Table Of Content

CON [COMMITTEE PRINT] REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON THE HEALTH OF RESEARCH CHAIRMAN’S REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SECOND CONGRESS SECOND SESSION Serial L GEORGE E. Brown, Jr., Chairman [This document has been printed for informational purposes only and does not represent either findings or recommendations adopted by this Com- mittee.] JULY 1992 Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1992 NA 51 COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY GEORGE E. BROWN, Jr., California, Chairman JAMES H. SCHEUER, New York ROBERT S. WALKER, Pennsylvania‘ MARILYN LLOYD, Tennessee F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., DAN GLICKMAN, Kansas Wisconsin HAROLD L. VOLKMER, Missouri SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York HOWARD WOLPE, Michigan TOM LEWIS, Florida RALPH M. HALL, Texas DON RITTER, Pennsylvania DAVE McCURDY, Oklahoma SID MORRISON, Washington NORMAN Y. MINETA, California RON PACKARD, California TIM VALENTINE, North Carolina PAUL B. HENRY, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey HARRIS W. FAWELL, Illinois RICK BOUCHER, Virginia LAMAR SMITH, Texas TERRY L. BRUCE, Illinois CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland RICHARD H. STALLINGS, Idaho DANA ROHRABACHER, California JAMES A. TRAFICANT, Jr., Ohio STEVEN H. SCHIFF, New Mexico HENRY J. NOWAK, New York TOM CAMPBELL, California CARL C. PERKINS, Kentucky JOHN J. RHODES III, Arizona TOM McMILLEN, Maryland JOE BARTON, Texas DAVID R. NAGLE, Iowa DICK ZIMMER, New Jersey JIMMY HAYES, Louisiana WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois SAM JOHNSON, Texas JOHN TANNER, Tennessee GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia GLEN BROWDER, Alabama PETE GEREN, Texas RAY THORNTON, Arkansas JIM BACCHUS, Florida TIM ROEMER, Indiana ROBERT E. “BUD” CRAMER, Alabama DICK SWETT, New Hampshire MICHAEL J. KOPETSKI, Oregon JOAN KELLY HORN, Missouri ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts Raprorp ByeErty, Jr., Chief of Staff MIcHAEL RopEMEYER, Chief Counsel CaROLyn C. GREENFELD, Chief Clerk Davin D. CLEMENT, Republican Chief of Staff *Ranking Republican Member. (11) LUO CONTENTS Page PAEANU RSRERY G ooo ess cka cosy nusens anseaon sess zaanoe Reekeasniyasss eighanc he daginites MRL MNTEg MAS EEAN MS aensonsncenne 1 Problem meee OS ERY CE Oe EET Pe ETAGLOCUCEION wearer reer on ete orice aee eo eee errant toda tose chante enteecastatrteceaena cteaveteenersetses 3 BRIA UETO MAN reese so ccascis oe caicand actcunvvcoassceasvsnshsicen snus att OCP ROMM RR TA te saat Ray S Aline btodoacteds 5 PCE Te ihe CO 1) ey i a 20 ee = RG aE AR; Ae en ee 6 MIE LEITID TESTI OT IOC ereescecrrecetren ear reneer cere s-svceaececreareecer oonc tree eter tetttsresscetacvatsacesvesnessteaseetraer e 9 Policy Recommendations: Linking Research to National Goalls.................:.:ccc0000 10 af shRerCDS Jurisdiction Over the Office of Science and Technology r, oT Ps ae ea ty Dae Net ae SPE AUR te * SRA ES Se RIE SY AT a 7 tteerating Performance Assessment Into the Research Process .............. 16 Conclasions and! Prospects SWSs 200 c. Bea ee Ei IRA detected teeossetie 18 Acknowledgements): fax .:thsarc... Bircrsesd recto v ties = cRete teases Seesaw se neal ROSS ces 18 (III) 734 Wellcome Centre for 5 Fe ’ % a a sa al oie ts ~ pee ae Ae @ YY Se » y 7 x ~ rn << ae. "« “ry ‘ , -% > Toit eTUATUAGID . i wl semge Eapy yterepae SOngnee toae anns Anan et ee CEaay teE nope ei"vgeatie -eaagnen t Toads 7 ’ i «) eudvewe ae ona gs awed’ sie teisteere veer aa 5 ¢ b:& pp repeater de guavas a‘ w enn eyreovra ye webbing eeorTi e s eaitab;u re spat Apinatrys? nayL en-av rraahaens s BsPag m wiodwss +pragda re Ses daauaennt. , in 4i e ,a ; " 47 re co Ayaan sadwwg he med3by r elya netear asetre rks ‘ ean ettya@nanieee es) a8 s |“ pomeet Aes &Oe e2 de by me weed irainaid ua . sBey an¢ee.ndes Dagd esl ' i oe ip sae Jo SO Kai i weet iver 2 ine aye ot "esos? dsnessdl oi otal 3 =S e Ss erent TA) cunngiverene ron r eehegtere Pe Sik Tae ‘ * Spat a my EY, SPR RS, “ake Rely cap?H ATES W, PAWEL, tiie : % Wie mys TASIAR Serr, Texan S Pea OF ede Mah a. CONSTANCE A ee Seen Mes Ty tat hug te taper GAA {OMAB B ACHE. Oallf Tae ee re aM Pe tig aes : STRVEN 1. SOULE? New Best , ; ee bes: Fete . Yom CAMIBP! 