|
(Return)
Looking Back
The participants in the CCSTG+10 meeting began by reflecting on
major changes and developments of the last ten years. Among items noted
were:
- Changes in the geopolitical and geoeconomic context and thus the
challenges for S&T. The landscape of the Carnegie Commission when it began
in 1988 was dominated by worries about the Soviet breakup and a possible
.Weimar Russia., and the Japanese economic threat. This contrasts
strongly with the present context highlighted by radical Islam, the
extraordinary rise in destructive capacity available to small groups, and
divisions associated with globalization.
- Fluctuations and some notable declines in the level and influence of
science and technology advice. Losses include the discontinuation of OTA
and a lessening of the influence of OSTP since Bush I, which was viewed as
a highwater of OSTP influence. Positive developments include the science
advisor to the Secretary of State and the persistence of the Carnegie
Group of science advisors to heads of state.
- Changes in the perceived importance of S&T issues, both in American
leadership as well as in the general public. The Cold War, especially its
early phase, made it easy to appreciate the importance of S&T. So did the
dot.com high tech boom in the 1990s. Participants wondered whether the
public and political leaders are making the connections between present
issues, such as homeland security, and S&T.
- The actual advances in S&T in the last decade, particularly in
information technology and biosciences. These innovations hold both
.bright. and .dark. possibilities. The payoffs in health and medicine
from the huge investments in life science research should be especially
strong in the next decades, but biology also has a added a dangerous face
rarely seen in recent times, with new concerns arising about biological
agents and the risk of terrorism.
- Unabated erosion of key aspects of the science and technology base in
America. Among the aspects cited were low and declining undergraduate and
graduate enrollment of domestic students in many fields of science and
engineering, related failures to make scientific and engineering careers
more attractive, less time allocated for basic sciences in K-12 classes,
failures to implement numerous recommendations in K-12 education going
back to the 1983 A Nation at Risk report, and poor scientific literacy,
particularly among elected officials.
- Continued increase in technical issues faced (or evaded) by the
judiciary. The Commission was prescient in this domain, but the spread of
complex, technical issues in the Courts (such as the tobacco and asbestos
suits) has far exceeded enhancement of capacities to deal with them.
- Other issues touched upon included international development,
environment, energy, and recruiting mechanisms for strong S&T candidates
in government positions, particularly for critical sub-cabinet positions.
New potential sources of tension between universities (which house many
scientists) and government were also noted, including issues of classified
or dangerous research on campus and restrictions on foreign students.
Considering the developments, participants commented on the
overall impact of the original Commission. The general view was that the
Commission had identified and articulated numerous issues, but few changes
resulted that were sustained over time, while pressure and attention
continued to be applied rather directly. A major reason offered was that
the Commission, like many attempts at offering science advice itself, was
rather academic in its behavior, emphasizing the writing and publishing of
reports. A comparison was made with OTA, which was dispensible in part
because its reports were .too detailed, too long, and too late.. The
transmission mechanisms of the original Commission could have been more
geared toward the culture of high levels of government, that is, oral and
relying on individuals as the vectors of ideas, both to deliver and
implement them. The AAAS and potentially the White House Fellows programs
were cited as effective means of continuing to refresh S&T input into
government.
A consensus emerged that, whatever the participants might propose to move
forward with, reconvening the Carnegie Commission or constituting a new
comprehensive effort on a similar multi-year scale lacked appeal. Many of
the "statements of the problem" of the original Commission are still
valid. If there is work to be done, it is in making particular reforms
happen and perhaps spotlighting a few new issues.
Suggested Directions
In five areas participants identified both a need and a practical,
low-cost strategy for action.
