97 



years. It was appalling." Another member of the review committee said, "USDA loses 

 many good people even though the money is easy. They are bound up in paperwork. 

 It is a depressing environment." A former researcher at the Beltsville (Maryland) Agri- 

 cultural Research Center, now at a university, said that many ARS scientists "leave 

 after a few years or stay forever." The clear implication is that in most cases, it is the 

 good ones who leave after a few years; the ones who stay forever tend to be those who 

 aren't good enough to find employment elsewhere. The good ones who stay a long 

 time are the exception, not the rule. 



A year ago, the National Research Council began yet one more study, this one to 

 last three years, of the agricultural experiment stations. A primary reason for the new 

 study is that despite the strong criticisms leveled by previous studies, litde has been 

 done to fix the problems. 



Why has so little changed? Why, despite over two decades of studies, has the Agri- 

 cultural Research Service remained in such a dismal state? Largely because its funding 

 is driven by porkbarrel politics rather than science. As someone has remarked, the 

 only time you can close a research station is when a congressman dies or is defeated. 

 Providing researchers with lifetime job security but depriving them of the opportunity 

 for meaningful work is a perfect recipe for driving out the competent people while 

 retaining the time-serving hacks. 



This experience with the Department of Agriculture is significant for the future of 

 the Federal labs. Keeping them open for the sake of keeping them open is to con- 

 demn them to the mediocrity of the Agricultural Research Service. We don't need an- 

 other expensive but second-rate scientific establishment in the U.S. 



SUBSIDIES TO INDUSTRY 



As already noted, the Agricultural Research Service was established as a subsidy to 

 farmers. However, it is not the only R&D agency whose primary mission is to subsi- 

 dize a specific industry. The Office of Aeronautics & Space Technology (OA&ST) of 

 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is the direct successor of 

 the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, which was established to advance 

 aeronautical technology. Today, slightly less than half of OA&STs operating budget, 

 and nearly two-thirds of its facilities budget, goes for aeronautics. 



This subsidy to the air transport industry is not something hidden. It has been 

 stated explicitly as national policy by the Office of Science and Technology Policy. 

 One stated goal of that policy is to develop the technology which would allow a "fuel- 

 efficient, affordable" subsonic aircraft to be flown by U.S. airlines and to capture the 

 foreign airline market. Another stated goal of that policy is to develop the technology 

 for "sustained supersonic cruise capability." A third stated goal is to develop the tech- 

 nology for a "trans-atmospheric" vehicle "to routinely cruise and maneuver into and 

 out of the atmosphere with takeoff and landing from conventional runways." 



For nearly four decades, U.S. aircraft manufacturers have been the pre-eminent 

 suppliers to the world's airlines. How did that come about? To what extent was 

 OA&ST and (earlier) NACA responsible for that situation? 



Ronald Miller and David Sawers have identified six innovations, dating from 1927 

 to 1935, which made possible the "economic airplane" and therefore the start of the 

 airline industry. These were the NACA cowl, the all-metal structure, streamlining, the 

 variable-pitch propeller, wing flaps, and engines of high power. Only one of these six, 

 the NACA cowl, was due to NACA. The others were all developed by industry, in 

 some cases with partial military funding. 



An interdepartmental study conducted in 1972 identified thirteen innovations, 

 introduced between 1925 and 1940, that were important to aviation generally. These 

 included the radial engine, high-octane fuel, supercharging, the controllable-pitch pro- 

 peller, retractable landing gear, stressed-skin construction, high-strength aluminum 

 alloys, high-lift flaps, the auto pilot, the NACA Standard Atmosphere, wing de-icing 

 equipment, cabin pressurization, and two-way radio communication. Only three of 



