52 



IMI'ly'()\l\(, Till: \II(H .\ri<)\ PR()( liSS / 2~ 



messai-c emcrjics trom the abundant recent writing on applying performance mea- 

 sures to research and de\elopment: it is a complicated business. The science of 

 nietrics documents that most measures arc incomplete, and mindless application 

 .ictualh' can untiermine the very functions such measures are intended to improve.'' 

 Just as the tyranny of quarterly bottom lines can frustrate long-term corporate plan- 

 ning, s(; al.so can science be distoned by simple indicators such as publication 

 counts, citation counts, patent counts, doctorates produced, or user satisfaction 

 ratings. Tl-.esc arc useful, but incomplete, measures. .Several recent assessments of 

 such measures concluded that they must be augmented by expert judgment.*^ One 

 rc\ie\v observed that such measures may leave out "virtually all of what researchers 

 t!icm.se!\es find important about their work. One could have a government full of 

 programs that performed beautifulh' according to these indicators, and still be at the 

 trailing edge of every scientific frontier. '" 



It makes sense to track rele%ant measures, but the\' cannot supplant the essen- 

 tial clement of expert judgment that is the bedrock of quality assessment in research 

 Mid dcNclopment. Scientists and engineers seeking federal support should be 

 accountable to the public, and the standards should capture what constitutes the 

 best science and engineering. To the extent that performance review and program 

 evaluation come into wider use in assessing FS&T funded activities. they will have 

 to incorporate expert judgment of quality, impact, and other important aspects that 

 will benefit from the use of outside reviewers."' 



kiealh, in government as in the private sector, every organization should ask 

 basic (juestions about the need for its continued existence on a regular basis. In one 

 firmulalion, every department and agency and each subunit and activity should 

 answ er the following questions satisfactorily: '' What is our mission? Is it still the 

 right mission? Is it still worth doing? If we were not already pursuing this mission, 

 would we still choose it now? 



In most ca.ses. agencies are responding to statutes, congressional report lan- 

 guage, or jiresideniial initiatives. These questions, therefore, may need to be raised 

 ;U more tiian just the agency level. 



The Federal Government Must Implement a Structure Capable of Fostering, 



.Not Hindering, the Management of Research and Development. 



(Recommendations 12 and 13) 



RECOMMENDATION 12. Research and development should be 

 well managed and accountable but should not be micromanaged 

 or hobbled by rules and regulations that have little social benefit. 



Science and technology must be managed well, particularly when public 

 funds are at stake. Fraud, misuse of fund.-., violations of human subject protections, 

 or other abu.ses should not be tolerated. .Maintaining safeguards requires credible 

 mechani.sms for investigation and enforcement. At the same time, federal agencies 

 must strike a balance between the need for accountability and the burden of regula- 



