Table Of Content

S. Hrg. 103-363 SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT M.C 73/7; S.HRS. 103-363 HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AND SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, SPACE OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, AND TRANSPORTATION SCIENCE, UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JUNE 22, 1993 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation MM If /3S4 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 69-724CC WASHINGTON 1994 : Forsale by the U.S. Government PrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments. Congressional SalesOffice. Washington. DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-043445-9 S. Hrg. 103-363 AND THE FEDERAL TECHNOLOGY, SCIENCE, GOVERNMENT 4. C 73/7; S. HRG. 103-363 ; HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SPACE OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, AND TRANSPORTATION SCIENCE, UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JUNE 22, 1993 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation mimmci,ior MM 1 4 jgs4 i U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE G9-724CC WASHINGTON 1994 : Forsaleby the U.S. Govemmenl PrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments. Congressional Sales Office. Washington, DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-043445-9 COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina, Chairman DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN C. DANFORTH, Missouri WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky BOB PACKWOOD, Oregon J. JAMES EXON, Nebraska LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Vir^nia TED STEVENS, Alaska JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana CONRAD BURNS, Montana RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada SLADE GORTON, Washington CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia TRENT LOTT, Mississippi BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire BOB KRUEGER, Texas Kevin G. Cuetin, Chief Counsel and StaffDirector Jonathan Chambers, Republican StaffDirector Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina CONRAD BURNS, Montana JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusette LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada TRENT LOTT, Mississippi CHARLES S. ROBB, Virginia JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire BOB KRUEGER, Texas (II) v^M CONTENTS Page Opening statement ofSenator Bums 5 FVepared statement 6 Opening statement ofSenator Hollings 3 Opening statement ofSenator Rockefeller 1 List of Witnesses Griffiths, Phillip A., Chair, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, National Academy of Sciences, and Director, Institute for Advanced Study 7 Prepared statement 11 Press, Dr. Frank, President, National Academy ofSciences 3 (in) AND THE FEDERAL SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, GOVERNMENT JUNE TUESDAY, 22, 1993 U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Science, Technology, AND Space of the Committee on Commerce, and Science, Transportation, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:07 a.m. in room SDG-50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Staff members assigned to this hearing: Patrick H. Windham, professional staff member; and Louis C. Whitsett, minority staff counsel. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROCKEFELLER Senator Rockefeller. Gentlemen, before I even give my opening statement, let me ask both of you, do you think there is phony, false, or real momentum toward adjustment on the part of the Fed- eral Government in terms of technology, science, and technology? Are we all just talking, or do you see real changes? [Pause.] Dr. Press. Well, I have been in town long enough to see trends, and I have been wrong many times. However, I feel there is a readiness now for partnerships to develop between the Government and industry in certain key areas where that kind of cooperation might help those industries that are global in extent and are very important to the economic performance of the Nation. I see that in Congress and I see that in the executive branch, and it has not started with this administration. You can see the trends beginning in the previous administration. Senator Rockefeller. I know it is at the top of this administration, but is not one of the lessons of bureaucracy that it has to go on down quite a bit farther? Dr. Press. Before it really gets done; yes. Senator Rockefeller. Let me giv—e you an example. I am really angry at the Cli—nton administration I hope to clear this up today with Bob Rubin simply because I am having trouble trying to get SBA venture capital money that will relate to critical technologies. does not do that. Commerce has been reluctant to get into that. So, in other words, the administration is talking again about new technology, and critical technologies above all, and yet when it comes down to actually putting out, doing the financing, they really (1) held back, and I have discussed this a lot with them, and they con- tinue to hold back. So, we are probably going to have to make some kind of a compromise between SBA, which really has no business doing any of this at all, has no particular experience in technology, and cuts off aid to firms worth more than about $10 million? If you are worth more than $10 million you do not qualify, or $2 million, or something of that sort. The Clinton administration has not done anything to get into this and be helpful, so I am going to talk this afternoon at Bob Rubin, and hopefully that will do it, but you see what I mean? In other words, the talk versus the action on the nitty-gritty. I am not trying to be testy, Frank. I revere you, as you know. am I just trying to get you Dr. Press. Let me give you another perception. When I was in the Government, in the Carter administration, I tried to run something called the Cooperative Automobile Research Program. The name was CARP. Its mission was to get the automobile companies working with national laboratories and universities, not on redesigning a new car, but on the more fundamental things of new materials and new electronic devices for cars. I called all of the executive vice presi- R&D dents for of these companies and asked them to come to my office in Washington to discuss this plan. They all refused to come on advice of attorney. Senator Rockefeller. Antitrust. Dr. Press. Yes. But now they can do that today because of legis- lation in 1984. And, now we do have the Battery Consortium, which is, I believe, a very good program. So, I understand what you are saying, but there are some hope- ful signs. The NIST budget that the administration proposed has gone up severalfold, and that does have components of giving more companies access to technology. Good luck in convincing the White House. I hope it comes out successfully. Senator Rockefeller. I cannot guarantee it will. I will pick at him. He will not go home until he says yes, or