Title: NSB 97-186 "Government Funding of Scientific Research: A Working Paper
of the National Science Board"
Date: December 10, 1997
Government Funding of Scientific Research
A Working Paper of the National Science Board
INTRODUCTION
"...[P]resently there is no widely accepted way for the Federal government in
conjunction with the scientific community to make priority decisions about the
allocation of resources in and across scientific disciplines."
With the end of the Cold War and the need to reduce the size of the Federal
deficit, all facets of the Federal budget have come under scrutiny, including
the Nation's investment in research and development (R&D). There has been
considerable discussion on proposals to reduce the Federal R&D budget and to
reorder its priorities. The National Science Board (NSB) is specifically
charged with assessing the health of science in the Nation and with advising
the President and Congress on matters of national science policy.1
The Board therefore offers its perspective on the important issues this
country confronts today concerning the funding of scientific research by the
Federal government. Consistent with its charge, the Board has focused its
efforts on issues affecting scientific research as distinct from development.
Peer review of proposals has long assured the funding of the best researchers
with the best ideas. However, presently there is no widely accepted way for
the Federal government in conjunction with the scientific community to make
priority decisions about the allocation of resources in and across scientific
disciplines.2 We examine this complex issue and offer our views
on this challenging task with two purposes in mind. The first is to guide
future actions of the Board in reaching priority decisions about the budget
of the National Science Foundation (NSF). The second is to engage the
attention and participation of others in meeting this challenge by
supplementing present procedures with other systematic ways to reach and
prioritize decisions.
The rationale for the major Federal role in funding scientific research goes
back some fifty years to the time after the end of World War II, when
realization of the impact of science-based technology on the course of the war
was keenly felt. The mood was expressed in Vannevar Bush's July 1945 report,
Science--The Endless Frontier.3 It is natural to question the
validity of the philosophy for today and, particularly, to examine the
question of the coordination of federally-financed research.
The Board has studied the report, Allocating Federal Funds for Science and
Technology, issued in 1995 by a committee of the National Research Council
chaired by Frank Press.4 (We refer to this as the "Press
report.") A major theme of that report is the need for some degree of
coordination of federally-financed research. This idea is not totally new but
was particularly well developed in the report. This timely and critical but
highly controversial proposal merits careful attention at this time.
If it is in the Nation's interest for there to be some form of
"comprehensive" and "coherent" coordination of federally-financed
research,5 it is necessary to have guidelines to provide clear
direction on setting priorities within the Federal research budget. The Press
report pointed out that guidelines were offered in the 1993 report of the
National Research Council's Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public
Policy (COSEPUP) Science, Technology and the Federal Government--National
Goals for a New Era.6 The Board has considered the adequacy of
the COSEPUP guidelines.
"With this paper, the Board hopes to encourage a much needed dialogue among
appropriate stakeholders."
This working paper presents the Board's thinking on these subjects. With this
paper, the Board hopes to encourage a much needed dialogue among appropriate
stakeholders. The document is divided into four sections. The first section
addresses the definitions of "research" and "development" and highlights the
essential differences between them, particularly as they affect the possible
government role in funding. Considerable confusion has been created by
imprecise and sometimes improper use of the term R&D. The Board feels it is
important to clarify this issue.
The second section revisits the justification articulated by Vannevar Bush for
government funding of scientific research. It addresses some of the changes
in the past fifty years that may have altered the justification but concludes
that the need for government funding of research is just as critical today as
it was at the height of the Cold War.
The third section examines the need for comprehensive coordination of
federally-financed research. It concludes that such coordination could assist
the President and Congress by providing a valuable addition to and improvement
over the processes presently in place. However, implementation of such a
policy would involve the difficult task of developing acceptable procedures.
"...[F]urther study of priority setting methodologies involving appropriate
stakeholders should be undertaken. The NSB recommends such a study and
pledges its support for this effort."
The final section addresses the availability of guidelines to provide clear
direction on setting priorities. It concludes that further study of priority
setting methodologies involving appropriate stakeholders should be undertaken.
