THE US government鈥檚 programmes in science and technology are in need of a complete overhaul, says the National Academy of Sciences. Moribund programmes should be axed, and the government should do a better job of funnelling money to the most important programmes, the academy says in a report published last week.
The report says that many of the government鈥檚 research programmes have grown through an 鈥渁ccretion of decisions鈥� since the end of the Second World War. And as no one in Washington sets overall scientific priorities for the government, research programmes continue unchecked for years, whether they are producing anything of value or not.
鈥淭here are parts that have outlived their time, have lost a step in quality, or simply are not as important as newer opportunities,鈥� says Frank Press, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Institution of Washington and chairman of the committee.
Advertisement
The committee that wrote the report did not single out candidates for the chop. It suggested that because the issue is likely to be a political hot potato, the President and Congress might eventually have to do what they did for the country鈥檚 military bases: appoint an independent commission to draw up a hit list.
The report also criticises the way the government allocates the estimated $35 billion it spends on research each year. The committee suggests that the President should produce a single science budget which should reflect overall priorities 鈥� for example, whether to concentrate spending on high-energy physics or biomedical research. Congress would debate this before deciding how much money would be allocated to individual government agencies. At the moment various congressional committees decide on funding for the government agencies under their aegis, regardless of the decisions made by other committees.
Both the Clinton administration and Republican leaders in Congress, who have been openly at war over the government budget, backed the report. Robert Walker, the Republican chairman of the House of Representatives鈥� science committee, says it was 鈥渦seful and helpful鈥�.
John Gibbons, President Clinton鈥檚 science adviser, says the administration is already trying to establish clearer priorities in science. But he warns that reforming the budget 鈥渨ill not be an easy task鈥�.