March 26, 2001 Opinion Short Sight or Long View? By Chancellor M.R.C. Greenwood The President's FY 2002 budget blueprint reveals a disturbing lack of support for non-defense discretionary funding for general science, space and technology. Initial sketchy budget numbers reveal a 2% increase in NASA to a possible press-reported 22% decrease in the U.S. Geological Survey. The National Science Foundation, the only federal agency devoted solely to non-defense related basic scientific and engineering research and education, is slated for a mere 1.2 percent increase ($56 million) in FY 2002. Chancellor Greenwood photo: UCSC Photo Services Although the President's proposed increases for medical research and education are important and welcome, the Administration seems to have overlooked the fact that over 50 years of public investment in science and technology has generated an awe-inspiring array of new knowledge, and millions of jobs in new industries such as satellite communications, the Internet, computers, modern agriculture and aviation. The recent, turbulent economic downturn notwithstanding, the nation's economy is strong. Although science and technology alone did not cause the economy's strength, they were the key drivers in spurring innovation and productivity that created the estimated $5.6 trillion budget surplus the President and Congress are now trying to manage. Every year, U.S. taxpayers fund researchers' quest for knowledge about the world, and they are pleased to do so. Research!America, a national alliance that supports discoveries, conducted a survey in 2000 showing that 94% of Americans think that more money for science research and engineering is an important national priority. In the same survey, 85% think a tax cut is an important national priority. Moreover, 78% think that support for basic research that advances the frontiers of knowledge is necessary, should be supported by the federal government and is important even if it brings no immediate benefits. Those data are consistent with last week's L.A. Times poll saying that Americans, by a 55% to 30% majority, would prefer a plan to cut taxes less and use more of the anticipated federal surplus to pay down the national debt and fund domestic programs--of which research is one. A recent bipartisan perspective reinforces these compelling public opinion data. The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century, chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren B. Rudman, four weeks ago recommended that the nation should double the federal research and development budget by 2010 to recapitalize America's strengths in science and education. The White House's blueprint reflects neither public sentiment nor the Commission's findings. The blueprint is also ironic. While it acknowledges the importance of high-quality education, it does not acknowledge the connections between the science and engineering and the foundation of a knowledge economy. That irony begs the question, If we succeed in the national goal to improve elementary and secondary education, particularly in the areas of science and mathematics, will the research and development pipeline of ideas that can be turned into economically viable goods and services be large enough to sustain and build the new, new economy or will our students be looking to other countries to provide their careers? The White House apparently fails to appreciate the importance of federal support for a strong science and engineering base that serves national goals. A reason may be that, while moving rapidly on other matters, the Administration has not yet put forward to the Senate a nomination for director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Historically, OSTP has provided leadership to ensure that federal priorities for funding science and engineering are included during budget discussions. This year OSTP lacks the necessary leadership to advise about those public investments. Failure to support adequately science and technology research, whose payoffs may be far in the future, would permanently endanger the nation's economic future. The Administration must act quickly to incorporate this expertise effectively into its deliberations. Chancellor Greenwood is past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Society for Clinical Nutrition. She served as associate director for science in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy from 1993 to 1995.