The NSB recommends such a study and pledges its support for this effort.
SECTION I:
DEFINITIONS OF "RESEARCH" AND "DEVELOPMENT"
"...[I]t is appropriate to define "research" as distinct from "development,"
recognizing that there are instances where the boundaries blur."
Because this document focuses on research, it is appropriate to define
"research" as distinct from "development," recognizing that there are
instances where the boundaries blur.7
Research
Research is the search for new knowledge and concepts that unify and extend
that knowledge. The work, stimulated by theoretical or practical questions, is
conducted in the context of existing knowledge and paradigms. A paradigm is a
guiding concept or model, based on accumulated knowledge, which is generally
accepted as valid and useful.
Typically, research is designed to answer specific questions to fill gaps
within the existing body of knowledge or to test the paradigm itself. Work
which is intended to confirm or refine an existing paradigm may, in fact,
contradict it, thus opening the way for a scientific revolution.
Practical applications of knowledge may range from new products and processes
to the information base needed for management or policy decisions. An
investigator may or may not have specific, practical applications for the
results of his/her work when designing the research. However, extensive
history has documented the fact that the most important applications and
policy implications are not envisioned at the time of the research. This fact
is most especially true of work that leads to new or greatly modified
paradigms.
Development
Development is the process by which a new product or process is brought into
being or improved based largely on existing knowledge and theory. In an
industrial setting, development encompasses a wide range of activities, such
as scale-up, packaging, or cost analysis. Here we will consider only the
technical development by which the concept may be reduced to feasible
practice. We have chosen not to address development efforts outside of the
commercial sector, that is, development directed to achieving the mission of a
sponsoring agency.
In general, development cannot occur based on existing knowledge and theory
only, for there are inevitable gaps in the knowledge base. Experiments are
typically designed in the development process to address these specific gaps.
Thus development has some important features in common with research, though
the questions in a technical development program tend to be of narrower scope
than in research.
While there are research aspects to technical development, research does not
naturally lead to development in any linear way. Rather, research and
development are iterative, with development dependent on research, and often
vice versa. Taken together, research and development may be defined as
"technical innovation." Invention is possible at any stage in the technical
innovation process and success is necessary at every stage to produce a
commercially viable product or process.
Observations on the R&D Definitions
"...[R]esearch and development are iterative, with development depending on
research and often vice versa. ."
Research and development, as here defined, are related: not every activity
can be clearly classified as one or the other. Additional phrases such as
"applied research" or "exploratory development" have been created to provide
finer definition of the gray areas between research and development. The
above definitions are simpler and adequate for present purposes.
It should also be noted that success in technical innovation is necessary, but
not sufficient, for commercial success. Many other factors influence the
ultimate commercial success or failure of a new product or process. Some
factors, such as marketing, distribution, design for manufacturability, and
testing, are primarily the responsibility of industry. Other factors, such as
the cost of capital, liability laws, environmental regulations, and tax policy
are dependent on government actions and general economic conditions. It is,
in fact, these interdependencies that necessitate close cooperation among the
sectors-- academy, industry, and government--to ensure the economic well-being
of the Nation.
Our definitions distinguish research from development and also indicate the
relationship between them. Discussion of support by the government must deal
carefully with this relationship, while recognizing that the rationales for
supporting the two are quite different.
It further should be noted that research and education are inexorably linked
in U. S. higher education in science and engineering. During the
undergraduate and graduate years, students learn the fundamentals of their
fields. However, because the knowledge base is growing explosively, students
must also learn how to learn, lest their education become obsolete. It is in
this realm that research becomes a powerful part of both undergraduate and
graduate education, which is one of the great strengths of the American higher
education system. In research, students learn how to gather current
knowledge, how to pose significant questions to further that knowledge base,
and how to frame and implement an approach to address their questions. This
research/ education experience is invaluable training, not only for those
continuing in research, but for the broader workforce and an informed public.
