government
Presidential Candidates Give Views On Science, Other Issues G
overnment action or inaction on science and technology issues are vital to the future of the U.S., but such issues are rarely discussed in the heat of a presidential campaign. Where do the candidates stand on research funding? How would they work to improve science and mathematics education? What do they propose to do about controversial environmental issues? In the belief that readers wish to be better informed about the candidates' views on these and related issues, C&EN, as it has for the past six presidential elections, submitted questions to the campaign headquarters of the major candidates. Each question below is followed by complete responses from both the Democratic candidate, President Bill Clinton, and the Republican candidate, former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas.
How will you prioritize science and technology programs as they compete for fewer and fewer discretionary dollars?
CLINTON:
This Administration is committed to a balanced budget by 2002. However, within this envelope, we are continuing strong support for our highest priorities, which include science and technology. The Administration's commitment is, and has been, to sustain priority investments in research, education, and the environment, while making the difficult choices needed to continue our success in deficit reduction. In the past three years, the science and technology budgets have increased each year, and the budget deficit has already been reduced by 60%. Preserving a vibrant research and educational enterprise and balancing the budget are responsibilities to future generations that we cannot and will not fail to meet. The Administration's track record and most recent budget proposal are a very real indication of priorities. The most recent budget for fiscal 1997 proposed increases for federal civilian R&D funding, 24 OCTOBER 21, 1996 C&EN
as traditionally defined, by more than $1 billion over 1996, and pegs total federal R&D spending at roughly $73 billion. The budget proposes $14 billion overall for fundamental research, an increase of $278 million over 1996. This includes a 4% increase for the National Science Foundation on the civilian side, and maintains our defense-related fundamental research activities. We have continued our support for technology investment to create new jobs and new industries. We proposed a 15% increase for the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce, and a similar increase for its Manufacturing Extension Program, which— in partnership with state governmenthelps small businesses take advantage of new technologies to make them more profitable in this globally competitive world. Funding for breakthrough technologies for clean cars is up 5%, new building and construction technologies are up 20%, and we are applying infor-
mation technologies to make our roads and highways safer and less crowded, including a $337 million program of new technology partnerships aimed at the 75 most congested urban sites in the U.S. We have also proposed increases for environmental research, including an 8% increase for research aimed at understanding and predicting global climate change and its consequences; $72 million for the Environmental Technology Initiative (a public-private partnership); increases of $88 million for renewable energy and $133 million for energy efficiency; and $115 million (a 21% increase) for the Environmental Protection Agency's Science To Achieve Results (STAR) program, a merit-reviewed grants program for promising new environmental research that includes collaboration with other agencies such as NSF. We have continued our strong support for the space program, including national security space activities and the National
Aeronautics & Space Administration's International Space Station, Mission to Planet Earth, and the Reusable Launch Vehicle program.
DOLE:
Basic research, science education, and transfer of federally funded research to American industry will be the priorities of my science and technology policy initiatives. We can accomplish these important functions while pursuing deficit reduction and balanced budgets, which are part of my commitment to providing expanded opportunity for all citizens through a better, vibrant economy. While federal science spending represents an investment, it is not immune from contributing to deficit reduction, particularly in areas of technology development not tied to national security. Without question, the basic science and technology research base of this country is without peer in the world, and the Dole Administration will strong-
ly support the scientific community and work to strengthen it. Rarely is government so cost-effective. This nation's sponsorship of basic science has led to breakthroughs that have enhanced the quality of life for our citizens. We must continue supporting the strong and vital scientific and education communities and ensure the funding stability that scientists and engineers require in order to pursue their research and development objectives. Also, the Dole Administration will work closely with the basic research communities in our universities, government, and the private sector to ensure the continuity of funding so vital to sustainability of our research enterprise. We will take steps to accelerate the flow of basic research from our universities to American industry. And we will help resolve the gap between government funding of the initial research and the subsequent development being sup-
ported by the private sector by changes to our tax code, regulations, and other government intrusions into the industrial community that have contributed to industry backing away from investments in and support of basic research, technology development, and production of advanced and innovative technologies. I am committed to ensuring that federal support for our basic research and associated education programs does grow. While I would protect and expand funding for basic research, I am concerned about funding for technology development beyond basic research, where the funding agency appears to act more as a venture capitalist, trying to pick winners in the technology race, rather than letting American industry play its natural role. I would redirect this funding to basic research while encouraging American industry to cooperate with our research universities through tax and other incentives.
Government-industry technology research partnerships have increased substantially in recent years. Do you favor this type of research and why?
