy voice at the White House, COSPUP essentially went to sleep. The few reports it did issue failed to spark interest or imagination. But now, under the prodding of Press and the leadership of a chairman always in the thick of policy issues, former National Aeronautics & Space Agency A d m i n i s t r a t o r George M. Low, now president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the old " p u p " seems to be alive again and running about as a renamed Committee for Science, Engineering & Public Policy (COSEPUP). COSEPUP's executive director is physicist Allan R. Hoffman, who
says COSEPUP is a bit difficult to describe organizationally since it is not part of the National Research Council, the $73 million think tank arm of the academy. It also is wrong to call it part of NAS because the National Academy of Engineering has an equal role in deciding on its direction, with lesser input from the National Institute of Medicine. "We're sort of a funny duck," says Hoffman. "We're so undefined that we're not on any academy organizational chart. And though we are not part of NRC we're treated like it. At the same time, unlike NRC, we review our own reports to get a faster turnaround." Over its two years of existence, COSEPUP does seem to have worked quickly. Its studies include a look at methods of evaluating the quality of research sponsored by the National Science Foundation, a report on strengthening the relationship
between the government and the university research enterprise, various briefings to the White House on opportunity areas in science and technology, and responsibility for the academy's contribution to the five-year outlook report on science and technology. Its most publicized product was "Scientific Communication & National Security," the socalled Corson report that assessed the dangers to national security posed by the free exchange of research results. On tap are a second series of research briefings on research opportunities in selected fields, including one on chemistry, an eightmonth study on high school educational needs for students not going to college, and an assessment of the impact of changing technology on employment and unemployment. In the works, too, is a followup to the Corson report, tentatively named the
COSEPUP members run spectrum of technical disciplines George M. Low, president, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute John B. Slaughter, chancellor, University of Maryland Linda H. Aiken, vice president research, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Jacob Bigeleisen, Leading Chemistry Professor, State University of New York, Stony Brook Floyd E. Bloom, director, Arthur David Center for Behavioral Neurobiology, Salk Institute Gardner Lindzey, president and director, Center of Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, Calif. Edward A. Mason, vice president for research, Standard Oil (Ind.) John L. McLucas, president, World Systems division, Comsat
Elizabeth C. Miller, WARF Professor of Oncology, University of Wisconsin Gilbert S. Omenn, dean of school of public health and community medicine, University of Washington Leon T. Silver, professor of geology and planetary sciences, California Institute of Technology Herbert A. Simon, professor of computer sciences and psychology, Carnegie-Mellon University I. M. Singer, professor of mathematics, University of California, Berkeley F. Karl Willenbrock, Cecil H. Green Professor of Engineering, Southern Methodist University Emilio Q. Daddario, attorney, Wilkes, Artis, Hedrick & Lane Allan R. Hoffman, executive director
October 3, 1983 C&EN
15
Science Policy effect of new information technologies on scientific research and communication. One problem that COSEPUP has to deal with, of course, is the usual criticism that scientific panels exist only to advance the cause of their own interests. "If you look at the long-term issues/' says a veteran Congressional staffer, COSEPUP has not talked about what the future role of the research university is in such things like the issues of tenure, conflict of interest, levels of funding, all those things. Another related issue is what the future of institutional arrangement should be for U.S. research. "Then there is the whole question of accountability in basic research. Is basic research contributing to society in ways Congress and the public expect it to be? Has it fulfilled the endless frontier spirit? "Once you get into those issues, pretty soon you have to ask about conflict of interest within COSEPUP. To what extent has the panel looked at issues that directly affect their own livelihood? Can't they, for example, comment on the conflict of interest among members of the Defense Science Board? Most people on COSEPUP are distinguished researchers who are recipients of research grants. To what extent do the interests of the research community overlap with the interests of the public?" Hoffman is aware of criticisms that any scientific panel sees issues through a particular lens, but points out that COSEPUP's studies draw from a broad range of experts in and out of the scientific community. If there's anything like a broader voice, it could be found in the Committee for Science & Engineering Policy (COSEP), now redefining its role at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. COSEP's main function up to now has been to organize annual colloquiums on the research and development budgets. Now, under its chairman, former Congressman Ray Thornton, and its executive officer, Albert Teich, COSEP is seeking to expand its own goal of serving what Teich calls "the broader membership of the scientific community." Wil Lepkowski, Washington 16
October 3, 1983 C&EN
Our strength
COOR
Selective Catalytic Hydrogenation
G-*
o^o
avca H7C3-CH-C-C^rf H I —•H7C3-CH2-CH-C I QH 5 H5C2-CH-C-C^P I " CH3 —•H5C2-CH2-CH-C I CH 3
CH,-CH-C-N — • CH3CH2-C-N CH 2 CH 2 -COOR
a
CH.CH.-COOR
J
is yours
In fine chemicals, huls stands foursquare on solid pillars: Research & development, process technology, analysis and state-of-the-art production. Our new production plant for fine chemicals has just come on stream. It means that your range of processes for syntheses and formulations, too, has been extended. You can expect dependable production, fast delivery and willing attention to special requirements. So put our strength to the test when it comes to fine chemicals. Also for catalytic hydrogenation, alkylation and hydrochlorination. huls - your partner for fine chemicals. From laboratory to commercial quantities.
*m
itf-
s.V-
hïsls CHEMISCHE WERKE HULS AG Dept. 1122 D-4370 Marl Telex No. 829211-21 c w d • Please send me your fine chemicals supply programme Name Position Company Address Telephone
October 3, 1983 C&EN
17