SECTION II: JUSTIFICATION FOR GOVERNMENT SUPPORT OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
"Bush saw the benefits of research accruing to a wide range of national needs
rather than to a single objective, such as defense."
Prior to World War II, support for research by the government of the United
States was largely focused on government missions and carried out by Federal
employees in Federal establishments. The experience with weapons development
during the war highlighted the enormous potential impact of the results of
scientific research on national needs. It was also realized that academic
research was a powerful engine for generating such results.
The government role in supporting research in the scientific community at
large was greatly stimulated by the vision enunciated by Vannevar Bush. Bush
wrote, "The Government should accept new responsibilities for promoting the
flow of new scientific knowledge and the development of scientific talent in
our youth. These responsibilities are the proper concern of the Government
for they vitally affect our health, our jobs, and our national
security."8 Bush used the word "jobs" to describe what elsewhere
he referred to as "prosperity" or "public welfare." The concept is now
commonly referred to as "economic security." The three areas identified by
Bush were those of most concern at the time. Were Bush writing today, he
would probably add others, including "the environment," "green manufacturing,"
and "clean energy sources."
Bush saw the benefits of research accruing to a wide range of national needs
rather than to a single objective, such as defense. Indeed, he concluded his
letter to President Truman transmitting his report with a broad vision of the
impact of science on quality of life: "Scientific progress is one essential
key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a
higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress."9
Vannevar Bush clearly recognized that applications of research results often
appear many years after the work is started and that there is no certainty as
to which of the many national needs will benefit from this work. He also
observed that "...basic research is essentially non-commercial in nature. It
will not receive the attention it requires if left to industry."10
Today this concept is recognized as a lack of "appropriability." Because of
the long-term nature of research and the uncertainties in predicting its
practical applications, a company cannot be certain that investment in
research will result in a competitive advantage in the worldwide marketplace.
Indeed, the increase in global competition has exacerbated the
"appropriability" issue. It consequently has increased the need for
government support of research.
The Bush vision encouraged the mission agencies to support research
universities in fields that were deemed to have probable long-term relevance
to their missions. It also led to the establishment of the National Science
Foundation and the gradual building of its budget to the point that it has
become a major source of support for science and engineering in our
universities. The National Science Board was created with its dual mission of
overseeing the activities of NSF and monitoring the health of science in the
Nation.
"As a result of implementing the Bush vision, our research universities have
become the envy of the world. The application of new knowledge and talent in
science has indeed created handsome benefits..."
As a result of implementing the Bush vision, our research universities have
become the envy of the world. The application of new knowledge and talent in
science has indeed created handsome benefits in the three areas Bush
identified. We will cite just one example in each area. The understanding of
the structure and properties of DNA opened up totally new opportunities to
address health issues and provided the basis for the vibrant new biotechnology
industry. Polymer and photochemical research led to the creation of
photoresists that are key to the success of the microelectronics industry,
which accounts for well over a quarter of a million jobs in the U. S. today.
The atomic clock, which was based on research in atomic physics and was
stimulated by needs in astronomy, provided a foundation for the development of
the Global Positioning System to satisfy a critical defense need. More
recently, it is creating a large commercial marketplace for everything from
ships to backpackers.
In the fifty years since the end of World War II, major changes have occurred
here and overseas that might have an impact on the rationale for government
support of scientific research. Two of the most frequently cited are the end
of the Cold War and the emergence of a global technological marketplace.
Another is the increasing need for information and knowledge as a basis
for policy and management decisions by institutions and individuals, to
enable them to contend with the modification of natural and social
environments that is occurring at increasing rates, over larger scales, and in
fundamentally new ways.
"Do these changes call for a major change in our attitude toward research?...
We conclude that changed circumstances... do not reduce the desirability of
continued government funding of scientific research."
Do these changes call for a major change in our attitude toward research? We
believe that none would invalidate the justification for wise government
support of research. Health, economic security, and national security remain
as imperatives, and are now joined by social and environmental concerns. Only
the sense of priority has changed. Defense priorities have decreased but
competition from global science- based technological industry and
environmental and social concerns have increased as no one would have dreamed
in 1945.
