IS 590s: Issues and Trends in STM Information Provision


Meeting 6: Government and Science


Robinson logo

"Prosperity requires technological innovation. Basic scientific and engineering research is essential for training innovative scientists and engineers, for many technology improvements, and for achieving the revolutionary advances that create new industries."

"Second only to a weapon of mass destruction detonating in an American city, we can think of nothing more dangerous than a failure to manage properly science, technology, and education for the common good over the next quarter Century." Hart-Rudman


Introduction

The lecture notes for the scientific and technical information topic in IS 534 may be useful and provide more detail on agencies and services.

Government actions at all levels impact nearly every aspect of science. In fact, it is difficult for many to imagine science without government intervention. Local laws may prevent a scientific or technological activity from being practiced in a certain location. States may fund research in their own agencies or via publicly-funded universities and colleges in order to promote economic development. Some states, like California, have agreed to invest substantial sums in basic research [cell stem research here]. As scientific research and development are seen as the keys to economic development and future viability, states are keen to attract and retain scientific research. The model for many states and regions within states is the Research Triangle in North Carolina where government, universities private and public and commercial firms interact to create and commercialize science.

What impact might this trend have on information collections and services?

The federal government has been involved in some research from the beginning, especially in exploration, agriculture, and engineering. Note the importance of intellectual property in the Constitution with short-term monopolies granted as an incentive, but with wide-spread availability to all later. Federal government monies have funded a variety of research initiatives over the years, but especially during and after the two world wars [Big Science]. In order to fulfill its charges, almost every federal agency is required to do some research, mostly applied. This research may be done in-house or contracted out.

Provide an example of the sort of research that DOT might do in the course of regulating and improving the state of transportation.

World War II began a period of rapid federal engagement with science. Before that, federal science R & D funding was minimal. The War ushered in Big Science. Some call WW II "the physicists' war" since these scientists developed new weapons and associated technologies such as radar and atomic weapons. In contrast, WW I was the "chemist's war" as seen in poison gas. The large government funded research laboratory managed by a University such as the University of California or the University of Chicago was the creation of the WW II. The Manhattan Project demonstrated the difference that big science could make with its substantial funding, large number of scientists and technical staff, expensive instrumentation, experimental devices, and substantial space. Government quickly became the major funder for certain types of research. Physics is a good example. Clearly, scientists benefitted from following governmental research agendas. The government benefitted by being able to outsource the research details and management to others. Alvin Weinberg, at ORNL popularized big science in an article written in 1961.

In recent years, about 13 percent of the federal discretionary budget was spent on non-defense research and development. In recent years, Congressional support for big science has declined. On example was the termination of the Superconducting Super Collider project after a considerable investment in 1993.

What does this cancellation tell us about government funding for big science?

The National Science Board, in 1998, identified several major themes for the 21st Century and these hold true today:

Although not mentioned in this list, national security issues have long been a continuing theme.

If you could select but one of these themes as most important, which one would it be?

Laws, Rules, and Regulations

Statutes and regulations encourage or inhibit scientific research. Human subjects, animal subjects, and the use of hazardous materials have been subject to strict federal regulation. The prohibition against using federal monies for most stem cell research has caused some U.S. researchers to take their research abroad. Post 911 anti-terrorist legislation has made it much more difficult for foreign scientists and graduate students to enter the United States for work or study. Before and after WW II, many of our greatest scientists came from abroad. "Between 1990 and 2004, over one-third of Nobel Prizes in the United States were awarded to foreign born scientists." Information professionals serving those in science will be working with foreign born scientists.

For several years, foreign-born graduate students have had an impact on ST graduate programs. Asian students in particular have accounted for a relatively large percentage of new Ph.Ds. In many cases, they have gone on to conduct "block buster" research and form corporations that have been notably successful in research and development. In some scientific fields, foreign students far outnumber those born in the U.S. Anti-terrorist legislation and administrative actions have substantially reduced the number of foreign-born students who study in the U.S. by creating substantial delays in via processing. The number of foreign engineers and scientists allowed to enter the U.S. for gainful employment has also been a source of considerable debate. "Relying on foreign workers is kind of the easy way out. It has caused us to do less to attract Americans to Science. [Michael Finn]"

Export controls on sensitive technologies includes information about technologies and research pure and applied. Strictly interpreted, this prevents scientists from publishing research findings and prevents foreign graduate students from research participation in many projects. Barriers to scientific information exchange create a variety of problems.

How might the U.S. balance the need for U.S. born vs. foreign born scientists?

Funding

While funding is a separate topic, it is difficult to overemphasize the importance of federal funding, especially for pure research. Physics research, for example, is highly dependent upon federal funding. Much scientific research done in universities would not take place without such funding.

Defense-oriented funding is especially important. The Internet is the result of defense research to create a distributed communication network that could withstand an enemy nuclear attack.

As an aside, it's interesting that in the 1960s, federal funding to scientific publishers led to the development of comprehensive bibliographic databases such as Chemical Abstracts.

Most funding agencies have committees, boards, and panels to help agencies select which projects should be funded. This is another example of the peer-review process.

Increasingly, funding is related to various aspects of national and regional economic competitiveness because that interests lawmakers.

Education

When sputnik was successfully launched in October, 1957, there was considerable concern and fear in the United States about military initiatives in space. One of the results was a dramatic increase in spending for scientific and technical education. More recently, the rapid growth in scientific and technical capabilities in China and India have caused many in state and the federal government to again focus on the need for more and better science education to insure that the U.S. remains economically and militarily competitive.