DOLE:
The primary means of government-industry cooperation should be the transfer of technology to industry from federally funded programs. I have been a champion of this technology transfer throughout my years in Congress. I sponsored the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which set up the technology transfer programs from our research universities, which proved so successful in areas like genetics research. Industry will invest in R&D if given the right incentives, such as the R&D tax credit and the reduction of capital gains taxes. Regulations also need to be reformed, especially those of the Food & Drug Administration, which would bring effective new drugs to patients more promptly. Removal of unnecessary regulatory hurdles will also encourage American biotech firms to invest more in research when they see a clear path for producing and marketing their products.
CLINTON:
Our Administration came to office with a conviction that technology is the engine of economic growth and job creation. We have improved the business climate for investment in technology with practical plans for balancing the
budget, continuing research and experimentation tax credits, providing funding for shared research activities, streamlining regulation, expanding markets for U.S. products abroad, and protecting U.S. businesses from unfair foreign trade practices. Even in the best business climate, however, there will always be research that benefits the nation as a whole but that cannot pay adequate returns to private investors. The federal government has a long tradition of supporting research in partnership with industry to deliver products for agriculture, health care, the Internet, and other critical areas. Intense competition in world markets, uncertainties growing out of deregulation of telecommunications, electricity, and many other major markets, and changes in the market for defense technology have, if anything, increased the need for carefully selected and well-managed federal investments in both basic and applied programs. The nonpartisan Council on Competitiveness and many other business organizations have understood the need to maintain federal applied research programs. The Administration's programs are designed to balance the budget while main-
taining a strong portfolio of investments in basic and applied research. Our interest in making the most effective use of federal funds has led us to rely on research partnerships with businesses, which can both share the burden of research costs and be positioned to convert innovations into investments that create growth and jobs. While we have shifted research priorities to ensure that federal program support goes where it is most valuable, the shifts have been prudent, and backed by careful review from the academic and university community. The cost-shared Advanced Technology Program in the Department of Commerce, for example, is a highly competitive program that allows innovative U.S. firms to develop technologies that might otherwise be developed first abroad. The program, however, represents less than 1% of the civilian R&D budget. Arbitrary and ideological cuts in federal applied research programs—including partnership programs—have been and will be resisted by our Administration. Such cuts would undermine a historic American success story and deal recklessly with a vital investment in America's future science and technology enterprise and growth potential. OCTOBER 21, 1996 C&EN 25
••i.w^diiiiTTmi
What role would the president's science adviser and the Office of Science & Technology Policy play in your Administration?
CLINTON:
The science adviser will continue to be the president's principal counselor on all matters relating to science and technology. That individual will carry out the three critical functions oi this important position: to advise the president and the Cabinet; to ensure coordination across our scientific and technical agencies; and to foster collaboration both here at home and across our national scientific enterprise—public and private, state and federal—and with our international partners. The science adviser will maintain linkages across the science and technology community and keep the president informed of major advances. John H. Gibbons has served as a model science adviser and director of the Office of Science & Technology Policy over the past four years. He has put in place for the president a coordinating council of scientific and technical agencies, the National Science & Technology Council, and has guided an eminent team of outside advisers, the President's Committee of Advisers on Science & Technology, who have provided this Administration with strong direction. The Administration has employed the National Science & Technology Council mechanism to provide broad strategic R&D priorities to the agencies, helping them to function as a "virtual federal R&D enterprise" in areas of overlapping interests and complementary programs. These roles of
the science adviser are pivotal, as science and technology now permeate our everyday life and the world economy to an unprecedented extent. The role of the president's science adviser will only grow in importance.
DOLE:
I would expect that my science adviser would have an enhanced role in a Dole Administration. I have seen examples of close collaboration between presidents and their science advisers since
tne Jbisennower Administration. President Clinton has largely ignored his science adviser and does not really work with his Science & Technology Council; having the vice president participate is no substitute. It will be especially critical for the science adviser to work with the director of the Office of Management & Budget to ensure coordination of all of our science and technology policies, especially as we implement our plans to reorganize Cabinet agencies and to eliminate the Departments of Energy and of Commerce. And I would strengthen the role of the Office of Science & Technology Policy to include vigorous support for those fields of science and technology that will be important for national security, such as intelligence, counterterrorism, and counter-drug operations. As president, I will convene the leaders of the scientific research community at a national meeting to learn from them how the Dole Administration can provide motivation, incentives, and any other advantage that will cause industry to support strong research laboratories and more cooperation with our research universities, so together we can provide important technology to our citizens and successfully meet foreign competition. I see the relationships between federal and state government, research universities, and industry as the key to the future of our research enterprise. The science adviser and the Office of Science & Technology Policy will help direct and coordinate these activities.
