Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment*
|
Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment* |
|
|
|
95-235: A Department of Science and Technology: William C. Boesman Specialist in Science and Technology February 3, 1995
CONSOLIDATION AT THE "BEGINNING" The "beginning," for purposes of this report, was the World War II era, during which the Federal R&D structure grew manyfold in resources, capabilities, and importance in support of the war effort.1 In 1945, a consensus developed among national policymakers that a central Federal scientific agency, a "National Science (or Research) Foundation," was needed. Leading spokesmen for this consensus were Vannevar Bush, President Roosevelt's science adviser, and Senator Harley M. Kilgore. Both the Bush and Kilgore camps agreed that such a "central scientific agency" should support natural sciences, medical research, national defense, and other areas.2 Several substantive issues, however, divided the two camps. Perhaps the most important issue was whether or not the agency would support R&D broadly defined (Kilgore's position and the one in the original compromise bill) or mainly basic research (Bush's position and the one that ultimately prevailed). As these issues were being debated in Congress, new Federal mission agencies, with significant R&D capabilities to support those missions, were created by Congress to address specific national needs (e.g., national defense), further decreasing the original vision of what the agency would do. After five years of congressional activity, the National Science Foundation (NSF) was established in 1950.3COUNTERTREND: CONSOLIDATION OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS The new mission agencies with significant R&D responsibilities created between 1946 and 1950 were the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and the Office of Naval Research (ONB), established on the same day in 1946.4 The AEC was established to conduct and support R&D in atomic energy and related fields. The laboratories and many of the responsibilities of the AEC were transferred to the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) upon its creation in 1974. ERDA's mission also included R&D on fossil, solar) geothermal, and other energy sources, and energy conservation. ERDA was transferred to the Department of Energy (DOE) upon its establishment in 1977. The Office of Naval Research was created to support R&D related to naval power, but it also was the major Federal funding source for undirected basic research in universities from 1945 to the establishment of NSF in 1950. The creation of ONR apparently weakened the case for the establishment of NSF in the minds of some Members of Congress, perhaps thereby delaying its enactment while contributing to the creation of other Federal R&D agencies. Just after the establishment of NSF in 1950, Congress authorized the Surgeon General to create a number of new institutes to conduct and support research related to various diseases in what is now the National Institutes of Health (NIH).5 Also during this period, a number of R&D responsibilities were added to existing mission agencies. President Eisenhower formalized this trend toward multiple R&D agencies in 1954 when he issued an executive order which, while strengthening NSF's role in general-purpose basic research, stated that "the conduct and support by other Federal agencies of basic research in areas which are closely related to their missions is recognized as important and desirable, especially in response to current national needs, and shall continue."6 Thus, by 1954, four years after NSF was established, the Federal pattern of multiple mission agency support of R&D was confirmed. In 1958, this trend continued with the establishment of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), based upon the nucleus of the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA) which had been created in 1915.7 NSF had become, and remains, the Federal agency whose role is mainly the support of non-mission-oriented basic research important to the Nation, while mission- agency research (including much applied research) and development are con- ducted and supported by a number of other Federal departments and agencies.POST-1950s PROPOSALS FOR CONSOLIDATION Centralization of Federal science and technology was a frequently recurring theme in Federal science policy during the 20 years from 1958 through 1977. At least 60 proposals (including many overlaps and redundancies) for consolidation of Federal science and technology agencies were introduced in Congress, promoted by the executive branch, or offered by other science policy leaders during this period.8 None of these proposals resulted in a major change, except that, in 1976, Congress created the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the President.9 OSTP, however, is not an S&T consolidation. It is, rather, a S&T policymaking and coordinating office. Following OSTP's establishment, and its recommendation against S&T consolidation,10 the impetus for this waned for awhile. Since then, the executive branch generally has not supported S&T consolidation. During the period 1976 through 1980, bills to establish a National Technology Foundation or similar organizations were introduced in Congress, but not enacted.11 While not S&T consolidation proposals, they were similar in some respects as they would have created new