2, California’ so - -, Ce a a JIN J, 2H DB i. Arioaa . ; ee es itt BART IN, Teese a x ita th, DICK ZIMMER, New Jermy i ad d WAYNE 7. GILCHESSY, Maryland . toi ae RAR IOFESEES, ler - es CEOGGE ALLEN, Virgie - ‘ - tae PToecnkdeetrs iC.c aQ emdm rewvtw ce,C hihei aC oCdheenek?. ~ tu a ie Eek eo7: 1, Cansemey, Pepe Mican Chat a m Ma c, LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL House OF REPRESENTATIVES, CoMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, DC, June 26, 1992. Members of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology I am pleased to transmit the report of the Task Force on the Health of Research. The Task Force was convened at my request in May 1991, in order to investigate widespread reports of “‘stress” in the federal research system, and to define a more active role for the Committee in the forging of science ‘policy for the national good. The Task Force was composed of staff representatives of full Committee and all subcommittees. This report summarizes their deliberations and conclusions. It does not represent either findings or recommendations adopted by this Committee. For the last fifty years, the United States has supported the world’s most innovative and productive scientific research system, a system designed to create new knowledge and technology that can help, in the words of Vannevar Bush, to “insure our health, prosperity, and security as a nation in the modern world.” Today, however, the United States faces wide-ranging societal crises and challenges, in our educational system, our environment, our manufacturing sector, our health care system, our inner cities, our finan- cial institutions, even our system of government. . This paradox—growing knowledge, accompanied by growing societal crisis—implies a complex, nonlinear relationship between advances in knowledge and advances in society. More specifically, it suggests either that we are not adequately using the knowledge that we already have, or that we are not sufficiently producing the knowledge that we actually need. Of course, both of these condi- tions may be partly true. This report offers some strategies and insights that may help us begin to solve the knowledge paradox. It challenges us to create better linkages between the research that we authorize, and the national goals that we seek. The report is intended to be a begin- ning, a tentative agenda for Committee action and future debate. I commend it to your attention. Sincerely, GEORGE E. Brown, dr., Chairman. (Vv) JATTIMGVART IO AATTAS ao iviraTymanaTah xoa evoHl eel 2) “nor? ava aK wae Ho arene aii sent aL saw OX parks a ay > yaolosnsosT bro song sane nos sttionanet) siltY o eedm sti ‘. ad? mo 9010% desT sd? to diogox od? timenstt ooft bsassimeg I ritissH ni “eaerte™ lo atiogat besiqeabiw ategijeevai of tole ai [08l ysM | —sét olor suites suam 2 eniteb of bas .nejeys dotseest Isisbst orld Wy ilu? to esvitainoasrpex Thais to bseoqmos aew so10F AeaT oT . vied? assiwamenie frogs: eidT .2coltimmoodua Ife bas eatti re egribalt wcdtio insesvger Jon esob i! .anoiavfones bra anotersdileb — »setticnmoD eidt yd batgobs enoijabasmmoss: 10 ait barrogque ead estei? betinU edd e1sey WA taal orld et a custave doseset ofliinsis evijouborq bas evitsvonai Jeomp te oc jad yooionsios? bas sgbelwond wen steer of ‘dileod wo swesl’ ot dev savenasV to ainow ai pore ja=t e vebeT “blow msabom sed ai coiten # ae yiirwesa bas .g ina | bee soeir leteincs yargasiebiw sess) sstsi2 betianU edd 4 ucei two ,taemaorivire 10 ,cistays lemoiiaoubes 10 ni eogsalleso -gerit Iwo .2oitis 1waeni iw0 ,ésaye ste Ailsechwo otose gatiusost Jnsrarievoyt o misieze wo msve ,enoltutiteni Ieip 908 Eetiworg yd bainsqunwoos ,sybslwoad gniworg— aidT *bs ngewiod qisenoitalsn., tasailaon ,xeiqmoo # esiigmi—eiais Lats = ti iSieocd ofhj ainS eyews ai esoaevbe bre6 e ee ai esomay s Word & ming ylesautopm:e obi eosw } spear Ppt sor gaiosbow ehw ejgiftue ton 918 sw Jaci x0 .sved ybsorle sw : cr seed? Io diod ,eeiw03o0 .basa | utd eliieg x ln ca.a ctw in na espe ema eae Hoge Sia sies19 of ev segneiladoi ] .xobsiaq sybelwond odd evice edt bas .ssitodiue ew tedi dowees: ed? nsewied esgedaif satted —_ siget «ed ot beboetai ei txoqet afl lose ow sad? eleoy rma oi cichacmmac re 3 ngs evi: REPORT OF THE TASK FORCE ON THE HEALTH OF RESEARCH SUMMARY This report outlines broad strategies by which the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (SST) can strengthen its oversight of the federally funded research portfolio, while crafting policy to improve the linkages between federally funded research programs and national goals such as energy security, environmental protection, innovation in high technology manufacturing, expanding the knowledge base, and educating future scientists and engineers. The report is not intended to be comprehensive; rather, it seeks to expand the current science policy dialogue, which has been too narrowly focused on funding levels, and not sufficiently concerned with the structure of the research system. The Task Force on the Health of Research views national goals as the motivating force behind federal support for research. This perspective suggests two lines of analysis that must underlie federal research policy: (1) For a given national goal, what research is most necessary? (2) How can we best conduct such research? That is, what mechanisms for administering, performing, and evaluating re- = search create the optimal pathways from research to goal at- tainment? To answer these questions, the Committee will need to examine and evaluate traditional science policy assumptions and recom- mend new approaches; expand the range of experts upon whom it calls for advice to include the users of research, rather than just the performers; and establish programs that compare and assess al- ternative methods of research