Jf it became necessary to abolish some federal science agencies in order tc balance the budget, which would you choose?
DOLE:
Federally supported basic research would continue to grow in a Dole Administration. Key agencies and programs at the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Defense will continue to be the maior comoonents of our 26
OCTOBER 21. 1996 C&El·
strategies. It is critical that our plans to reorganize Department of Commerce and Department of Energy programs be executed. By reducing redundancy and eliminating waste, we should be able to actually spend more money on basic research even as we remain devoted to achieving balanced budgets.
CLINTON:
This Administration continues to attach high priority to public investments in research and education. We are also committed to deficit reduction which, among other benefits, would stimulate further private-sector R&D. The year-by-year challenge is to support in-
vestment priorities as the deficit is elimi nated by 2002. In the first three years of this Administration, the deficit has been reduced by 60%, while the federal R&D budget has increased each year. As the federal budget is brought into balance, the research budgets for both NIH and NSF and for environmental re search across the agencies have been protected. This reflects the Administra tion's commitment to biomedical re search that will ultimately return enor
mous benefits to Americans' health, as well as to maintain federal support for America's research colleges and universi ties, the bedrock of our science and tech nology enterprise. While our commit ment is, and has been, to sustain priority investments in education, the environ ment, research, and technology, we will have to make difficult choices. Neverthe less, concern about the out-year projec tions should be tempered by the track record of the past few years. Further
more, national economic performance will determine the availability of addi tional resources. By agreement, current out-year spending forecasts are guided by the Congressional Budget Office econom ic forecasts. Our economy has proved far stronger than these projections. If strong economic performance is sustained, for which continued deficit reduction is cen trally important, then substantial pressure on nondefense discretionary spending will be relieved.
The national laboratories of the Department of Energy are in a state of flux. How do you think these valuable resources should be utilized?
CLINTON:
The Department of Ener gy national laboratories have been enor mously productive in contributing to agency core missions and to national goals. They must continue to do so. Among the federal agencies, DOE has prime responsibility for research in sub atomic physics, for developing enabling technologies aimed at an environmental ly responsible energy system, for main taining the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile through a sci ence-based program, and for environmen tal remediation. The laboratories have unique capaDinties mat are essential parts of the national research infra structure, such as the cutting-edge accelerators and reactors used by 15,000 academic, industry, and gov ernment scientists. The end of the Cold War and the imperative to make government more efficient have focused in creased attention on streamlining the laboratory structure. Progress has been made. For example, DOE laboratory personnel levels have dropped by 7% since fiscal 1993 while preserving the core programs and indeed responding to new challenges (such as science-based stockpile stewardship). The de partment has created the Labora tory Operation Board, composed of high-ranking department and laboratory officials and of experi enced private-sector individuals, to oversee the continuation of the streamlining process. Under Labo ratory Operation Board auspices, laboratory missions are being sys tematically reviewed. A fresh look
is Deing iaKen at now oiner sectors, par ticularly academia, can partner more ef fectively with the laboratories in carrying forward their missions. Our goal is to preserve their responsibilities to the de partment and the nation, while realizing the streamlining needed to meet budget ary constraints
DOLE:
I am committed to reorganiz ing the function of two large govern ment departments that support science: Energy and Commerce. Too often, money goes to support the overhead of government agencies, rather than to
the researchers, ine necessity tor πηαing additional savings everywhere in government to help reduce the deficit mandates a complete review of how to make the government's science support infrastructure more coherent, to avoid reducing funding for basic research itself. DOE has for the most part gotten out of the nuclear weapons development business, which was one of the main rea sons it was created in the first place. I believe the mission of the national labs needs to be closely scrutinized. There have been manv studies and plans pur porting to auuress new strategics, but to date these have not resulted in the execution of meaningful re forms. There is still too much dupli cation, redundancy, and waste, and the labs are competing with each other and with the private sector, with no significant improvement in the important areas of accelerat ing tech transfer and international trade. The national labs will be trans ferred from DOE to the Depart ment of Defense in my Administra tion, and not eliminated—as some in the opposing political camp have unfairly suggested. While we re view the mission of DOE labs, it will be important to review the lab oratories associated with the De partment of Defense, NASA, the De partment of Transportation, and other government agencies. We must avoid duplication and waste throughout the government so that we can increase the effectiveness of our federal investment in basic research. OCTOBER 21, 1996 C&EN 27
government How would you develop the science and technology needed to lessen the chance of terrorist use of chemical or biological weapons in the U.S.? for anyone to attempt to conduct one. Science and technology complement other aspects of this Administration's antiterrorism policy that range from improved intelligence to block such threats before they materialize to effective law enforcement that will increase the chances of identifying and capturing terrorists to a full range of diplomatic and military responses available to respond to states or nonstate groups found to be responsible for aiding terrorist attacks. Related measures can make it more difficult for terrorists to acquire the means to carry out chemical or biological attacks. These include ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, an international treaty that requires states to
DOLE:
Efforts have been under way within the national laboratories for some time to improve both our detection and prevention of terrorist activities in these as well as more conventional forms. The explosions at the World Trade Center and in Oklahoma City, the saga of the Unabomber, and the chemical warfare contamination problems stemming from the Persian Gulf War have given an edge to those efforts and have contributed to their solution. This effort will obviously be an ongoing priority.