Some Asian nations, most prominently Japan, have succeeded in building
excellent high-tech industries in the absence of a publicly-accessible
academic research base. At the same time, U. S. industry appeared to be
faltering in areas such as consumer electronics and in fundamental research in
manufacturing engineering. These observations have been used to suggest to
some that government funding of science might not be required to enhance
national prosperity. We believe that this is an incorrect conclusion stemming
from a number of misunderstandings of the characteristics of research and
development and their role in the total innovation process.
First, as discussed in the section on definitions, success in bringing
high-tech products and services to the marketplace involves a total innovation
process including functions such as research, development, manufacturing,
marketing, and others. All of the functions involved must work well. The
problems with the U. S. consumer electronics industry have been thoroughly
studied and are well understood.11 American firms lost market
share to competitors with shorter product cycles, lower costs, and superior
quality. Even excellent science will not compensate for such a weakness in
the industrial environment.
Second, as also discussed in the section on definitions, the innovation
process is an iterative, not a linear, process. While some very important
product developments are triggered by new knowledge from research, the
majority are stimulated elsewhere -- by market needs, by manufacturing
advances, and by ideas from the development laboratory. These product
developments can proceed largely on the foundation of existing and widely
understood scientific and technical knowledge. The consumer electronics
industry fits this model as does the mature semiconductor industry. Thus,
even nations without ready access to research capabilities can prosper and
excel in these product lines.
The most obvious situation in which research can lead to a competitive edge
for industry is where there is a fundamental breakthrough, a paradigm change.
Here there may be opportunities to create whole new industries. The
understanding of DNA was surely one such paradigm change. When this occurs, a
nation with both a strong industry and a leading scientific capability can
capitalize on its closer access to knowledge and talent to become first in the
world market with the most innovative, profitable products and services. It
is under these less frequent and highly unpredictable circumstances that
research makes a critical contribution to industrial competitiveness.
There are other research benefits that can be at least as valuable. Basic
expertise is needed to evaluate new technical opportunities regardless of
their source. Whatever the extent of a nation's investment in research, some
breakthroughs are bound to occur elsewhere. Having expertise in a field makes
it possible to catch up with the originator in the implementation phase and
even get to market ahead of the originator. In planning technical programs,
whether in research or development, it is valuable to understand what can work
and it can be even more valuable to know what cannot work. Finally, ready
access to the talent in research universities, whether as employees or
consultants, is an asset to industry in all facets of the innovation process.
These benefits from research can be seen in the strength of our information,
chemical, and pharmaceutical industries and the competitive advantage they
have gained from close access to basic science.
"Changes in national priorities do not negate the potential of research
benefits which are long term and uncertain in detail but have proved over time
to be substantial."
We conclude that changed circumstances in recent years do not reduce the
desirability of continued government funding of scientific research. Changes
in national priorities do not negate the potential of research benefits which
are long term and uncertain in detail but have proved over time to be
substantial. In the presence of global competition a nation should be strong
in all facets of technical innovation and should have available a
continuously renewed base of knowledge to inform its decisions and those of
its citizens. A nation requires a robust high-tech industry, a scientific
talent base, and a vigorous research activity to prosper over the long term.
SECTION III: COORDINATION OF FEDERALLY-FINANCED RESEARCH
"Sometimes important decisions about the allocation of limited resources
happen by default, without explicit weighing of alternatives. There remains
a need to examine and coordinate the science and engineering research budget
as a whole."
We recognize that a degree of coordination of Federal research spending exists
across disciplines and that during the last decade the Executive branch has
taken steps to improve coordination of research across agencies in key areas.
