Transcript Science, Society, and Public Policy Michael M. Crow Columbia University - THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE - THE SOCIAL SHAPING OF THE NATIONAL SCIENCE BASE - S&T POLICY:

Science, Society, and Public
Policy
Michael M. Crow
Columbia University
-
THE IMPORTANCE OF SCIENTIFIC
AND TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE
-
THE SOCIAL SHAPING OF THE
NATIONAL SCIENCE BASE
-
S&T POLICY: THE 1950’S MODEL
-
TRADING IN THE 1950’S MODEL
SCIENCE AS AN INSTRUMENT OF
POLICY:
Science is an instrument that can be
used for a variety of social objectives,
including:
-
Meeting Basic Human Needs
Making War
Improving the Quality of Life
Economic Growth and
Development
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND
ECONOMIC GROWTH:
• Between 1870 and 1973, the U.S. economy
had grown at an average rate of 3.4%
annually.
• Between 1973 and 1993, the average rate of
growth flattened to 2.3%.
2.3%
slow growth
3.4%
long term rate
GDP
losses
1973
1993
Economic Growth: Importance
• Over the 20 years since 1973, the
accumulated losses in goods and services
due to slow growth have come to nearly $12
trillion, or $40,000 per person.
Economic Growth: Importance
• $12 trillion is more than enough to:
– Have bought each of America’s landowners a
new house; or,
– Paid off all of our government, mortgage, and
credit card debt; or,
– Replaced all of our nation’s factories, including
capital equipment, with new ones.
Economic Growth: Importance
• As the triangle grows over time, so does the
cumulative damage. By the year 2013,
assuming the post-1973 trend of growing
just one-percent less than our historical
average holds, the losses would be $35
trillion of lost production since 1973.
• This is a loss of over $100,000 per person.
Economic Growth: Importance
• Compounded over generations, a 1 or 2
percent reduction in the overall growth rate
could be the difference between the
standard of living merely doubling or
increasing five-fold over a 100 year period.
Most economists agree that scientific and
technical change accounts for as much as 50%
of long-run economic growth.
A large number of economists argue that, when
we measure scientific and technical change
properly, the figure is as high as 75%.
“ NATIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS”
AND SCIENTIFIC/TECHNOLOGICAL
ADVANCE
National Innovation Systems:
The Complex
Network of Agents, Policies, and Institutions Supporting
the Process of Scientific and Technical Advance in an
Economy
The “Narrow” NIS
• Organizations and Institutions Directly
Involved in Searching and Exploring
Activities, e.g. Universities and Research
Laboratories
The “Narrow”
NIS
Mission
Agencies
Public S&T
Labs
Hybrid S&T
Labs
Scientific and
Technological
Societies
Universities
Private Firms
Technology
Sharing
Regimes
Intellectual
Property
Regimes
Technology
Licensing
Regimes
The “Broad” NIS
• Includes, In Addition To The Components
Of The Narrow NIS, All Economic,
Political, And Other Social Institutions
Affecting Learning, Searching, And
Exploring Activities, e.g. A Nation’s
Financial System, Its Monetary Policies,
And Internal Organization Of Private Firms
The “Broad” NIS
User-Producer
Relationships
Mission
Agencies
Public S&T
Labs
Hybrid S&T
Labs
Organization
of Financial
System
Scientific and
Technological
Societies
Internal Organization
of Firms
Private Firms
Technology
Sharing
Regimes
Industrial
Organization
Monetary
Policies
Universities
Intellectual
Property
Regimes
Technology
Licensing
Regimes
Natural
Resources
National R&D Expenditures, By Performer: 1995
7%
4%
5%
100%
90%
80%
3%
13%
10%
70%
60%
50%
40%
49%
71%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2%
14%
67%
24%
10%
National R&D
($171.0 billion)
Federal Government
12%
9%
Basic Research
($29.6 billion)
Industry
Academia
Applied
Research
($39.8 billion)
U&C FFRDCs
Other
Sources of Academic R&D Funding, By Sector
100%
Other
90%
Academic Institutions
80%
State/Local Govt.
70%
Industry
60%
50%
40%
Federal Govt.
