Preparing for the 21st Century: Science and Technology Policy in a New Era



Preparing for the 21st Century: Science and Technology Policy in a New Era A Statement from the Presidents of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine October 23, 1997 Robust scientific and engineering research boosts economic productivity and competitiveness, strengthens national security, and improves human health and the environment. Given the tremendous capacity of research to help meet U.S. objectives in the next century, the nation's research enterprise must remain at the frontiers of science and technology. [1] National Goals for a New Era The federal government has played a pivotal role in developing the world's most successful system of research and development. Over the past five decades, the U.S. scientific and technical enterprise has expanded dramatically, and the federal investments in it have produced enormous benefits for the nation's economy, defense, health, and social well-being. Science and technology will be at least as important for our nation's future as they have been for our past. Maintaining the vigor of research and development is important -- indeed essential -- and will require the ability to increase funding for new opportunities selectively, even while reducing the overall budget. [2] The United States must continue to remain among the world leaders in every major area of research, so that our nation can quickly apply and extend advances in knowledge wherever they occur. In addition, we must maintain clear leadership in certain critical research areas -- to be chosen using criteria such as: (a) being tied to central national objectives, (b) capturing the imagination of society, or (c) having a multiplicative effect on other research advances. [3] The federal role in support of long-range, broadly useful research in basic sciences and technology is an initial underpinning for advances in all of these areas. To achieve our national objectives in science and technology, a special emphasis must be placed on the development of human resources,[4] including preparation of scientists and engineers for a broad range of careers. [5] Thus, research that includes an explicit educational component contributes to these objectives more powerfully than does research independent of education. [6] Much of the important knowledge transfer from government-supported research to industry occurs when researchers leave the universities where they were trained for employment in the private sector. The best mechanism for tracking the leadership status of a field is a comparative assessment by a combination of U.S. and foreign researchers in that field and users of the results of that research. [7] The Academies have just released the first of their experimental efforts to conduct such a benchmarking assessment, in this case for the field of mathematics. [8] The results of such a benchmarking exercise could provide guidance on budgetary decisions as part of an annual comprehensive budget analysis -- best carried out using a Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) framework -- that would set priorities as to where the United States should increase or reduce its emphasis. [9] Basic Technology Research and Policy Goals When analyzing research supported by the federal government, traditional distinctions made between basic and applied science or between science and technology often are misleading. [10] "Basic technology research" complements basic scientific research, and should not be mislabeled as "applied research." [11] This includes research activities such as predicting ground motion and landslides caused by earthquakes, conducting research on clinical trial methodology, building an optical computer, and developing a new class of strong high-temperature alloys for engines. [12] Direct government investments in S&T for economic purposes should be focused on long-range, broadly useful research in basic technology and science, both of which produce benefits far in excess of what private sector entities can capture for themselves. [13] Private firms have the primary responsibility for product development, but federal and state governments play an important role in enhancing the civilian technology base and its adoption through their economic, regulatory, and trade policies, their support for research and development, and their own procurement of technology. [14] The federal government should cooperate with the private sector so that the United States maintains a position of leadership in those technologies that promise to have a major and continuing impact on broad areas of industrial and economic performance. The government could increase its probability of success by being responsive to market signals, providing stable and long-term support, and focusing on technology adoption as well as technology development. [15] But the government need not invest in fields in which the private sector already has programs of development in place. [16] The international context of innovating and investing in research and development also needs attention. Policies that influence the development and adoption of technologies must reflect two mutually reinforcing trends that build global networks of research and development, production, and marketing: (1) expanding international trade, foreign direct investment, and corporate alliances, and (2) converging technological capabilities of the industrialized nations. [17] With innovations traveling so quickly around the globe, protection of intellectual property rights needs to extend internationally to maintain incentives for companies and individuals to innovate and invest in research and development. [18] At the same time, we must be careful that these property rights make allowance for the widespread effective use of research tools. [19] The Education Imperative All Americans must have a solid education in science, mathematics, and technology to be prepared for