Indeed, the Office of Management and Budget in consultation with the Office
of Science and Technology Policy provides annual budget guidance to all
agencies participating in support of priority research areas in preparing the
Federal budget for submission to Congress. Too, agency budget submissions
must be developed in the context of the Government Performance and Results
Act, which requires that agency supported research activities have measurable
outcomes toward achieving agency missions. We note in particular that the
committees of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) provide
coordination in areas of special national interest, such as global change, the
development of less polluting transportation, energy, specific health areas,
childhood development, and the future of the U.S. program in the
Antarctic.12
These efforts benefit from special Administration studies, including reports
of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) and
the NSTC.13 But, beyond those special areas, coordination
depends on individual agency-to-agency agreements, informal cooperation across
agencies at the program level, and the memories of Congressional committees.
Sometimes important decisions about the allocation of limited resources happen
by default, without explicit weighing of alternatives. There remains
a need to examine and coordinate the science and engineering research budget
as a whole.
"Improved coordination and decision-making at the Federal level could lead to
a better alignment of expenditures with respect to national priorities without
in any way replacing the spontaneous generation of ideas and proposals by
individual research workers and teams."
We are proposing that the Federal government take upon itself the high-level
coordination of the diffuse sources of Federal funds for research as suggested
in the Press report. Improved coordination and decision-making at the Federal
level could lead to a better alignment of expenditures with respect to
national priorities without in any way replacing the spontaneous generation of
ideas and proposals by individual research workers and teams. Such
coordination could correct deficiencies that will inevitably surface in its
absence. The main deficiencies are gaps, overlaps, and failures to meet
priorities.
Decentralized allocation will sometimes result in separate agencies
unintentionally pursuing the same agenda.14 Duplication of
research efforts is not always a bad thing, even when funds are scarce. It
may encourage competition among investigators and advances in knowledge across
a broad front. Whether or not any particular duplication is desirable
competition or wasteful overlap has to be decided explicitly. There is no
reason to expect the optimum answer to arise by happenstance.
In exactly the same way, decentralized allocation will sometimes leave
important areas of research inadequately covered. Individual funding agencies
and individual researchers may incorrectly presume that others are pursuing
particular topics and related areas. Although such gaps may correct
themselves over time as the writers and readers of proposals see what has
happened, this can be a wasteful process, and even quite destructive if young
researchers decide to leave important unfunded fields. Coordination would
allow one to see gaps in advance and judge whether they should be eliminated.
Sometimes there will be a clear sense within the Federal government that some
areas of research merit particularly high priority for social or economic
reasons (examples: climate, hydrology, violence, materials, transportation,
etc.). The uncoordinated generation of research proposals will not completely
ignore such priorities, but cannot be expected to reflect them with great
fidelity. It was already noted that important applications of research are
not always foreseen when the research is planned. This observation does not
deny that research aimed at a particular application is more likely to achieve
it than research aimed in some other direction. Comprehensive coordination
can achieve a rough conformity between accepted priorities and the allocation
of resources. This fact becomes increasingly important when funds are scarce.
As an extreme example, it is a common observation that completely
decentralized modes of allocation run into particular trouble when budgets
must be cut. At such a time it is easy for the general interest to be
overridden by parochial interests.
"Whenever there is some amount of comprehensive coordination and
decision-making, it is supremely important that the criteria of choice be
appropriate. There is no virtue in doing the wrong thing efficiently."
Whenever there is some amount of comprehensive coordination and
decision-making, it is supremely important that the criteria of choice be
appropriate. There is no virtue in doing the wrong thing efficiently. Any
scheme of oversight must begin with explicit discussion of and agreement about
the goals to be achieved.
SECTION IV: FEDERAL SCIENCE PRIORITIES
"...COSEPUP recommendations...may not go far enough.... The Nation may
choose, and may be able to afford, to invest beyond the levels that the
COSEPUP criteria would suggest. Thus the Board believes that further study is
needed before a particular methodology for setting priorities is adopted."
Within the Federal budget, there should be an overall strategy for research,
with areas of increased and areas of decreased emphasis. The budget as a
whole should be adequate both to serve national priorities and to foster a
world-class scientific and technical enterprise. To this end, Congress and
the Administration need to establish a process that examines the complete
Federal research budget before the total Federal budget is disaggregated.