30%
20%
10%
Year
1993
1990
1987
1984
1981
1978
1975
1972
1969
1966
1963
1960
0%
The Complexity of the NIS
Unknown
Industry
Government
Academic
Non-Prof
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
FFRDC
Author Sector of the U.S. Papers Cited in
Industry Patents
Impact of University Research
Distribution of citations across U.S. performer
sectors, by field: 1990-93
Field
Academia Industry Federal
FFRDC
Nonprofit
Other
All fields
70.5
7.9
9.7
1.9
8.8
1.2
Clinical medicine
68.3
5.1
11.3
0.2
12.9
2.2
6.9
9.4
0.7
9.7
0.7
Biomedical research
72.7
Biology
79.2
2.8
13.4
0.2
3.2
1.3
Chemistry
78.5
12.8
4.3
2.7
1.3
0.2
Physics
63.1
20.9
5.1
9.3
1.5
0.1
Earth & space sciences 66.1
4.8
14.4
7.8
6.1
0.8
Mathematics
Engineering and
Technology
4.9
19.8
2.5
7.8
1.8
4.6
1.8
1.4
0.3
0.3
88.8
66.3
Impact of University Research
Patterns of cross-sector citations, by citing sector
Citing sector
Academia Industry
Federal
FFRDC Nonprofit Other
1985-1988
articles
6.3
10.6
2.2
9.0
1.4
Academic institutions 77.1
4.3
8.0
1.6
7.7
1.2
Industry
36.1
8.1
1990-1993
articles
7.9
9.7
2.7
5.2
1.0
1.9
8.8
1.2
Academic institutions 76.5
5.9
7.5
1.5
7.6
1.0
Industry
35.7
7.8
1.8
5.9
0.9
United States, total
United States, total
70.5
46.9
70.5
47.8
Support for Academic R&D, 1935, and 1960-1990
(Millions of Current Dollars)
$16,000
73%
71%
68%
14000
63%
58%
$9,686
10000
Millions of Dollars
70%
67%
63%
12000
80%
8000
60%
50%
40%
$6,077
6000
30%
24%
4000
2000
$50
$646
$1,474
$2,335
$3,409
20%
10%
0
0%
1935
1960
1965
Total Academic R&D
1970
1975
1980
% Federally Supported
1985
1990
% Federally Supported
16000
The Complexity of the NIS
Institutional Origin of Papers Cited in IBM Patents
Other Foreign
24
Foreign Companies
84
Foreign Universities
69
Other US
22
Other U.S. Companies
66
IBM
103
U.S. Universities
123
0
50
100
Number of References
150
The Components of the NIS Have Different
Effects and Operate Differently Across
Industries; For Example:
• University Science More Relevant to Some
Industries than Others
• Different Extraindustry Sources of
Technological Knowledge Across Different
Industries
• Effectiveness of Patents Varies Across
Industries
THE RELEVANCE OF UNIVERSITY SCIENCE TO
INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGY
Science
# of Industries Industries in Which the Relevance of
with scores* Science was Large
>=
5
6
Biology
12
3 Animal feed, drugs, processed fruits/vegetables
Chemistry
19
3 Animal feed, meat products, drugs
Geology
0
0 None
Mathematics
5
1 Optical Instruments
Physics
4
2 Optical Instruments, Electron tubes
Agricultural Science
17
Applied Math/ Operations Research 16
Computer Science
34
Materials Science
29
Medical Science
7
7 Pesticides, animal feed, fertilizers, food products
2 Meat products, logging/sawmills
10 Optical Instruments, logging/sawmills, paper machinery
8 Synthetic rubber, nonferrous metals
3 Surgical/medical instruments, drugs, coffee
Metallurgy
21
6 Nonferrous metals, fabricated metal products
Chemical Engineering
19
6 Canned foods, fertilizers, malt beverages
Electrical Engineering
22
2 Semiconductors, scientific instruments
Mechanincal Engineering
28
9 Hand tools, specialized industrial machinery
* on a scale of 1 (low) to 7 (high)
Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)
INDUSTRIES RATING UNIVERSITY RESEARCH AS
“IMPORTANT” OR “VERY IMPORTANT”
Fluid milk
Dairy products except milk
Canned specialties
Logging and sawmills
Semiconductors and related devices
Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills
Farm machinery and equipment
Grain mill products
Pesticides and agricultural chemicals
Processed fruits and vegetables
Engineering and scientific instruments
Millwork, veneer, and plywood
Synthetic rubber
Drugs
Animal Feed
Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)
THE RELEVANCE OF SCIENCE TO INDUSTRIAL
TECHNOLOGY
Science
# of Industries Industries in Which the Relevance of
with scores* University Science was Large
>=
5
6
Biology
14
Chemistry
74
Geology
4
Mathematics
30
Physics
44
Agricultural Science
16