today's work force and to be able to understand the complex world in which we live. Yet, many corporations report that only about one-tenth of American high school graduates seeking employment have the skills necessary to qualify for entry-level jobs. And the most recent international comparisons show that our 8th graders perform below the world average in mathematics and only slightly above average in science. We must make precollege education the nation's number one priority. All major sectors of the economy -- the federal and state governments, corporate America, as well as the educational enterprise -- must take responsibility for improving American education and must act explicitly to do so. This country's future is precarious without a solid educational base. At the end of the 20th century and at the dawn of the 21st, it is imperative that the nation's leadership collaborate effectively to move this issue forward. To seek higher levels of performance from all students at the K-12 level, policymakers should encourage teachers, curriculum-developers, school administrators, government officials, and college faculty to build on national standards in science and mathematics. [20] And to ensure that all undergraduates achieve high levels of literacy in science, mathematics, and technology, college students should have access to excellent programs that provide direct experience with the methods and processes of scientific inquiry. [21] There is an urgent need to attract a new generation of energetic and skillful new teachers into our nation's public education system. In the next 10 years, we will need to hire 2 million teachers in the United States. This represents a tremendous opportunity to invigorate our nation's teaching corps with people who have both mastery and a deep passion for science, technology, and mathematics. For success, it is critical that we enlist all college science faculty in a focused effort to support such careers for their students. Those with scientific, technical, and mathematical skills entering the education workforce will need new types of teacher preparation so that their students engage successfully in inquiry-based learning. A major federal program should be considered to stimulate the development of such programs on a large scale, as well as to provide financial support and prestige to selected individuals moving into K-12 teaching from science and engineering careers. Research as a Global Enterprise For too long, we have thought of our research system in isolation. Powerful forces make it imperative that we view it in relation to worldwide events. International cooperation in science and technology clearly is appropriate for large and expensive facilities such as high-energy accelerators and nuclear fusion facilities; for projects requiring coordinated research programs such as global climate change; and for cross-national comparisons of health, education, and economic development. [22] However, international cooperation is much more than joint financial support of major facilities with other nations. Science is a global enterprise in which the United States must participate for its own benefit and that of the world. The scientific and engineering communities in the United States benefit from ideas and technologies developed all over the world; indeed, to remain world-class, the nation's scientists and engineers must be in touch with researchers around the globe. [23] As the world leader in science and technology, the United States also has important contributions to make in addressing major global problems such as disease, malnutrition, and overpopulation. By engaging in international scientific and technical collaborations and exchanges, and enhancing the free trade in ideas that address major problems, the United States can contribute to improvements in the quality of life in many countries. These improvements apply to the United States itself, inasmuch as health and environmental problems in other countries effect Americans as well. For example, distinctions between domestic and international health problems are losing their usefulness and often are misleading. The movement of 2 million people each day across national borders and the growth of international commerce are inevitably associated with transfers of health risks, such as infectious diseases, contaminated foodstuffs, and legal or banned toxic substances. [24] Ultimately, cooperative efforts in science an d technology will expand global economic markets. [25] Similarly for both health and environmental issues, all peoples of the world should be equipped to make wise decisions concerning the use of limited natural and human resources based on the best science and technology. For example, because of population growth, we will soon need to feed nearly twice as many people in the world in a sustainable way. This will require scientific and technical breakthroughs in agricultural research using the revolutionary new techniques available for genetic analysis and genetic engineering, and a more effective way of disseminating that knowledge where it is needed through highly effective "extension" services. Likewise, the need to build cities to house some 4 billion more people in the next 50 years cries out for a new global campaign to promote wise decision-making concerning the provision of housing, energy, and transportation as well as health care, water, food distribution, and waste disposal. By forging new national and international alliances, and by carefully exploiting the new communication technologies nearby on the horizon -- putting the whole world in nearly instantaneous low-cost contact through satellite-based Internet connections -- the United States can link to our scientific and technically trained colleagues across the globe. Such "connectivity" has great potential to empower these agents of wise development to have a much larger influence, one that transcends political barriers and brings a substantially