Departments and agencies should make decisions based on clearly articulated
criteria that are congruent with the overall strategy.
Within the Executive branch, the interagency NSTC, and before it the Federal
Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology (FCCSET), have
successfully organized crosscutting research areas of national interest, such
as global change, energy, transportation science, environmental science and
technology, and human resources for the twenty-first century. However, in
order for broader coordination and priority setting to be successful, general
guidelines are required to provide clear direction.
The most recent effort by the scientific community to recommend guidelines for
the allocation of research resources across all fields of science and
engineering appears to be the COSEPUP report. That report proposes
that Federal research resources be allocated among different scientific fields
and Federal agencies and departments so that the United States will be among
the leaders in all major fields of science and the leader in selected major
fields.15
The National Science Board supports the spirit of the COSEPUP recommendations
but believes that they may not go far enough. The COSEPUP criteria would
assure that the United States would be competitive with, indeed somewhat ahead
of, other nations. This, we believe, is highly desirable but may not be
sufficient. In addition to questions of world leadership, one must also ask
what is the appropriate scale of the investment to meet the needs of the
greatest economic power in the world. Given the broad range of national needs
that can benefit from the results of scientific research, the Nation may
choose, and may be able to afford, to invest beyond the levels that the
COSEPUP criteria would suggest. Thus the Board believes that further study is
needed before a particular methodology for setting priorities is adopted.
To ensure the most effective use of Federal discretionary funding it is
essential that agreement be reached on which fields and which investment
strategies hold the greatest promise for new knowledge that will contribute
most effectively to better health, greater equity and social justice, improved
living standards, a sustainable environment, a secure national defense, and to
extending our understanding of nature. It is intrinsic to research that
particular outcomes cannot be foretold; but it is possible, indeed necessary,
to make informed choices and to invest wisely. The need for better
coordination and priority-setting is not related to cycles of fiscal
constraint alone. It is, rather, an integral aspect of a sound,
future-oriented strategy for the investment of limited Federal dollars.
"Although the need for establishment of research priorities has been discussed
often, no agreed upon method exists for carrying out this task... [M]any
scientists consider the task both undesirable and undoable... the National
Science Board believes that this difficult task will become increasingly
important and must be faced over the next few years."
Although the need for establishment of research priorities has been discussed
often, no agreed upon method exists for carrying out this task. Moreover, no
consensus has been built to support such a methodology. Several subfields of
science have long-established methodologies for producing ranked lists of new
construction projects: for example, the Decadal Studies in Astronomy, the
periodic reports of the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) ranking
accelerator projects, and the occasional reports ranking investments in x-ray
and neutron scattering sources.
However, these priority-setting exercises have been within fields and
subfields of science. We are aware of no examples of the scientific community
agreeing on the relative priorities for investment across scientific fields.
Although many scientists consider the task both undesirable and undoable, the
National Science Board believes that this difficult task will become
increasingly important and must be faced over the next few years.
The Board has concluded that an appropriate next step is to initiate a study
of guidelines that go beyond those proposed in the COSEPUP report. The
purpose of this task would be not to set priorities, but rather to undertake a
study of how they might best be set. Specific charges would be to: [a]
review, in light of changing circumstances, the goals for Federal investment
in scientific research as stated in the Administration report, Science in the
National Interest;16 [b] examine what methodology and criteria
might best be used to set priorities across different scientific fields and
disciplines toward the attainment of those goals; and [c] consider what
mechanisms will be effective in building broad public and scientific support
for, and involvement in, priority setting. The study should involve the
opinions of a diverse group including, among others, active researchers with
breadth of vision.
The National Science Board recommends further study of priority-setting
methodologies involving appropriate stakeholders. The Board believes that
this task is of paramount importance to the future health of U.S. science and
technology. It should be undertaken to assure the continued flow of
wide-ranging benefits to society from Federal investments in science and
engineering research. The Board offers its assistance on this critical task
in any way that the President and the Congress would find helpful.