Applied math/operations research32
Computer Science
79
Materials Science
99
Medical Science
8
Metallurgy
60
8
43
3
9
18
9
6
35
46
5
35
Drugs, pesticides, meat products, animal feed
Pesticides, fertilizers, glass, plastics
Fertilizers, pottery, nonferrous materials
Optical instruments, machine tools, motor vehicles
Semiconductors, computers, guided missiles
Pesticides, animal feed, fertilizers, food products
Guided missiles, aluminum smelting, motor vehicles
Guided missiles, semiconductors, motor vehicles
Primary metals, ball bearings, aircraft engines
Asbestos, drugs, surgical/medical instruments
Primary metals, aircraft engines, ball bearings
* on a scale of 1 (low) to 7 (high)
Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)
EXTRAINDUSTRY SOURCES OF TECHNOLOGICAL
KNOWLEDGE
Source
# of Industries Industries in which external
with scores* contribution to knowledge was large
>=
5
Materials Suppliers
Production Eqpt. Suppliers
Research Eqpt. Suppliers
55
63
20
Users
30
University Research
Government Labs
Other Govt. Agencies
Technical Societies
Independent Inventors
9
6
5
12
9
6
16 Food products, lumber/wood products, radio/TV sets
21 Food products, lumber/wood products, metal working
4 Food products, drugs, soap/detergents,
semiconductors
6 Machinery, electrical eqpt., surgical/medical
instruments
3 Animal feed, drugs
2 Fertilizers, logging/sawmills, optical instruments
2 Auto components, optical instruments
3 Paper industries machinery, logging/sawmills
5 Hand tools, metal doors/frames, etc.
* on a scale of 1 (low) to 7 (high)
Source: Levin et al. (1987)
EFFECTIVENESS OF PATENT PROTECTION ACROSS
INDUSTRIES WITH TEN OR MORE RESPONSES
(MEAN SCORE ON SCALE OF 1-7)
Process Products
Patents Patents
Industry
(Mean) (Mean)
Pulp, paper, and paperboard
2.6
3.3
Cosmetics
2.9
4.1
Inorganic chemicals
4.6
5.2
Organic chemicals
4.1
6.1
Drugs
4.9
6.5
Plastic materials
4.6
5.4
Plastic products
3.2
4.9
Petroleum refining
4.9
4.3
Steel mill products
3.5
5.1
Pumps and pumping eqpt.
3.2
4.4
Motors, generators, and controls
2.7
3.5
Computers
3.3
3.4
Communications eqpt.
3.1
3.6
Semiconductors
3.2
4.5
Motor vehicle parts
3.7
4.5
Aircraft and parts
3.1
3.8
Measuring devices
3.6
3.9
Medical instruments
3.2
4.7
Full sample
3.5
4.3
Source: Levin et al. (1987)
The Evolution of the American
National Innovation System
The Evolution of the American National
Innovation System: Four Periods
•
•
•
•
Laissez-Faire (1790-1940)
The War and Post-War Period (1940-1950)
The Federalization Period (1950-1975)
The Revisionist Period (1975-1990)
Source: Crow (1994)
The Evolution of the American National Innovation System
Laissez-Faire Period:
1790-1940
• A Pre-Policy Period: Government Has No Distinct
Science and Technology Policy or Mission
• The Key Institutions in the National Innovation
System: Independent Corporate R&D Labs
• Government Does Establish Some R&D Labs to
Support Weak Industries (i.e. Mining)
• Beginning of the Late 1800’s: Universities Emerge
as the Home of Basic Science and Advanced
Training
The Evolution of the American National Innovation System
The War and Post-War Period
1940-1950
• To Support the War Effort, the Government
Establishes Many New R&D Institutions and a
New, Expanded Role for Academic Science
• During the War, Large Scale Federal Investment,
Federally Mandated R&D Objectives, Targeted
Funding, and Industrial and Governmental
Cooperation are the Norm
• By the end of the War, Hundreds of New R&D
Labs had been established, and the potential of
Large Scale R&D for meeting national objectives
is demonstrated
The Evolution of the American National Innovation System
The War and Post-War Period
1940-1950
Following the Dramatic Change in Science
and Technology Policy During the War,
Policy Makers Sensed the Potential of
Science and Technology to Serve the
National Interest
The Evolution of the American National Innovation System
The War and Post-War Period
1940-1950
In 1944, President Roosevelt asked
Vannevar Bush, the Director of the
Wartime OSRD, to Look Ahead to the
Role of Science in Peacetime.