CLINTON:
Science and technology provide critical capabilities to this Administration's battle against terrorism. New approaches are being developed to detect chemical or biological agents rapidly, to protect the public safety personnel who must respond to a chemical or biological attack, to treat individuals who have been exposed to these agents, and to decontaminate and certify the safety of an affected environment afterward. Simulation and modeling tools help assess our vulnerability to such attacks and identify the most effective ways
to reduce these vulnerabilities. In addition to the development of new equipment, increased attention is being devoted to assembling and exercising teams of trained personnel who can respond to chemical or biological attack. Rapid detection, treatment, and decontamination of a chemical or biological attack will not only reduce the damage that such an attack would cause, but would also lessen the incentive
criminalize tne development ana production of chemical agents and that controls international trade in specialized precursor chemicals used in their manufacture. New regulations are being developed by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention to restrict shipment of dangerous diseasecausing organisms to only those scientists with legitimate need and appropriate facilities to work with them.
Should the U.S. change its intellectual property law to conform to other systems and, if so, why?
CLINTON:
This Administration has worked diligently to protect the fruits of American creativity. Although the intellectual property laws of many other nations are not now nearly as effective as ours, several positive international developments have already been fostered successfully by this Administra28 OCTOBER 21, 1996 C&EN
tion. I he General Agreement on lantts & Trade Uruguay round agreements that established the World Trade Organization (WTO) included an Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. All WTO members must adhere to the agreement that establishes comprehensive standards for the protection of intellectual property
and the enforcement or intellectua property rights in member countries Each WTO member must apply the sub stantive obligations of the world's mosi important intellectual property conven tions, and supplement those conven tions with substantive additional pro tection to ensure that critical enforce ment procedures will be available ir
eacn member country to safeguard in tellectual property rights. This provides added protection for U.S. technology abroad. Some changes in our own intellectual property laws are being advanced to im prove protection offered in the U.S. A legislative change under consideration by Congress is the publication of patent ap plications 18 months after their filing date. All of the major patent systems throughout the world, except the U.S., provide for the publication of patent appli cations 18 months from the earliest effec tive filing date. Given the ever-increasing need for worldwide patent protection, the current U.S. system does not favor domes tic inventors. Japanese and European in ventors are able to obtain an early dis
closure or U.S. and other technology in their own languages. In the U.S., how ever, domestic inventors do not have the benefit of an English-language pub lication of the technology disclosed in a patent application until the patent is granted. Given that over 40% of U.S. patent applications originate from abroad, this puts U.S. inventors at a clear disadvantage in relation to their foreign counterparts. Whenever a fea ture of a foreign system could be adopt ed in the U.S. to improve our own sys tem, it should be seriously considered, not for the sake of global harmonization alone, but more importantly, to offer our inventors the best system possible to protect their intellectual property most effectivelv.
DOLE:
The worldwide protection « U.S. intellectual property rights has bet in the first rank of our trade priorities f< more than a decade. The intensely cor petitive atmosphere in every part of tl information and communications arena ι quires that the strongest measures be ta en to stem international piracy of U.S. i tellectual property, and I would contini to insist on recognition of U.S. patent ar trademark rights as the bedrock of any ο going trading relationship. A variety of ot er countries have developed systems th basically aid and abet intellectual proper theft, and it will be a continuing priority my trade negotiators to bring those cou tries into conformity with our own ar the develooed world's oractices.
U.S. students rank low internationally in their knowledge of science and technology. What steps can be taken to revitalize their interest?