ENDNOTES:
1 National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1861.et. seq. A particular responsibility of the Board in implementing
this mandate is the biennial publication of Science and Engineering
Indicators.
2 Throughout this paper, "science" includes mathematics,
engineering, and materials research.
3 Vannevar Bush, Science - The Endless Frontier (40th
Anniversary Edition, Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1990).
4 National Research Council, Committee on Criteria for Federal
Support of Research and Development, Allocating Federal Funds for Science and
Technology (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995).
5 Ibid, p. 5.
6 National Research Council, Committee on Science, Engineering,
and Public Policy, Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National
Goals for a New Era (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993).
7 Definitions of "research" and "development" are congruent with
operational definitions for the National Science Foundation Survey of
Industrial Research and Development.
8 p. 8. 9 p. 2. 10 p. 22.
11 Richard S. Rosenbloom and William J. Abernathy, "The Climate
for Innovation in Industry: The Role of Management Attitudes and Practices in
Consumer Electronics," Research Policy, 11, no. 6 (1982): 209-25.
12 National Science and Technology Council, Technology for a
Sustainable Future/A Framework for Action. Washington, DC: US Government
Printing Office, 1994, and Infectious Disease - A Global Health Threat.
Washington, DC: September 1995.
13 President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology,
Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First
Century. Washington, DC: November 5, 1997. National Science and Technology
Council, National Security Science and Technology Strategy. Washington, DC:
OSTP, 1995.
14 The funding environment is an ecosystem. Changes in a
particular agency's budgets and programs may have unintended consequences by
creating gaps in significant areas of research and increased pressure on other
agencies that may not be in a position to respond.
15 pp. 18-24.
16 William J. Clinton and Albert Gore, Jr., Science in the
National Interest (Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology Policy,
1994).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bush, Vannevar. Science-The Endless Frontier (40th Anniversary Edition).
Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, 1990. Clinton, William J. and
Albert Gore Jr. Science in the National Interest. Washington, DC: Executive
Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),
August 1994. Committee on Criteria for Federal Support of Research and
Development, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering,
Institute of Medicine, National Research Council (NAS/NAE/IOM/NRC).
Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press, 1995. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy,
NAS/NAE/IOM. Science, Technology and the Federal Government/National Goals
for a New Era. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993. Energy Research
and Development Panel, President's Committee of Advisors on Science and
Technology (PCAST). Federal Energy Research and Development for the
Challenges of the Twenty-First Century. Washington, DC: November 5, 1997.
Executive Office of the President, OSTP. Science and Technology Shaping the
Twenty-First Century. Washington, DC: April 1997. National Science Board.
Science and Engineering Indicators-1996 (NSB-96-21). Washington, D.C.: US
Government Printing Office, 1996. National Science Foundation. NSF Survey
Instruments Used in Collecting Science and Engineering Resources Data
(NSF-95-317). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 1995. National
Science and Technology Council, OSTP. Accomplishments of the National Science
and Technology Council (NSTC). Washington, DC: 1996. _________, Technology
for a Sustainable Future/A Framework for Action. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office, 1994. _________, United States Antarctic Program.
Washington, DC: 1996. _________, Committee on International Science,
Engineering and Technology Working Group on Emerging Infectious Diseases.
Infectious Disease - A Global Health Threat. Washington, DC: September 1995.
_________, Committee on National Security. National Security Science and
Technology Strategy. Washington, DC: OSTP, 1995. _________, Committee on
Transportation Research and Development Intermodal Transportation Science and
Technology Strategy Team. Transportation Science and Technology Strategy.
Washington, DC: OSTP, September 1997. Rosenbloom, Richard S., and William J.
Abernathy. "The Climate for Innovation in Industry: The Role of Management
Attitudes and Practices in Consumer Electronics." Research Policy 11, no. 4
(August 1982): 209-25.