Bush’s Design, Presented in Science the
Endless Frontier, Became the
Foundation for U.S. Science Policy
LINEAR TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT MODEL
Pure
Basic
Research
Directed
Basic
Research
FUNDAMENTAL
RESEARCH
AND
DISCOVERY
Intermediate
Range
Applied
Research
Applied
Research
FOCUSED
RESEARCH
AND
PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT
Increasing Role of Universities
Increasing Role of Government
Tech.
Development
FOCUSED
DEVELOPMENT
Tech.
Commercialization
MARKET
DRIVEN
TECH.
DEVELOPMENT
Increasing Role of Industry
The Evolution of the American National Innovation System
The Bush Design Was Built Around the
Following Characteristics:
• Political Autonomy:
• Self Regulation by Scientists:
• Focus on science for science’s sake as well as
problem solving
• Strong academic model of individual achievement
• General Accountability(linked to broad objectives
of national well being)
• Single Major Basic Research Agency
• Limited resources for only the best scientists
The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:
The Bush Design
Political Autonomy
• Separation from Political Control
• Separate Governance
The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:
The Bush Design
Self-Regulation by Scientists
• Peer-Review
The Bush Design
Focus on Science for Science’s
Sake As Well as Problem
Solving
• Basic Science/Fundamental Discovery
• Applied Science
The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:
The Bush Design
Strong Academic Model of
Individual Achievement
• Scientists as Individual Thinkers
The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:
The Bush Design
General Accountability
(Linked to Broad Objectives of
National Well-Bring)
• Success Measured by Overall National
Achievement
The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:
The Bush Design
Single Major Basic Research
Agency
• NSF in original design
The Evolution of the American National Innovation System:
The Bush Design
Limited Resources for Only the
Best Scientists
• Small Budgets
The Evolution of the American National Innovation System
Federalization Period:
1950-1975
By the end of the period, five types of institutions
were important in the NIS:
– Hundreds of Large Industrial Labs
– Dozens of Large Federal Labs
– Thousands of Small Technology Oriented Labs and
Companies
– Hundreds of Unconnected and Unplanned Federal Labs
– Researchers at Universities
The Evolution of the American National Innovation System
The Revisionist Period
1975-1990
• Economic and Technological Position of the United States
began to slip
• The Bush model prevailed: Research dollars concentrated
on defense and on basic science
• However, pushed by local political demands, Congress did
make some attempts to make to U.S. more competitive and
to improve upon the Bush model
The Evolution of the American National Innovation System
The Revisionist Period
1975-1990
Major Efforts to Change Science Policy
•
•
•
•
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Act (1980)
Bayh-Dole Act (1982)
National Productivity and Innovation Act (1983)
Federal Technology Transfer Act (1986)
The American NIS Today
Today, the design parameters for
basic science and the cultural
design for basic science and
technology remain essentially those
suggested by Bush.
The American NIS Today
The Bush design is in serious need of
updating and improvement, and has
been for some time. The rationale
for updating is simply that Bush
failed to build into the system the
feedback and response mechanisms
needed for a post-industrial
democracy.
The American NIS Today
• In updating the Bush design, we
must keep in mind that the NIS
today is a complex web of
institutions, actors structures, and
relationships.
• We cannot completely overhaul it
while it is in motion.
• We must be aware of the size and
the complexity in the system before
prescribing change
The American NIS Today:
Examples of Size, Complexity
• Interactions between Public, Private, and
Hybrid Science and Technology Labs
• Government Funding of Academic Basic
Research, Applied Research, and
Development
• Percentage of New Products and Processes
Based on Recent Academic Research
Distribution of R&D Laboratory Type
circa 1995-2005
Public
Technology
Labs
Hybrid
Technology
Labs
Private Science Labs
Public
Science
Labs
Private
S&T Labs
Public
S&T Labs
Private
Technology
Labs
Hybrid Science Labs
Hybrid
S&T Labs
Public Knowledge
and
Technology Products
Private
Knowledge and Technology
Products
SUPPORT FOR ACADEMIC R&D, 1935, AND 19601990 (MILLIONS OF CURRENT DOLLARS).