increased force to bear everywhere for stable, worldwide democracy. This will require shifting many U.S. scientists and engineers, and their research universities, into vigorous new international roles. And, it will also require a much greater emphasis on the central roles of science and technology on the part of those agencies of the federal government responsible for international policy -- who need to take much stronger leadership roles in facilitating global scientific, health, and technological development. Making the Most of our Federal Research Investment Maintaining U.S. leadership in science and technology despite budget constraints will require discipline in the allocation of resources for federal investments. [26] Academic institutions will continue to play a central role because of their flexibility and inherent quality control, and because they directly link research to education and training in science and engineering. Funding academic institutions maximizes flexibility because it allows for an easy shifting of government research portfolios, inasmuch as most funding commitments are for a specific project of limited duration. [27] In general, preference should be given to funding particular projects and people, rather than institutions, in order to respond to new opportunities and changing conditions. [28] Because competition for funding is vital to maintain the high quality of research programs, competitive merit review -- especially that involving external reviewers -- should be the preferred way to make rewards. Evaluations of research and development programs and of those performing and sponsoring the work, also should incorporate the views of unbiased outside reviewers. [29] Summary In summary, the following principles should guide science and technology as we prepare for the 21st century: > The federal role in support of long-range broadly useful research in basic sciences and technology is an initial underpinning for advances in the nation's economy, defense, health, and social well-being. > The United States must be among the world leaders in all major areas of research and must maintain clear leadership in certain critical research areas. > When analyzing research supported by the federal government, distinctions made between basic and applied science or between science and technology are often misleading. "Basic technology research" complements basic scientific research, and should not be mislabeled as "applied research." > All Americans must have a solid education in science, mathematics, and technology so that they are prepared for today's work force, are informed about important issues, and are able to better understand the complex world in which we live and thus can make informed decisions about their lives. > International cooperation is much more than joint financial support of facilities with other nations. The United States can, through its science and technology leadership, contribute to improvements in the quality of life throughout the world. > Maintaining U.S. leadership in science and technology despite budget constraints will require discipline in the allocation of resources for federal investments. Within the general constraints determined by national priorities, the selection of individual projects must reflect the highest standards of the scientific and technical community. Endnotes The full text of all the reports cited below is available at www.nas.edu 1 National Research Council. Governing Board. Preparing for the 21st Century: Science and Engineering Research in a Changing World . January 1997. p. 1. 2 National Research Council. Committee on Criteria for Federal Support of Research and Development. Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology. 1995. p. 3. 3 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era. 1993. p. 18-20. 4 National Goals. p. 27. 5 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scientists and Engineers. 1995. p. 4. 6 National Goals. p. 27. 7 National Goals. p. 21-22.; Allocating. p. 15. 8 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. International Benchmarking of US Mathematics Research. 1997. 9 Allocating. p. 8. 10 Allocating . p. 5. 11 National Academy of Engineering. Branscomb, Lewis M. Science Policy vs. Technology Policy: Resolving the Ideological Confusion. The Bridge. Spring 1997. 12 Allocating . p. 6-7. 13 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. The Government Role in Civilian Technology: Building a New Alliance. 1992. p. 1. 14 National Research Council. Governing Board. Preparing for the 21st Century: Technology and the Nation's Future. January 1997. p. 1. 15 National Goals. p. 33-43. 16 National Academy of Engineering. Committee on Technology Policy Options in a Global Economy. Mastering a New Role: Shaping Technology Policy for National Economic Performance. 1993 17 Technology and the Nation's Future. p. 7. 18 National Research Council. Office of International Affairs. Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology. 1993. National Research Council. Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy. Conflict and Cooperation in National Competition for High-Technology Industry. 1996. 19 National Research Council. Commission on Life Sciences. Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology. 1997. 20 National Research Council. National Committee on Science Education Standards and Assessment. National Science Education Standards. 1996. 21 National Research Council. Center for Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Education. From Analysis to Action: Undergraduate Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology. 1996. 22 Allocating. p. 16. 23 Allocating. p. 16. 24 Institute of Medicine. America's Vital Interest in Global Health. Protecting Our People, Enhancing Our Economy, and Advancing Our International Interests. 1997. 25 Allocating. p. 16. 26 Allocating. p. 17. 27 Allocating. p. 20. 28 Allocating. p. 24. 29 Allocating. p. 25-27.