DOLE:
1 he need to attract more able students, including women and minori ties, into science and tech nology has been evident for several decades. We must broadly strengthen science education, from kin dergarten through graduate school. This does not mean the federal government should take over the direc tion of local schools' sci ence programs. The prima ry responsibility for scien tific literacy is in the lo cal schools. Often, the fed eral government has made things worse. For instance, in the Clinton Administra tion's Goals 2000 program, national history standards were developed that had no mention of Edison or the Wright brothers. How can we get our children excited about becoming scientists and engineers if they are taught a history where sci entists and engineers are unimportant? What the federal govern ment can do is continue its support of science pro grams on television, and encourage industry's coop
eration. Many of today's young scientists got their introduction to science with programs like "Ask Mr. Wizard." NSF
has supported summer institutes for public school teachers and for high school students, and programs to allow unuergrauuaie siuuenis ιο work on university research projects. These programs all encourage our best stu dents to consider careers in science and engineering. They provide opportunities to women and minorities, who have been underrepresented in science and engineering. The Westinghouse National Science Con test, with four-year scholar ships as prizes, created a marvelous focus at a nation al level. The federal government should also support develop ment of curriculum material to be delivered to schools using new technologies like the Internet. This can pro vide educational opportuni ties to students wherever their schools are located— particularly in rural areas and the inner city, where school budgets can't sup port large science programs. And we should devise pro grams that encourage busi nesses to donate computer equipment, provide teacher OCTOBER 21, 1996 C&EN 29
government
w
ffiiwiMACSijric^ v i c t o r
EJUS
Ληπ 22 - 24. 997 PhiladelDhia. USA
PllARMAC hi IICAL INGREDIENTS I*HARMACEUTICAL INGREDIENT! U S U SA A ..
I H E US PHARMACEUTICAL MARKET IS YOURS TO EXPLORE AND CONQUER Intended to serve the US pharmaceutical industry, this highly specialized trade show fills a void not served by existing shows. The 1996 edition showed the need for PhlUS. More than 200 exhibiting companies from all over the world met with researchers and buyers from the USA. In total, 2,124 attendees visited the show. Initial reactions to this new event are favorable, which will ensure its growth and success in 1997·
EXPLORE IT THROUGH
PhlUS
MORE INFORMATION? Exhibitors info
Visitors info
PhlUS 1997, April 22-24, Philadelphia, USA PhIA 1997, June 3-5, Singapore CPhl 1997, September 16-18, London, UK
Company
:
Name Address
:
City/State/ZIP : Country
:
Telephone E-mail
Fax: :
Please send or fax to: Miller Freeman BV, attn. CPhl team P.O. Box 200, 3600 AE Maarssen, The Netherlandî Tel: ++ 31 346 573777, Fax: ++ 31 346 57381 1 E-mail:
[email protected] Intprnpt· httrv//wuv/w m f h v m m /
f / 1 , Miller Freeman zzS.
30 OCTOBER 21, 1996 C&EN
A United News & Media company
support, and help the schools maintair the computers. The government, through the Nation al Science Foundation and other science related agencies, has a responsibility tc explain and foster science and technolo gy understanding. Increasing scientific literacy is part and parcel of increasing literacy at all levels. By maintaining anc improving that awareness, we will in crease the number of talented student* in science and technology.
CLINTON:
The vast majority oJ high-quality 21st-century jobs will be those performed by "knowledge work ers." Our children must be providec math and science education, kindergar ten through 12th grade, at world-clasi standards, and access to higher educa tion must be expanded. A milestone ir the Administration's commitment was passage of "Goals 2000: Educate America Act" in March 1994. This legislation com mits the federal government to helping advance standards-based instruction ai the key tool in systemic reform of math and science education, while leaving im plementation of those standards (such as selection of curriculum materials and test ing methods) to state and local discretion In addition to raising student achievemenl in math and science, Goals 2000 also ad dresses the professional development oJ teachers. Success in this effort will require the grassroots commitment of many individ uals and institutions in our society, with the federal government being mainly 2 facilitator. Industry is playing an impor tant role by communicating the skills needed for the 21st-century jobs they are creating and the importance of that skil base in making business decisions, such as location of new research centers oJ manufacturing capacity. Colleges and universities need to reexamine their role from teacher training to direct faculty in volvement to setting their own math and science requirements in a way that lifts precollege standards. We need a shared national commitment to high education al expectations. Strengthened kindergarten through 12th-grade math and science education will provide many more young people with the chance to pursue scientific and technical careers. Our commitment tc university-based research as the core oJ our basic science and engineering enter prise will continue to provide opportun! ty for the finest graduate training avail able anywhere in the world. M