administration and performance. In this context, the Task Force recommends two nested lines of action aimed at creating more explicit linkages between national goals and federally supported research programs: (1) Strengthen mechanisms for setting government-wide research-policy goals, and for oversight of the federal research portfolio, by exploiting Committee jurisdiction over the Office of Science and Technology Policy; (2) Integrate performance assessment mechanisms into the research process using legislative mandates and other meas- ures, to help measure the effectiveness of federally funded research programs. Implementing the recommendations of this report will require a long term, strategic approach by the Committee that will probably include hearings, pilot projects, and legislative initiatives embrac- ing the jurisdictions of most or all of the SST subcommittees. The report itself is not a detailed recipe; rather, it is designed to serve as the starting point of a constructive dialogue and evolutionary process that can strengthen the Committee’s ability to forge science policy for the national! good. (1) 2 PROBLEM STATEMENT The present system of research in the United States was established in the two decades following World War II. This period was characterized by policy consensus, minimal international competition, and a relatively small and homogeneous research community. Today, there is a widespread perception that the federally funded research system is under stress. From the perspective of researchers dependent on federal support, this may simply mean that there is more competition for available funding, or that mission-oriented research budgets are insufficient to fulfill agency mandates. From the perspective of policy makers, stress may be manifested by dis- cord between the promised benefits of research and a society beset by a range of seemingly intractable economic, environmental, and social problems. Research policy designed forty years ago may no longer be suita- ble for addressing the problems of today’s world. Traditional disci- plinary and agency boundaries, unsophisticated models of innovation and economic benefit, and ideological approaches to federal in- volvement in the research process must be reconsidered. The Administration’s budget request establishes an implicit research agenda, and Congress responds. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology has reinforced the status quo by addressinz policy issues and reauthorization on an agency-by-agency and year- by-year basis, and by providing what often amounts to a rubber stamp for agency budgets, agendas, and policies. The Committee must consider new strategies for addressing increasingly urgent policy dilemmas and societal challenges. Such strategies should be rooted in the development of explicit linkages between the conduct of federally funded research and the achieve- ment of national goals. The need for change is clear. 3 INTRODUCTION The U.S. system of scientific, engineering, and mathematical research is widely perceived to be under stress. The scientific community, science-policy makers, and the press have each sought to ex- plain the sources and potential impacts of this stress, often arriv- ing at highly divergent interpretations. From a Congressional perspective, concern over the health of the federally funded research system demands a reconsideration of the proper role of the federal government in supporting research.} Alleged causes of this stress include: ? (1) Inadequate federal resources to support a growing academic research community at levels which the community be- lieves are necessary (for research and training); (2) Inadequate federal resources to support mission-oriented research (i.e., research designed to achieve established policy objectives) at federal agencies; (3) Increased demand for new interdisciplinary research programs to investigate complex and/or high profile research problems (e.g. global climate change, AIDS); (4) Lack of mechanisms and criteria for setting priorities in federally funded research both within and between disciplines, fields, or programs; (5) Increasing proportion of federal research funds spent on “big science” projects; and (6) Declining private-sector investment in research, resulting in fewer research jobs and increased demand for federal support of research that had formerly been carried out by private industry. Perceived symptoms of stress in the research system include: 3 1 The Task Force defines the federally funded research system to include all nondefense research supported by federal funds, regardless of performer. The system encompasses all basic and applied scientific and engineering research, as well as development of facilities and equip- ment for research, but does not include development of products and processes when they become directly linked: to commercial applications. A comprehensive reconsideration of the federal role in this system is contained in U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Federal- ly Funded Research: Decisions for a Decade, OTA-SET-490 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, May 1991). 