54 



l.\ll'R(>\ IM, Tin: AWX.A T/()\ PROCESS / 29 



technology programs have been set up to support research as an end in itself. Even 

 the National Science Foundation has an educational mission in addition to its sup- 

 port of science and engineering, (iiven their purpose, agency programs are and 

 should be evaluated first for tiieir contribution to their departments' goals and onh" 

 later for their place in a balanced national research and development system. '^" 



Current proposals for a Department of Science in part follow this principle by 

 lea\ ing most militarily relcxant research and development in the Department of 

 Defense, health research in the Department of Health and Human Services, and 

 agricultural research and development in the Department of Agriculture. VCliile 

 u isch retaining research and de\ elopment in mission agencies, this approach 

 would limit a Department of .Science to activities that fall outside existing mission 

 agencies. Such a Department of Science would have a smaller research budget than 

 the National Institutes of Health and a significantly smaller development budget than 

 the Department of Defense. 



(treating a Department of Science because cabinet departments are abolished 

 or reconfigured, rather than as a result of apph ing criteria for allocating federal 

 funds for research and de\ elopment. involves considerations beyond the charge to 

 this committee. Such a Department of Science, however, cannot fully address the 

 need tor re\ iew, coordination, and FS&T budget allocation among departments. The 

 committee believes that its recommendations will contribute more to planning, 

 coordinating, and evaluating federal science and technology than either the current 

 sxstcm or a Department of Science. 



The growth of federal science and technology from multiple roots in mission 

 agencies has resulted in a pluralistic research and development system. Although 

 some ma\ see needless cnerlap in such a system, in reality pluralism is a great .source 

 of strength, an advantage over the ways research and development are organized in 

 many other countries. The dixersit) of performers fosters creativity and inntnation. 

 It increa.ses the number of perspecti\es on a problem, h makes competition among 

 proposals richer, and it induces competition to support the best work among 

 funders. both public and private. At the same time, diverse funding alternatives give 

 original ideas a better chance to find support than would a more centralized system. 

 .V pluralistic research and development system thus enhances qualiU' and our na- 

 tional capacity to respond to new opportunities and changing national needs. The 

 challenge in the current period is to retain diversity and balance while cutting back 

 in some areas to free resources for better or more important activities. 



As emphasized in Recommendation 1, integrating the needs of a pluralistic 

 research and de\elopment system across multiple agencies and programs requires a 

 c()mprehensi\e o\er\ iew and careful planning. The federal budget process should 

 take into account how interdependent different fields of .science and technology 

 ha\ e in fact become. The impact of cutbacks in one agenc}- on major fields, on 

 other agencies, and on national goals should be considered. Changing or scaling 

 back an agency s mission (e.g., to reduce and reorient the post-Cold War defense 

 establishment) generally has implications for the type and scale of research and 

 development it, and others, conduct. As noted above, for example, DOD provides 

 most of the federal funding for academic research in several engineering fields and 

 computer science. Computer-intensive biological research .supported by NIH and 

 NSF such as genome research or structural analysis for drug design, could thus be 