$16,000
16000
Millions of Dollars
71%
67%
63%
12000
70%
68%
63%
$9,686
58%
10000
60%
50%
8000
40%
$6,077
6000
30%
24%
$3,409
4000
2000
$50
$646
$1,474
20%
$2,335
% Federally Supported
73%
14000
80%
10%
0
0%
1935
1960
1965
1970
Total Academic R&D
1975
1980
1985
1990
% Federally Supported
Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)
PERCENT OF FEDERAL RESEARCH FUNDS
ORIGINATING WITHING PARTICULAR AGENCIES
NIH
36.7
46.4
44.4
46.4
47.2
NSF
16.2
17.1
15.7
15.1
16.1
DoD NASA DoE USDA Other
12.8
8.2 5.7
4.4
16
9.4
4.7 5.7
4.7 12.2
12.8
3.8 6.7
5.4
11
16.7
3.9 5.3
4.2 8.4
11.6
5.8 4.7
4 10.7
Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)
FEDERAL AND NONFEDERAL R&D EXPENDITURES AT
UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, BY FIELD AND SOURCE OF
FUNDS, 1989
Field
Total Science and Engineering
Thousands of
Dollars
$
14,987,279
100
Total Sciences
Life Sciences
Physical Sciences
Environmental Sciences
Social Sciences
Computer Sciences
Psychology
Mathematical Sciences
Other Sciences
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
12,599,686
8,079,851
1,643,377
982,937
636,372
467,729
237,945
214,248
337,227
84.1
53.9
11
6.6
4.2
3.1
1.6
1.4
2.3
Total Engineering
Electric/Electronic
Mechanical
Civil
Chemical
Aero/Astronautical
Other
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2,387,593
600,016
340,280
249,552
185,087
146,548
866,110
15.9
4
2.3
1.7
1.2
1
5.8
%
Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)
EXPENDITURES FOR BASIC RESEARCH, APPLIED
RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT, 1960-1990
(MILLIONS OF CURRENT DOLLARS)
Year
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Total
Academic
R&D ($)
646
1,474
2,335
3,409
6,077
9,686
16,000
Basic
Research ($) %
Applied
Research
($)
433
1,138
1,796
2,410
4,041
6,559
10,350
179
279
427
581
1,698
2,673
4,845
67
77
77
71
67
68
65
%
28
19
18
25
28
28
30
Development
($)
%
34
57
112
148
338
454
805
5
4
5
4
6
5
5
Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)
UNIVERSITY-INDUSTRY RELATIONS
• Over the past two decades, there has been a significant increase in the
fraction of academic research funded by industry and in the number
and size of university-industry research centers.
• Some academics, while welcoming this trend, do not want industries
to influence the research orientation of universities.
• Other academics both welcome industry funding and are eager to reorient their research to make it more commercially relevant and
rewarding.
• In the 1980s, industry leaders were enthusiastic about the ability of
academics to contribute to technical advance in industry. Today,
however, there is considerable skepticism in industry: a prevailing
view is that academics should stick to basic research and training
young scientists, and to stop thinking of themselves as the sources of
new technology.
Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)
% OF NEW PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES BASED ON
RECENT ACADEMIC RESEARCH, U.S., 1975-1985
% that could not have
been developed
(without substantial
delay) in the absence
of recent academic
research
% that was developed
with very substanial
aid from recent
academic research
Industry
Products Processes
Products Processes
Information Processing
Electronics
Chemical
Instruments
Pharmaceuticals
Metals
Petroleum
Average
11
6
4
16
27
13
1
11
17
3
4
5
17
9
1
8
11
3
2
2
22
12
1
9
16
4
4
1
8
9
1
6
Source: Rosenberg and Nelson (1994)
The American NIS Today:
Updating the Bush Design
FREEMAN’S “THREE PHASES” OF SCIENCE POLICY
Phase
Characteristics
Phase I:
Military Science and Technology Policy
 Science policy is directed towards military
purposes, promoting the development of
new weapons
systems
for
global
superiority and the modification of
existing technology for local or regional
application.
 Science and technology policy is devoted
to developing and maintaining the national
economy, focusing on key technology
industries.
 There is a national strategy that targets
specific interests for either direct or
indirect technology development and
protection.
 Trade policies, financial policies, and/or
government financed research institutes
assist in technology development.
 The national objective is to use science
and technology for sustainable growth,
environmental quality, and general quality
of life.