- Effective implementation of S&T in the new Department of
Homeland
Security. It is urgent that the new Department of Homeland
Security get
the S&T gene inserted and expressed in it from the outset, that is,
immediately. The legislation has the right words, allowing, for example,
for the creation of equivalents of DARPA, DSB, and DDR&E, and top level
appointees. The question is prompt and effective implementation,
including finding outstanding scientists and engineers for leadership
positions in the department. The Congress as well as the Executive Branch
will strongly influence implementation. It was felt that a network of
people working to assure implementation through letters, visits,
testimony, Op-Eds and other means would be useful over the next few
months.
- Refreshing and maintaining the strength of science in the
White House.
This is a chronic need. In the absence of the rare very strong direct
personal demand for science in the White House by a President, the S&T
community needs always to be working closely with the President's Science
Advisor to make sure the Advisor has the resources, including access, to
do the job right. In the present administration, the late appointment of
Jack Marburger combined with 9/11 (which caused a large fraction of
employees in the Old Executive Office Building to be moved off White House
premises, including OSTP) has created a particular set of challenges. At
the same time, the homeland security issues have created major
opportunities for OSTP to contribute to policy discussions about the
structure and function of the new department.. Congress as well as the
White House may influence the situation. It was agreed that it would be
timely to consult with Dr. Marburger about ways to enhance the ability of
OSTP to do its jobs, and to rally the community to provide support in
various ways, for example, identification of White House Fellows for OSTP
qualified to provide leadership on urgent issues.
- Science and Math Education. It was pointed out that
the 2003 Congress
will be faced with the Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. This
could provide a major opportunity to enhance the Federal role in science
and math education. Usually the science, engineering, and math
communities have taken little interest in such legislation. In 1958 in
response to Sputnik, the National Defense Foreign Language Education Act
was passed to prepare more and better foreign language teachers, and was
quite successful for a decade or so. Several participants felt that
deficits of domestic S&T professionals and literacy are a national
security issue. It was agreed that the science, engineering, and math
community should be prepared with language for titles in the
re-authorization.
- Energy and environment. Participants noted the
struggles of the Bush
Administration to prepare an Energy Plan and then a Climate Plan
consistent with it. Questions were raised as to whether the executive
branch agencies could implement any energy plan. There have been quite a
few. Moreover, concerns about environment and natural resources are now
commonly viewed in the framework of sustainable development, but the
relevant departments (Energy, EPA, Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, etc.)
are not constituted to deal with this more integrated concept of
environment and development. Several participants argued that environment
or sustainable development could or should be a major issue for the 2004
election. A key question raised is the degree to which well-crafted
federal policies could hasten the technological transition from
traditional to new low/no emission energy sources. It was agreed there
might be non-partisan or bi-partisan ways to surface good ideas, such as
Keystone meetings, that would address both policy directions and
institutional reform.
- Research and education about science in government within US
universities.
Participants noted the scarcity of good S&T-related coursework for public
policy students, and/or for more senior policy professionals. And S&T
students have or take few chances to learn about relevant aspects of
government. An early step to address this topic should be a survey of the
S&T policy coursework currently available. Participants did believe that
the academic community interested in these issues is now large and deep
enough to support centers or networks. One model might be the National
Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS, operated from UC
Santa Barbara). NCEAS is mostly a virtual center. Its members identify
themes and operate study groups that last a few years on particular
topics. Such a model could help coalesce academic experts concerned with,
for example, science and the judiciary, or science and Congress. It was
agreed to explore alternatives for strengthening the academic colonies
concerned with science in government.
A final, related idea, cutting across all the issues above, was to
encourage the writing of a string or series of short essays, not to exceed
2000 words, reviewing some of the key institutions for S&T in government.
If appearing in journals such as Science or Nature, these could helpfully
stir reflection and reform. It was agreed that the key was to identify
individuals who could expertly and cogently on the various institutions.
Diverse clusters of attendees agreed to work together in coming months to
try to move forward the above items on a voluntary basis without creating
a new organizational structure.
Prepared by Jesse Ausubel, Andrew Johnson, and Mark Schaefer
(Return to Top)
Posted 12.6.02
|
