Panel judges science office operation okay A handful of members of a House subcommittee last week laid out the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy for diagnosis. After four hours of poking and jabbing by members and witnesses, OSTP was essentially pronounced good enough, considering. The hearing was held by the Subcommittee on Science, Research & Technology, a unit of the House Science, Space & Technology Committee. Subcommittee chairman Doug Walgren (D.-Pa.) said that one aim of the hearing was to "consider whether further legislative action is needed to strengthen [OSTP's] effectiveness." The word coming out of the subcommittee is that new legislation is probably not needed. OSTP, as reflected by the hearing, is a function of the President's interest in it, and he is going to use it any way he wants. Every science adviser has the tough job of plying the rough waters of White House politics, the witnesses implied, and most deserve sympathy. But witnesses consisting of current Presidential Science Adviser William R. Graham, former science advisers, agency heads, and outside observers said the hearings were timely because, especially in an election year, new thinking is needed on today's unprecedented permutations involving science, technology, economics, and foreign relations. Robert A. Roe (D.-N.J.), full committee chairman, has called for new perceptions about science policy, given the new realities. Graham, a former defense industry physicist, testified that the way OSTP is presently structured, with just about the smallest staff and budget in a decade, is pretty much the way it ought to be. "We always deal with issues at the intersection of science, technology, economics, and international relations," he said, and the White House supports his efforts. Washington observers believe that Graham runs a low-profile OSTP. They say that because of his background, his relations with the sci-
entific community at large are minimal but that his connection within the White House itself is better than most science advisers enjoyed. However, witnesses such as former science advisers Edward E. David Jr., John P. McTague, and Donald F. Hornig all felt that the current science adviser ranked too low. They
said he should have something comparable to Cabinet status. "When I was science adviser," said David, whose job was abolished by President Nixon, "I sat in on many Cabinet and National Security Council meetings. But always in the back chair." Wil Lepkowski, Washington
Soviet scientists detail reforms under perestroika Scientific relations between the U.S. and U.S.S.R., already warming, rose by a few more degrees in Boston last week at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Twelve top-level scientists from the Soviet Academy of Sciences, including the directors of five major research institutes, came to the meeting. In various presentations the scientists described Soviet research in their fields, outlined sweeping reforms now under way in Soviet science as part of perestroika (Soviet economic and political restructuring), and urged increased cooperation with U.S. scientists. Their conduct at the meeting exemplified the new glasnost (openness) policy. Eleven of the 12 scientists spoke in direct, frank English laced with humor. They were easily approachable for further discussion. AAAS executive officer Alvin W. Trivelpiece called it "a unique and unprecedented event," the first time a group of top-ranking Soviet sci-
entists has come to talk about Soviet science at an open scientific meeting in the U.S. It follows signing last month of exchange agreements between the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and Soviet academy, and between the U.S. Institute of Medicine and Soviet Academy of Medical Sciences (C&EN, Feb. 1, page 25). Moreover, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers has just agreed on exchanges and cooperation with the Soviet academy. The Soviets are revamping their science structure from top to bottom, noted Konstantin V. Frolov, a vice president of the Soviet academy and head of the delegation. This includes expanding basic research, fostering more creativity, injecting hew blood by encouraging young scientists and setting retirement ages for older scientists, and electing research institute directors by secret ballot. Research is being decentralized functionally by transferring management from the academy presidium to departments responsible for Sfe 2
Frolov (left) answers questions from audience after speaking at AAAS meeting February 22, 1988 C&EN
5