Federal mechanisms to deal with perceived problems in U.S. industrial innovation by focusing Federal R&D capabilities on applied research, development, and technology transfer. President Reagan attempted a consolidation of sorts with his proposal to disestablish the Department of Energy shortly after his election. He proposed that elements of DOE be transferred, principally to the Department of Commerce, and that there be created therein a new Energy Research and Technology Administration (ERTA) "to manage the energy research, general science and nuclear weapons program . . . ."12 This proposal met with little congressional enthusiasm and was abandoned. About three years later, the next major proposal for consolidation, a Department of Science and Technology, was one of the primary recommendations of the President's Commission on Industrial Competitiveness. No legislation to this end, however, was introduced in the 99th Congress. Subsequently, bills to establish a Department of S&T (or similar designation) were introduced in the 100th, 102d, and 103d Congresses, but none were enacted.13 Most recently, a Department of Science, Space, Energy and Technology was proposed in the unsuccessful "Kasich-Penny" amendment to the Government Reform and Savings Act of 1993.14THE CURRENT FEDERAL R&D STRUCTURE The current Federal S&T structure, thus, includes a number of major mission agencies, many of which have significant R&D capabilities, including basic research capabilities. Table I shows the Federal agencies arranged in decreasing order of total R&D funds. It is from these departments and agencies, or components thereof, that a Department of Science and Technology would be constructed. The table shows that NSF now represents only about 3.2 percent of total Federal R&D funding. Even in terms of basic research, it accounts for only about 15 percent of the total. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), mainly NIH, supports over twice as much basic research as does NSF, while NASA and DOE each supports almost as much basic research, and the Department of Defense (DOD) supports about half as much basic research, as does NSF. The table also shows that DOD and NIH, which are not included in many proposals for a Department of S&T, account for over two-thirds of Federal R&D funding. Consolidation of Federal S&T has not occurred and the trend has been in the opposite direction.TYPES OF PROPOSED S&T CONSOLIDATION Broadly speaking, there have been three types of proposals for S&T consolidation since the late 1960s. The first is a Department of S&T, to which would be transferred major R&D agencies, including NSF, DOE (or its predecessor agencies, AEC or ERDA), or at least its non-defense laboratories, NASA, and the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, or its predecessor agency, the National Bureau of Standards (NBS)). In some proposals, elements of DOD and all or part of the NIH, plus sometimes other agencies or parts, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Smithsonian Institution, would be included. A second type is a Department of Science, to which would be transferred NSF, NIST (or NBS), NIH, or major parts thereof, and perhaps DOB'S non- defense laboratories and other existing or new elements. The purpose of this type of consolidation would be to support much of the Federal Government's basic scientific research, rather than applied research and development, in a single department. This type of consolidation received a great deal of consideration and support in the late 1960s and early 1970s, particularly through the National Institutes of Research and Advanced Studies (NIRAS) model developed by the House Committee on Science and Astronautics.15 The third type of consolidation is a non-departmental agency to promote applied research, development, and technology transfer. The industrial competitiveness problems stimulating this type of proposal have been addressed, in large part, by the Stevenson-WydIer Technology Innovation Act and related technology transfer legislation affecting Federal laboratories, as well as technology development programs, like the Advanced Technology Program within the Department of Commerce, developed since the early 1980s.16 PROS AND CONS OF S&T CONSOLIDATION17 In determining whether a specific S&T consolidation should be implemented, policymakers may wish to evaluate how the consolidation would affect and/or be affected by: national goals for S&T and national goals served by S&T; planning and budgeting procedures for S&T; oversight by Congress and coordination with other S&T policymakers; gaps and overlaps in existing agency R&D programs; location and capabilities of R&D facilities; various performers of Federal R&D (e.g., in-house laboratories, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDGs), universities, and industry); importance of R&D to agencies* operations; Government-wide R&D problems; the role of large multi- and special purpose Federal laboratories; and other factors.18 Arguments for S&T consolidation include that a Department of Science and Technology would have Cabinet-level prestige. To the extent that a significant portion of Federal R&D was consolidated into a department, the budget for more R&D could be better planned and the components better balanced than currently is possible through OSTP's advisory mechanism. Also, uniformity of overall Federal science policy implementation would be more likely