Topics

Statement by
Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences,
Wm. A. Wulf, President of the National Academy of Engineering,
and Kenneth I. Shine, President of the Institute of Medicine
on
Federal Funding of Scientific and Engineering
Research and Development


Sept. 22, 1999



Our nation's leaders would not be arguing today about use of a federal budget surplus without our past investments in science and technology. No lesser authority than Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan has made this clear. In a recent speech, Mr. Greenspan noted that with respect to our economic prosperity, "It is safe to say that we are witnessing this decade, in the United States, history's most compelling demonstration of the productive capacity of a free peoples operating in free markets."(1) In his view, this historic economic period is due to a process whereby "emerging technologies push out the old. Standards of living rise when incomes created by the productive facilities employing older, increasingly obsolescent technologies are marshaled to finance the newly produced capital assets that embody cutting-edge technologies." He explicitly credits information technology as well as biotechnology with reshaping our economic landscape.

In a report on Preparing for the Twenty First Century, the Governing Board of the National Research Council states that the "United States has risen to a position of global leadership in part through its strength in science and engineering research. With wise policies for resource allocation and governance, that strength can continue to catalyze U.S. leadership in the next century."(2) Several other reports from the National Academies have elaborated on this important point. Our Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy concluded in 1999 that investments in research and development have played a key role in U.S. industrial success during the 1990s.(3) Over the years, National Academy of Engineering reports have shown that these investments "provide the infrastructure -- knowledge base, human capital, instrumentation -- for maintaining and upgrading a nation's capabilities to generate, assimilate, and apply knowledge and skill"(4) and that "commercial technology will become increasingly science-based and interdisciplinary."(5) And in its analysis of the FY2000 budget, our Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy concluded that "The nation must recognize the importance of investing in a balanced way across a broad range of fields to maintain the overall health of the science and technology portfolio."(6) Thus, it is ironic that major cuts in federal science and technology funding are being discussed in the debate over the FY 2001 budget.

Without our postwar investments in physics, electronics, and medicine, we would not be presiding over the first projected budget surplus in a generation. As a wise step for securing America's future, the National Academies urge our nation's leaders to find a way to continue to fund a robust, balanced portfolio of scientific and engineering research and development.

______________________________

Notes

1. "Maintaining Economic Vitality," remarks by Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, Millennium Lecture Series, sponsored by the Gerald R. Ford Foundation and Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, Michigan, September 8, 1999.

2. Preparing for the 21st Century: Science and Engineering Research in a Changing World, National Academy Press, 1997

3. Securing America's Industrial Strength, National Academy Press, 1999; U.S. Industry in 2000: Studies in Competitive Performance, National Academy Press, 1999.

4. Foreign Participation in U.S. Research and Development: Asset or Liability?, National Academy Press, 1996.

5. Mastering a New Role: Shaping Technology Policy for National Economic Performance, National Academy Press, 1993.

6. Observations on the President's Fiscal Year 2000 Federal Science and Technology Budget, National Academy Press, 1999.