154 



We endorse these recommendations. We agree the U.S. should vigorously pursue 

 international cooperation. 



However, we note in connection with Recommendation 6 that our nation's credibil- 

 ity on international cooperation has been severely compromised in recent years by 

 our inability to follow through on several major commitments. 



• Recommendations 6-9 — Maintaining U.S. World Leadership in Science and 



Technology Despite Budget Constraints Will Require Discipline in the 

 Allocation of Resources for Federal Investments. 



We agree with Recommendation 6, which deals with the missions of federal lab- 

 oratories, and with Recommendation 8, which addresses the restricted role of the 

 federal government in supporting technology. 



However, we strongly disagree with Recommendation 7, which states 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." We believe that this recommendation is based 

 on the specious assumptions that universities and national laboratories have similar 

 capabilities and address similar problems. In truth, the two sets of institutions are 

 complementary. Universities unquestionably perform excellent research as they carry 

 out their education and training missions, but they are ill equipped to pursue large, 

 complex projects for which the national laboratories, with their many outstanding 

 and costly users facilities, are ideally suited. Rather than pitting universities against 

 national laboratories, as Recommendation 7 would imply, we believe that the federal 

 government should reinforce cooperation between the two sets of institutions. 



• Recommendations lO&ll — Within the General Constraints Determined by 



National Priorities, the Selection of Individual Projects Must Reflect 

 the Standards of the Scientific and Technical Community. 

 We agree with the recommendations. 



• Recommendations 12&13 — The Federal Government Must Implement a 



Structure Capable of Fostering, Not Hindering, the Management of Re- 

 search and Development. 



We agree most strongly with these two recommendations. 



Micro-management, often mandated by Congress in its attempt to maintain con- 

 stitutional oversight, in many cases has resulted in inefficiencies and squandered 

 financial resources. Efforts must be made to avoid this pitfall, while still maintain- 

 ing accountability, as Recommendation 12 notes. Recommendation 13 argues for 

 keeping R&D within the mission agencies and maintaining our pluralistic system 

 of support. These features are central to the strength of our science and technology 

 enterprise. Abandoning them would move our nation into unchartered waters with 

 consequences that cannot be predicted. 



In the section, "Defining a Federal Science and Technology Budget," which ap- 

 pears in Part I of the report, the panel recommends that "in the future, government 

 support for basic and applied science and technology be presented, analyzed, and 

 considered in terms of an FS&T budget," rather than an R&D budget as is currently 

 the case. 



We take strong issue with this proposal. While it may have intrinsic intellectual 

 merit, it creates unwise, unnecessary, and potentially damaging restrictions on policy 

 makers. As the needs of the nation change, it is essential that planners, administra- 

 tors, and Congress have maximum flexibility in changing the mix of activities that 

 constitute the federal R&D program. By creating the distinction of a science and 

 technology (S&T) budget, the report's proposal would erect an artificial barrier be- 

 tween sets of activities that are closely related. It would also prevent the practical 

 reallocation of resources from one set of activities to the other as defense and civilian 

 requirements vary. We thus urge the retention and use of the now traditional R&D 

 budget (currently totaling $73 billion) within which appropriate changes in emphasis 

 between military and civilian programs can continue to be made. 



In closing, we wish to note that a periodic review of the way the federal govern- 

 ment allocates funds for science and technology is as important as the annual re- 

 view of budgets and programs. We urge the Science Committee to consider the is- 

 sues in depth, particularly at this time of budgetary stringency, one which demands 

 maximum efficiency in all federal endeavors. 



