40 



IMI'R()\I\(, THE MUXATIOS PROCESS / 15 



Box 1.4 



Evaluating FS&T Opportunities and Making International Comparisons: 



How It Might Work 



Even- five \e:irs, panels are convened to evaluate the fields in each major area of science 

 and technology (e.j;., physics, biology, electrical engineering), their standing in the world, and 

 the resources needed to reach and maintain world<"lass position. Evaluation focuses on out- 

 puts, such as important discoveries, and also on certain benchmarks of best practice, such as 

 number of scientists and engineers and their training or the current state of the laboratories 

 and research facilities. To avoid conflicts of interest, at least half of the panel will include a few 

 nonscientists plus experts from fields outside but related to the fields being evaluated. Tlie 

 panel will also include specialists in the evaluated fields who are recruited from the United 

 States and foreign countries. If any field within a major area is performing below world stan- 

 dards but is judged to be a national priority, the panel will recommend that its budget be 

 augmented or other changes made to bring it up to par At the same time, the panel will 

 idcntif\- the other fields with declining scientific opportunities and obsolete federal missions 

 from which resources should be reallocated. Opportunities for international cost-sharing will 

 be examined to achieve optimal use of federal funds devoted to science and technology. 



Evaluations will be commissioned by the National Science and Technolog)' Council or its 

 equivalent. The selection of fields for clear U.S. leadership from among those recommended 

 by the panels will be made by the President and presidential advisors as part of the budget 

 process. As an example, an extract of the President's budget message might read: "I propose 

 that the United States need not be so far ahead in experimental particle physics, but should 

 operate at world lc\els, in this case b\' contributing to construction of the particle accelerator 

 in Cicneva. sponsored by the (^ERN.and funding the participation of U.S. scientists in its design 

 and research. On the advice of m\ Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, I propose 

 that the United States should remain clearly preeminent in the molecular biology of plants and 



animals for the followmg reasons Accordingly, I will include the necessary' additional funds 



in the FS&T budgets of the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Agriculture, and 

 the National Science Foundation to achieve this goal. . . 



the I nitfd States should strive for clear leadership in the most promising areas of 

 science and technoioi;) and those deemed most important to our national goals. In 

 other major fields, the United States should perform on a par with other nations so 

 that it is poised to poimce" if future discoveries increase the importance of one of 

 these fields. If the nation sets priorities in this way (see buUeted items below) and 

 uses them in conjunction with the FS&T budget process, the result will be better 

 decisions about reallocating and restructuring the U.S. research and development 

 enterprise, preserving its core strengths, and positioning it well for strong future 

 performance. 



The international comparisons needed to assess U.S. achievement of its goals 

 for leadership in research and development should be conducted by panels of the 

 nation s leading experts under ^liite House auspices. Reallocation decisions should 

 be made with the advice and guidance of these expert panels, capable of determin- 

 ing the appropriate scope of the fields to assess and to judge the international 

 stature of U.S. efforts in each field (see Box 1.4 above for a discussion of how inter- 

 national comparisons might work). These panels would recommend to the Presi- 

 dent, his advisors, and (Congress; 