2 For university research, see, for example: Science: The End of the Frontier? a report by Leon M. Lederman, President-Elect, to the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, January 1991; Robert M. White, “Too Many Researchers, Too Few Dol- lars,” Issues in Science & Technology, vol. 7, Spring 1991, Pp. 35-37; Erich Bloch, “Optimists, Skeptics, and Realists: Other Views of the Research ‘Crisis’,” in Science and Technology Poli Yearbook 1991, M.O. Meredith et al., eds. (Washington, DC: AAAS, 1991); and Roland W. Schmitt, “The Sources of Discontent in Academic Research,” presented at the annual meeting, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Feb. 9, 1992, Chicago, IL. For mission- oriented research, see, for example: W.D. Kay, “The Politics of Fusion Research,” Issues in Sci- ence and Technology, vol. 8, Winter 1991/92, pp. 40-46; E.S. Rubin, L.B. Lave, and M.G. Morgan, BoA we: Climate Research Relevant,” Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 8, Winter 1991/92, pp. 47-55; Expert. panel on the role of Science at EPA, Safeguarding the Future: Credible Sci- ence, Credible Decisions, U.S: Environmental Protection Agency EPA/600/9-91/050, March 1992. 3 In addition to references in footnote 2, see, for example, U.S. Con; , Office of Technol Assessment, Competing Economies: America, Europe and the Pacific Rim, OTA-ITE-498 (Wash- ington, DC: U.S. er ament Printing Office, Ocho 1991); National Academy of Sciences, The Government Role in Civilian Technology (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1992); Glenn McLaughlin and Richard E. Rowberg, Sieg 4 Between Federal Research and Develo ment Funding and Economic Growth,” CRS Report for Congress 92-211 SPR, February 21, 1992; John F. Ahearne, “Why Federal Research and Development Fails,’ Resources for the Future Discussion Paper EM88-02, July, 1988; Bruce Stokes, “High Tech Tussle,” National Journal, rha thee1 990, pp. 1838-1342; and Leon Jaroff, “Crisis in the Labs,” Time, August 26, 1991, pp. 4 (1) Declining competitiveness of U.S. high-technology products in international markets; (2) Inability of mission-oriented research programs at many sat agencies to achieve policy-relevant results or statutory goals; (3) Increased competition for funding among researchers, and increased time spent on administrative, versus research, activi- ties; (4) Neglect of undergraduate-level science education at many universities because of an excessive emphasis on pursuit of research funding and performance of research; (5) Increasingly vocal debates over the appropriate role of federal funding in applied civilian research; (6) Publicity about issues such as misconduct in research, academic earmarking, misuse of indirect cost reimbursements, conflicts of interest, and animal testing. This report accepts the premise that these and related concerns are indicative of “stress’’ within the research system. Regardless of the merit of these and other commonly cited problems, it is clear that neither policy makers nor scientists are satisfied with the im- plementation of science policy today. In this context, this report seeks to outline broad strategies by which the Committee on Sci- ence, Space, and Technology can strengthen its oversight of the federally funded research portfolio, while crafting policy directed at improving the linkages between federally funded research programs and national goals. To broaden and deepen the science policy dialogue, this report questions basic assumptions about the operation and goals of the federal research system. This dialogue, on the whole, has been too narrowly focused on funding levels, and not sufficiently concerned with how to increase the ability of federally supported research to contribute to the welfare of the nation. The emphasis on funding levels indicates a complacency with institutional structure and performance that is unwarranted and perhaps dysfunctional for the times. The ongoing federal budget crisis should be viewed as a mo- tivation for the Committee to examine fundamental science policy assumptions—still rooted in a cold war mentality—and consider new approaches to implementing a science policy for the 1990s. A principal objective of this report, then, is to propose specific strategies that the Committee may wish to pursue to enhance the contribution of federally funded research to national goals such as increased economic competitiveness, enhanced human health, energy security, environmental protection, and expansion of the knowledge base. Two principal strategies are identified: (1) Strengthen mechanisms for setting government-wide research-policy goals, and for oversight of the federal research portfolio, by exploiting Committee jurisdiction over the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP); (2) Integrate various performance assessment mechanisms into the research process using legislative mandates, in order to help measure the effectiveness of federally funded research ‘programs.