we will have to set- tle for a compromise as so often happens in Government, in order to go ahead on critical technologies, but you have got to get the best that you can. Phil, I totally apologize to you. I now have a very short statement, and then, Frank, you go ahead and give your statement. We want to look at the long term on the science and technology policy, not just where we have come from since the end of the cold war, but also looking out ahead, and there are several issues, I guess, that are on my mind that I would say to both ofyou. I want to put these issues in th—e context of an era of budgets which are tight, and they really are they really are. We know that intellectually, but when it gets down to fighting for things that we have been accustomed to fighting for, we do not stop. We somehow think that there is extra, and there is not any more. It really is an era of tight budgets, and in the meantime research is getting more expensive. Should the United States, first question, try to be active in all areas of science, in all areas everywhere? Should we pick priorities instead, and if we do that, how do we pick the priorities? Second, as economic competitiveness becomes more important, should Federal policy place a greater emphasis than in the past on engineering research, and more emphasis on supporting industry- led researcn projects? Third, if science and technology priorities shift, what would be the respective roles of universities. Government laboratories, and corporate research? Then finally, in the biomedical area, can our research community create new treatments and technologies that save lives but at the same time are affordable, since technology is one of the giant hyperinflationmakers of health care? Mr. Chairman, your comments, please. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROLLINGS The Chairman. The Commerce Committee has long worked to set science and technology policies which meet our Nation's needs. For many years, national security was our most pressing concern. Now, with the cold war over and international economic competiton intensifying, jobs and industrial strength move to the forefront. A new era requires new thinking and new priorities. The national academies have worked hard on these issues, and I commend them for the new report being discussed today. That report is an important step in rethinking the objectives and mechanisms of Fed- eral science and technology policy, and I expect that it will have a wide influence on policymakers. Today, I also want to commend Frank Press on the conclusion of his distinguished tenure as president of the National Academy of Sciences. As both NAS president and, earlier, as a renowned pro- fessor and then science advisor to President Carter, he exemplifies the highest standards of public service. He deserves our thanks. Thank Mr. Chairman. you, Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Press. STATEMENT OF DR. FRANK PRESS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES Dr. Press. This is a special occasion for me Senator, because it marks the last day in my presidency of the National Academy of Sciences. My 12-year term is completed. Senator Rockefeller. And your colleagues gave you a big A Dr. Press. shindig, yes. Senator Rockefeller. We do, too. When I say "we," I am looking at all my colleagues here. am Dr. Rress. I like the fact that I here at your first hearing dealing with science policy in your capacity as the new Chair of this subcommittee. It is a special event for me, because I think this report that we have released and are going to tell you about may be one of the more important things that we have done over the years. The are mixed. There has been much discussion report's origins across the country about appropriate Federal science and technology policies. The committees of Congress, the Office of Tech- nology Assessment, reports of our own organization, universities. — study groups, et cetera they are all exploring this issue because they recognize that the times have changed. You mentioned that the cold war is over. But there is a new era of global economic competition and cooperation, and most nations view science and technology as their special advantage for economic success in the years ahead. Even the newly industrialized nations like Korea, Taiwan, China, which you know a lot about, and in- creasingly Brazil, are exploring their options and possibilities in the area of advanced technology. If we as a nation do not maximize our great strength and build on our great strength in science and technology, we are losing something very valuable. The academy's committee on science, engineering, and public policy, which is our highest level committee, undertook this. They have been working and talking about it for IV2 years, and have We been actively involved for the last 6 months. believe that our report is coming out at a good time. There is that readiness for the reasons that I have given. Also, you might say that we have come to the end, perhaps, of 40 years of the Vannevar Bush era. Senator Rockefeller. Of the which? Dr. Press. Of the Vannevar Bush era. Senator Rockefeller. OK. Dr. Press. His report set the stage for the growth of science and technology 40 years ago. It led to the National Science Foundation, and to the enhanced Federal role in the support of basic science, but he was riding the wave of the momentum of the success of science and technology. Senator Rockefeller. Sort of like Flexner. Dr. Press. It is what Flexner did for medicine. Right, perfect analogy. But that was a long time ago, and there are people wh—o are skeptical about that era who are raising a lot of questi—ons why has not science done this, solved that problem, and so on and so I think the timing is appropriate for us to renew this interest in what the appropriate Federal policy should be, and that is what ! we have done. The present system for determining the appropriate level for the support of science, if not ch—aotic, is certainly not coordinated. There are always uncert—ainties are we spending too much, are we spending too little and there are also issues of allocation across We different fields and priorities in science. have always talked about them, but I think we have never really come up with a ra- tional way or procedure for addressing these issues. In addition, the issues of big science versus small science have always cropped up, diverting our attention from the lack of a process for exploring the Federal role in science and technology. What we are proposing here is an outline for this Government role. We recommend that the Nation establish goals for itself and justify them, that there be a yardstick and we describe that yardstick, for measuring whether or not we have met those goals. From this, one can determine the funding levels that would be appropriate overall for science, and for each of the major fields of science. In the report we are not asking for more money or for less We money. are proposing a process for reaching that conclusion,