THESE days continuing education seems to be on a roll in Washington DC.
Lobbyists and legislators alike have taken to grading each other and the
agencies they oversee. Groups as diverse as the 鈥渇reedom of speech鈥� Media
Institute, the 鈥渃ampaign for good government鈥� Common Cause and the 鈥減rotect
America鈥檚 environment鈥� Sierra Club have all joined in. They have released
鈥渞eport cards鈥� that rate the country鈥檚 law makers on a school-yard scale, from
the rare 鈥淎鈥� (excellent) to the all-too-common 鈥淔鈥� (failure).
Legislators such as Republican senator Stephen Horn of California have joined
in. He recently gave the Clinton administration a 鈥淒鈥� for its efforts to deal
with the millennium bug鈥攖he much-prophesied computer Armageddon.
鈥淩eleasing grades is certainly an effective way to get the attention of the news
media,鈥� comments John Pike of the Federation of American 杏吧原创s.
Yet amid this enthusiasm for instant grades, no one has seen fit to mark the
Washington institutions for their science savvy. Last year the federal bodies
provided nearly $62.7 billion for research and development, according to
the National Science Foundation, which surely merits some notice. As it turns
out, Washington harbours any number of opinionated people interested in science.
Conversations with a few of them, on and off the record, yield suggestions for
grading some of the federal agencies purely on their science payoff.
Advertisement
The National Science Foundation gets a grade A. 鈥淭he heart of American
science,鈥� Robert Park of the American Physical Society calls it. For just over
$2.5 billion every year鈥攎uch less than 1 per cent of the total
federal budget鈥攖he US receives a model agency 鈥渢hat provides grants
through a peer review process that is the envy of other institutions and other
nations鈥�, in the words of Republican Congressman Sherwood Boehlert of New York
(Congressional Record, 29 July).
But NASA gets an F. Useful uncrewed spacecraft such as Galileo or the Mars
Rover make up a small portion of the space agencies鈥� budget while it
haemorrhages money on the scientifically dubious space station and space
shuttle.
Good but not great is the verdict on the National Institute of Standards and
Technology, which gets a B. Things have changed at the institute, where an
interest in science has replaced the ethos of service to industry that dominated
at the beginning of the decade. Physicists in particular value the institute鈥檚
work with atomic clocks and measurement of values such as Plank鈥檚 constant.
Legislators are no less fair game for grading. A handful of representatives
exert a huge influence on the shape of American science. And science advocates
agree that a few law makers deserve to be graded on their scientific
aptitude.
Tennessee Senator Bill Frist, the Republican chairman of the Senate
Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space is, however, the proud recipient
of an A. His Federal Research Investment Act would double funding for civilian
research and development over a 12-year period (Chattanooga Free Press,
2 August). A critic of dubious alternative medicine projects, he is the only
physician in the US Senate.
But it鈥檚 an F for Democrat senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. He was roundly
criticised for his sponsorship of the Dietary Supplement Health and Education
Act of 1994, which allows manufacturers of herbal remedies to make broad health
claims for their products without scientific review by the Food and Drug
Administration. Also drawing the ire of scientific purists, he was the driving
force behind the creation of the Office of Alternative Medicine at the National
Institutes of Health in 1993.
Meanwhile, Republican Newt Gingrich, the speaker of the House, has been
broadly supportive of science both in his speeches and on the House floor. He
gets a grade B+ (+ for effort). When one congressman recently sought to limit
the budget of the National Science Foundation, Gingrich reportedly asked him to
withdraw the amendment (The Post and Courier, 2 August).
Clearly, giving single grades is not to everyone鈥檚 taste. 鈥淪umming someone up
with a single-letter grade, whether they are a student or a politician, is
ludicrous,鈥� claims Robert McClure of the National Education Association (NEA),
Washington DC. He notes that the current trend in education is to give students
specific instructions for improvement rather than single grades. But politicians
are not always the most apt pupils, and even McClure acknowledges that letter
grades are 鈥渆fficient鈥�. His own organisation must agree because the NEA issues
an annual report on Congressmen that grades them on a 鈥減ass-fail鈥� basis.