through the programs of one department than through several departments and agencies, as at present. In addition, a Department of S&T could be a better home for multiprogram laboratories than existing departments and agencies because one department may more effectively promote scientific cross-fertilization and minimize redundancy among the, currently, somewhat parochial laboratories. Arguments against S&T consolidation include that it would stifle the diversification of Federal S&T capabilities that has proven to be effective and has contributed to the health of the Nation's R&D. Also, removing R&D from direct mission-agency control could result in much Federal R&D losing its direction. Moreover, consolidation of mission-oriented R&D in the same department responsible for fundamental scientific research might weaken one or both of these significantly different endeavors. Any consolidation, at least short-term, could adversely affect existing personnel practices and constituencies which serve, or rely on, existing agency R&D structures, and would overlap several congressional committee jurisdictional boundaries, there being no single S&T committee in either House. Also, many proposed S&T consolidations exclude DOD and NIH, and thus about two-thirds of Federal R&D capabilities. Footnotes 1 Perhaps the first initiative to consolidate Federal R&D activities occurred in 1884 when Senator William B. Allison headed a joint congressional commission to investigate the possible advantages and disadvantages of such a consolidation. A few subsequent investigations and proposals for consolidation occurred between then and World War II. Nothing significant resulted from these efforts. For further information, see U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Technology. Task Force on Science Policy. Science Policy Study Background Report No. 1: A History of Science Policy in the United States, 1940-1985. Report, 99th Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1986. 120 p. 2 Section 2, S. 1850, 79th Congress. 3 P.L. 81-507, 64 Stat. 149, May 10, 1950. For an analysis of the evolution of the idea of one central R&D organization following World War II into the diverse system which exists today, see U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Federal Support of Basic Research and the Establishment of the National Science Foundation and Other Research Agencies. ORS Report 88-456 SPR, by William C. Boesman. Washington, June 28, 1988. 22 p. 4 P.L. 585, 60 Stat. 766 and P.L. 588, 60 Stat. 779, Aug. 1, 1946. 5 The Omnibus Medical Research Act, P.L. 692, 64 Stat. 443, Aug. 16, 1950. 6 Executive Order No. 10521, section 4, Mar. 17, 1954. 7 NACA, P.L. 271, 38 Stat. 928, Mar. 3, 1915; NASA, 72 Stat. 426, P.L. 85-668, July 29, 1958. 8 U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Governmental Affairs. Reorganization of Federal Science and Technology Activities. Report, 96th Congress, 1st session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1977. p. 357-410. 9 The National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976, P.L. 94-282, May 11, 1976. 10 Office of Science and Technology Policy. Consolidation of Federal Scientific and Technological Activities. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1980. Forward page. 11 For example, H.R. 481, H.R. 4361, and S. 3071 of the 98th Congress. 12 Major Themes and Additional Budget Details: Fiscal Year 1983. Washington, Executive Office of the President, 1982. p. 250. 13 H.R. 2164, 100th Congress; H.R. 5529, 102d Congress; and H.R. 1300, 103d Congress. 14 H.R. 3400, 103d Congress. See Congressional Record, Nov. 22, 1993, H10797-H10801. 15 U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Science and Astronautics. Centralization of Federal Science Activities. Report, 91st Congress, 1st session. (House Document 91-172) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1969. 108 p. 16 For a discussion of technology transfer legislation and technology development programs, see U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Industrial Competitiveness and Technology Advancement: Debate over Government Policy, by Wendy H. Schacht. ORS Issue Brief 91132. [Washington] 1994 (Updated regularly); and U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. The Advanced Technology Program. CRS Report 95-36 SPR, by Wendy H. Schacht. Washington, Dec. 22, 1994. 6 p. 17 For pro-con analyses of specific proposed U.S. S&T consolidations, see Centralization of Federal Science Activities, op. cit„ p. 61-106; Consolidation of Federal Scientific and Technological Activities, op. cit„ p. 35-40; and U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Establishing a Department of Science and Technology: An Analysis of the Proposal of the Presidents' Commission on Industrial Competitiveness. CRS Report No. 85-122 SPR, by Michael E. Davey, Christopher T. Hill, and Wendy H. Schacht. May 30, 1985. p. 27-33. For analyses of some foreign S&T models, see U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. International Science and Technology: Issues For U.S. Policymakers. CRS Report 94-733 SPR, by Glenn J. McLoughlin, Coordinator. Washington, Sept. 16, 1994. 102 p. 18 Factors suggested in Centralization of Federal Science Activities, op. cit., p. 13-17. |
CRS Reports Home
|
|||
|
|||
 |
National Council for Science and the Environment 1725 K Street, Suite 212 - Washington, DC 20006 202-530-5810 - info@NCSEonline.org |
 |
|