Phase II:
Commercial Science and Technology Policy
Phase III:
Comprehensive Science and Technology
Policy
Source: Crow (1994)
RECOMMENDATION I
Political Autonomy
• Establishment of an institutional mechanism for
forecasting our national science and technology
needs
DESIGN PARAMETER I: POLITICAL AUTONOMY
1. CONGRESS should establish a National Science and
Technology Forecasting Institute
2. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
POLICY would use the National Science and
Technology Forecasting Institute to identify the specific
S&T objective of a particular administration
3. MISSION AGENCIES would develop research
agendas with regard to the S&T forecast
4. NSF’s research agenda and areas of focus would be
mapped according to the S&T forecast
RECOMMENDATION II
Self Regulation by Scientists
• Spending time and resources on educating the
public about science and research
• Development of a formal science “court” for
internal discipline and conflict resolution
• Broadening the criteria for peer review to include
potential for social profit
DESIGN PARAMETER II:
SELF REGULATION BY SCIENTISTS
c
• Congress and the President would establish the
U.S. Science Court.
• National Science Board would establish a greatly
expanded public information and access program.
• Research Agencies would develop expanded
criteria for project selection.
RECOMMENDATION III
Focus on “Science for Science’s sake” as well as
Problem Solving
• Eliminate references to “basic” and “applied” research projects
without specific definitions of these projects
•
Evaluate projects with regard to their purpose, realizing that
the type of research conducted (basic, applied, and fundamental
technology development) are functions of the missions of
agencies
•
Consider all projects and program areas as equal, regardless of
scientific focus or technical objective, until they are evaluated
DESIGN PARAMETER III
Focus on Science and Problem Solving
1. OMB would establish meaningful budget categories and improved
nomenclature for defining research activity. Research would be
classified by purpose and not by “function”.
2. OSTP would develop project and program classification
nomenclature for research type and purpose for uniform use in all
agencies.
3. Mission Agency research agendas would be contextually placed
with regard to the S&T forecast.
4. NSF’s research agenda and areas of focus would be mapped
according to the context setting forecast.
RECOMMENDATION IV
Strong Academic Model of Individual Achievement
• Enhanced team funding mechanisms
• Expanded recognition mechanisms for team participation
• Evaluation of scientists on a group and disciplinary basis
• Including contributions to other fields or departments in
the
evaluation of particular fields or departments
• Heavy funding of “star” groups
DESIGN PARAMETER IV: STRONG
ACADEMIC MODEL OF INDIVIDUAL
ACHIEVEMENT
1. OMB would permit institution building among dispersed
research enterprises such as universities.
2. Mission Agencies would concentrate funding on the best
labs and roups.
3. NSF would concentrate funding by increasing grant size,
develop more center type R&D efforts, and provide for
enhanced linkage building between and among research
groups at different institutions.
RECOMMENDATION V
General Accountability
• Evaluating agency research programs based on their
success or failure in attaining particular pre-defined goals
and objectives
• Integrate these evaluations into funding and priority setting
models
DESIGN PARAMETER V:
GENERAL ACCOUNTABILITY
1.OSTP/Congress would set annual five and ten year
objectives for National Science and Technology
investment.
2. All Research Agencies would establish formal R&D
evaluation capabilities at the agency and division levels.
RECOMMENDATION VI
Single Basic Research Agency
• Define roles and functions of agencies with greater care
• Place National Science Foundation (NSF) in charge of
building foundation knowledge and research tools for other
programs of research
• Reorient NSF research agenda towards research foundation
building needs
DESIGN PARAMETER VI:
SINGLE BASIC SCIENCE AGENCY
1. Congress would require a linked science budget plan
indicating who is doing what and how the NSF budget
request is linked.
2. Research Agencies would re-think budget and planning
models to define their roles as producers of foundation
knowledge, basic knowledge, or specific solutions to
problems.
RECOMMENDATION VII
Limited Resources for only the Best
• Agencies should concentrate their resources in those
fields of greatest importance to their individual missions
• Increase the size of average grants: more funding for fewer
groups
DESIGN PARAMETER VII: LIMITED
RESOURCES FOR ONLY THE BEST
All Research Agencies would re-think allocation models so as to
begin concentration of resources to the best research groups
and labs. New allocation models would be based on:
- Scientific Track Records
- Institutional Infrastructure
- Quality of science and support groups
- Overall goal attainment