17 



prise. The committee believes that federal laboratories are an essential component 

 of the national endeavor. In keeping with the Galvin Commission recommendations, 

 a federal laboratory that meets its sponsoring agency needs and is well evaluated 

 is an important part of the FS&T enterprise. However, at the same time, national 

 needs have changed, and some of the reasons why federal laboratories were created 

 no longer pertain. To i^ore that is on first order not wise stewardship of public 

 funds; on second order, it weakens the nation's science and technology base, because 

 funds invested in anachronistic programs inevitably means less support for new 

 high quality programs and exploitation of new opportunities, wherever they are 

 done. 



The committee's recommendation on the role of universities stated that "FS&T 

 funding should generally favor academic institutions because of their flexibility and 

 inherent quality control, and because they directly link research to education and 

 training in science and engineering." The committee also stated that it "does not 

 presume that academic research is always of higher quality than that conducted in 

 industry, federal laboratories, and other non-academic institutions." Indeed, in some 

 areas the work at a federal laboratory is superior. The committee was simply saying 

 that if one integrates the many special features of research done at academic insti- 

 tutions with the purposes of federal investments in science and technology, then the 

 conclusion of a bias toward supporting academic institutions is inescapable. That 

 bias may indeed result in increased funding for academic institutions vis-a-vis other 

 research performers. If that happens because the committee's guidance has been fol- 

 lowed, including its affirmation of the major contributions of the highest quality 

 made by many federal laboratories, then the consequence will be the strongest pos- 

 sible science and technology within static or even declining overall federal budgets. 



Finally, in summing up, we want to cite the last paragraph of our report, 

 A robust national system of innovation lies at the heart of our economy, our health, 

 and our national security. That system of innovation depends on federal invest- 

 ments. The committee believes that its recommendations address a crucial need: 

 maintaining the strength and vigor of U.S. research and development despite the 

 prospect of declining federal discretionary spending over the next several years. 

 Seeing the science and technology enterprise through the lens of a unified FS&T 

 budget can help leaders in government and the American public to gauge its fiscal 

 health. A carefully constructed comprehensive budget offers a unitary view, not ar- 

 tificially balkanized into agency budgets, but sensitive to the complexities and rela- 

 tionships among government programs vital to maintaining the United States at 

 the forefront of world-class science and technology. The corollary proposals provide 

 the basis for continuing excellence — emphasizing programs and people rather than 

 institutions, subjecting all federal science and technology activities to competitive 

 merit review, linking science and engineering research to education, and maintain- 

 ing a pluralistic system of research and development tied to public missions. The 

 committee's recommendations are designed to help root out obsolete or noncompeti- 

 tive activities, allowing good programs to be replaced by even better ones. 

 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this concludes our testimony. We 

 would be pleased to respond to your questions. 



Biographies of Witnesses 



FRANK PRESS is the Cecil and Ida Green Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Institu- 

 tion. He served as president of the National Academy of Sciences from 1981 to 1993 

 and as the president's science adviser during the Carter administration. A geo- 

 physicist, he has served on the faculties of Columbia University, California Institute 

 of Technology, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He served on the presi- 

 dent's Science Advisory Committee during the Kennedy administration and on the 

 presidential Advisory Committee during the Ford administration. He was appointed 

 by president Nixon to the National Science Board of the National Science Founda- 

 tion and also served on the Lunar and Planetary Missions Board of the National 

 Aeronautics and Space Administration. Among his many honors. Dr. Press received 

 the Japan Prize and the Vannevar Bush Award in 1993 and the National Medal 

 of Science in 1994. 



MARYE ANNE FOX is the vice chair of the National Science Board. She is vice 

 president for research at the University of Texas and the M. June and J. Virgil 

 Waggoner Regents Chair in Chemistry. Dr. Fox was the recipient of the Garvan 

 Medal and the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society. 

 She is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and of the American Academy 



