162 



Summary 



The question of the laboratories role in the national science and technology enter- 

 prise was summed up well in the Galvin Task Force report: 



"We are inclined to typecast these institutions simplistically by a few prominent 

 contributions such as yesterday's bomb or the discovery of an element on the peri- 

 odic table (both grand achievements), but overlook the multitude of other continu- 

 ing achievements. We must reach out to know enough of this vast spectrum of 

 accomplishments to justify our deserved support of these institutions that have 

 contributed, are contributing, and will in the future contribute vital knowledge 

 while continuing to revitalize themselves — just as science always renews itself. 

 We must be in quest of that which we do not know in the field oi science in every 

 relevant way. Each revelation will enrich us manyfold. The laboratories we review 

 here are essential to the fulfillment of our need to know." 



The laboratories are an important part of our science and technology infrastruc- 

 ture, as important as the nation's universities and industrial firms. It does no good 

 to single out any one of these essential contributors for special consideration. Ways 

 must be found to challenge each to work together to provide the best science and 

 technology for the nation. 



Response of the Committee on Criteria for Federal Support of Research 

 AND Development to Additional Questions for the Record 



1. On page 5 of your written statement, you indicate that the exceptions 

 to the report's recommendation of federal support for commercially rel- 

 evant technology actually allow for support of "all the great commercial 

 achievements enabled by federal investments" since no restrictions is in- 

 tended on federal funding for commercially relevant technology develop- 

 ment, provided that the funding is not in areas where "private companies 

 are also willing to do so." Examples are given of such appropriate federal 

 investments: the Internet, the biotechnology industry, and the global posi- 

 tioning system. But these examples, particularly the first two, are areas in 

 which significant industry investments have been made from an early pe- 

 riod. For example, the private sector provided cost sharing of three times 

 the federal funding for development and operation of the NSFNet, which 

 was the precursor to the current commercial Internet. On page 75 of the 

 report, a chart is reproduced fi-om an Academy review of the High Per- 

 formance Computing and Communications program which shows the com- 

 plex, often overlapping, sequence of federal and private sector R&D invest- 

 ments in technologies which led to important commercial business, 

 a. Explain why it is not too severe a test, and inconsistent with actual expe- 

 rience in the development of many high technology industries, to estab- 

 lish the criterion that federal funding is appropriate only if no private 

 sector investment is available. 



The committee did not use the Internet, biotechnology, and the global positioning 

 system as illustrations of areas where no commercial investment was evident. Rath- 

 er, they exemplify work fulfilling the recommendation's first criterion, "development 

 in pursuit of government missions." The government often needs technologies that 

 private firms are best able to develop, but this is usually in pursuit of inherently 

 governmental functions such as defense and public health. The committee's second 

 criterion "for which only government funding is available" is invoked only when the 

 contemplated investment is for technologies that lie outside of traditional agency 

 missions, and the intent of the federal funding is to create a new commercial tech- 

 nology where no market exists or for some other reason private investment is not 

 available. The committee believes federal investment can be justified if either of its 

 criteria are met, not just when both are. 



The two criteria come from a desire to ensure that the federal government gets 

 "the most bang for its buck." If federal dollars are merely displacing investments 

 that private interests would make, then the return specifically attributable to the 

 federal investment is likely to be lower. It is clearly in the national interest to use 

 taxpayer funds to subsidize the development of new technologies that offer spillover 

 benefits to the rest of the economy. However, the most cost effective way to provide 

 these subsidies may not be through direct investment in private firms. 



Finally, the statements that 

 "Examples are given of such appropriate federal investments: the Internet, the bio- 

 technology industry, and the global positioning system. But these examples, par- 



