16 



change; and for cross-national comparisons of health, education, and economic 

 development." 



Finally, the committee also addressed the federal role in development of commer- 

 cial technologies as well as the role of federal laboratories vis-a-vis universities. 

 However, we will return to these issues in a moment. 

 Next Steps 



The fate of our recommendations depends on their reception and use in the politi- 

 cal procfcss. However, in preparing our report, it became obvious that further work 

 by our committee could be useful in implementation. Specifically, we are now work- 

 ing on two extensions of our work. First, we are working with the AAAS and others 

 to more tightly define the FS&T budget, especially for two agencies, DOE and 

 NASA, where this definition is more problematic than it is for agencies such as the 

 NSF. Secondly, we intend to move forward on "test-driving" our recommendation 

 that the FS&T "budget should be sufficient to serve national priorities and foster 

 a world-class scientinc and technical enterprise." The committee set out a process 

 for making the judgments on whether the nation's science and technology remains 

 world-class, and we believe that it is now time to test it. 

 The Federal Role in Commercial Technology 



The committee's views on this issue have already been the subject of considerable 

 discussion, some of it penetrating and useful and some uninformed. The committee 

 recom-mended that the federal government should encourage, but not directly fund, 

 private-sector commercial technology development, with two limited exceptions: 



• Development in pursuit of government missions, such as weapons development and 



space flight; or 



• Development of new enabling, or broadly applicable, technologies for which govern- 



ment is the only funder available. 



This committee will immediately recognize that these "exceptions" are hardly re- 

 strictive, and in fact easily encompass virtually all of the great commercial achieve- 

 ments enabled by federal investments, whether the Internet, biotechnology, or the 

 fjlobal positioning system. In all these instances, no company was willing to invest 

 ully in their beginnings, and it took sustained federal investments to grow them 

 to the point that their commercial potential became apparent and near-term. That, 

 the committee believes, is an entirely appropriate federal role, and one that should 

 be continued. The issue turns on whether the government should also invest in 

 those potential technologies where private companies are also willing to do so, and 

 the committee judged that it should not. 



The committee believes that maintaining stability in current investment by the 

 federal government in science and technology is vital to the U.S. ability to compete 

 with other nations in advanced technologies. At the same time, the committee as- 

 serts that investments in federal science and technology, as essential as they are, 

 are not the only determinants of successful economic competition. For example, if 

 history is a reliable guide, then continual and very complex interplay between the 

 patient capital of federal investments and entrepreneurial drive of industry is really 

 the key. Indeed, the committee illustrated that through the histories of the develop- 

 m.tint of the major elements of information technology, such as graphics and 

 antihypertensive drugs. Those histories underline the critical role of federal invest- 

 ments in moving fundamental work and ideas to the point that they became the 

 basis for billion-dollar industries and new companies. Overall, the committee strong- 

 ly believes that its recommendations, both in this particular area, and more broadly 

 taken, focus federal funds in the areas that in the long run best serve the national 

 interest. 

 Role of Federal and Academic Laboratories 



The misinterpretations of what the committee said about the federal role in devel- 

 oping commercial technologies are bookended by similar misunderstandings of its 

 observations on the role of federal laboratories and universities in the federal 

 science and technology enterprise. Again, the committee was careful in its rec- 

 ommendations. First, in regard to the federal laboratories, the committee argued 

 that "research and development. . .should focus on the objectives of the sponsoring 

 agency and not expand beyond the assigned missions of the laboratories. The size 

 and activities of each laboratory should correspond to changes in mission require- 

 ments." This recommendation is congruent with the many examinations of federal 

 laboratories conducted over the past year, such as the Galvin Commission that 

 looked at the DOE national laboratories. What is important to note is that the com- 

 mittee was quite explicit on the great value to the country of much of what is done 

 at the federal laboratories, both in support of the missions of their agencies and in 

 providing the facilities and other services essential to a vigorous research enter- 