Federal interest in education is not new. In 1862, the Morrell Act granted every state establishing a public agricultural college 30,000 acres of public land for use for college. Michigan State University was the first land grant college. Later, land grant institutions added engineering to the original charge. Note that the land grant model incorporated research, dissemination, and instructing both students and those already practicing in the field.

The federal government has been concerned about the state of science education in elementary and secondary education for years. The relatively poor performance of U.S. students in recent science and mathematics test administered internationally has created considerably concern and a variety of funding initiatives over the years. The lack of interest in science careers by many young people is a difficult and continuing challenge.

Since WWII, the federal government has been concerned with too few scientists and engineers to meet national security needs [broadly defined]. Today, there is concern not only about the deficit, but about the fact that too many new Ph.Ds are faced with limited research and career opportunities. The tight job market creates demoralization and discourages young people from following scientific careers. This over-production and the need to find short-term post-doctoral positions may result in deficits in the future.

If you were in the House or the Senate, what would you suggest be done to increase the number of students interested in science and competent in science?

The National Science Foundation

NSF is an independent government agency [established in 1950] supporting basic research and education in non-medical science and engineering. It accounts for about 20 percent of all federally funded basic research. The Director and the twenty-four members of the National Science Board are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. NSF does not have its own labs, but outsources research via competitive, short-term contracts. NSF receives about 40,000 proposals per year and funds less than 25 percent. Proposals are peer-reviewed by panels of well regarded subject specialists outside government.

NSF is organized into seven directorates:

Unlike other federal research organizations, NSF is a generalist agency with broad interests in many different disciplines and fields.

Some argue that government funded science is often wasteful and in appropriate so that privately funded research is best. Your thoughts?

Department Research & Laboratories

As mentioned above,  federal departments are engaged in some sort of research, often collecting data and creating analysis related to specific legislative charges. The Department of Defense is the research leader, but the Department of Agriculture, with its extensive network of extension agents, has long been involved in both research and seeing the fruits of that research implemented to improve farmer's yields.

In the medical, wellness, and health fields, the National Institute of Health, located in Health and Human Services, is the equivalent of the National Science Foundation. With twenty-seven institutes and centers, it has an inclusive research agenda and serves as the national medical research agency. The focus is on "pursuit of fundamental knowledge." About twenty-eight billion dollars is spent on research with about 83 percent of the funding awarded on a peer-reviewed basis. In addition, NIH has about 6,000 on its own scientists working in NIH laboratories.

Until WWII the major source of research in the U.S. was corporate. The decline of corporate research laboratories, especially in basic research, increased the importance of federally funded university research. Note that this research, especially with "earmarking," has considerable Congressional appeal.

Given the importance of defense and security, the military support a variety of research initiatives, both pure and applied. Each of the military services has a research arm. One example is the Office of Naval Research which is responsible for the science and technology programs of the Navy and the Marine Corps. Established in 1946, ONR is relatively new, but its six science and technology departments have had a notable impact. The Naval Research Laboratory has existed since 1923, and employs about 1,500 scientists and engineers. It developed the first U.S. radar system. Notable specialties include ocean and atmospheric sciences, space science, and materials science.

One of the interesting post-WWII developments has been a change from research done in federal facilities by federal employees to federally funded research done in universities by university employees. Universities have become the "vital center of the U.S. national research system." This development has created several challenges including how to find the proper balance of support between fields and disciplines. Congress requires NSF to issue a periodic report on the state of academic facilities for basic research.

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers [FFRDCs] conduct government research. Besides conducting research, these centers are charged with promoting technology transfer and moving from innovation to products [the commercialization of science]. Many of these research centers are administered by nonprofit institutions and industrial firms as well as universities. Examples include:

Many of the DOE National Laboratories and Technology Centers are FFRDCs. Created as part of the WWII effort to create nuclear weapons [big science], research sites were established at Los Alamos, Hanford [Washington state], and Oak Ridge. Following the war, the Atomic Energy Commission became responsible for the labs and made them permanent. Funding was secured for additional labs for classified and open research with a focus on physics. Each lab's research used expensive machines to do big science research. Today, the national labs and technology centers are the largest scientific research system in the world. DOE sponsors a substantial percentage of all federally funded physical science research. There are thirteen labs and nine technology centers.

Technical Reports

Technical reports are often the primary way that federal government research is shared rather than the periodical article associated with academic science research. These are often issued in a series from the agency or the contractor. Technical reports are notably more detailed than research articles since there are fewer page length limitations. As more federally funded research is done by contractors, technical report availability may be a problem and not all of these technical reports are in the public domain. Technical reports come in different flavors:

Reports have report access labels such as EPA 600/2-84-036. Standards exist for creating technical report numbers. Most information agencies shelf technical reports by issuing agency and then by that agencies classification scheme. Few will catalog or classify by DDC or LC. As more of these reports are available on the web, the need for local collections seems to diminish.

The National Technical Information Service [NTIS] is responsible for preserving and making available federal government technical reports for a fee. These items are not included in the depository library program. Major STM agencies create their own intellectual access tools for technical reports. For example :

Why do relatively few STM libraries collect technical reports?

Libraries

There are two great national scientific libraries, the National Agricultural Library and the National Library of Medicine. Both provide comprehensive collections and highly specialized services including noteworthy indexing and abstracting services. NLM provides a variety of services related to consumer health besides serving the medical community.

How might a national science library impact research and development?

As a Consumer

The federal government, as well as other levels of government, play an important role as a consumer of scientific research. Often, like the DARPA research that resulted in the Internet, this is applied research intended to solve a notable problem.

As military leaders increasingly saw science and technology as the key to winning future battles and wars, military funding of R & D projects grew notably. Some have been critical of this "military-scientific" complex. Military funding favors applied science and development, but also includes some pure research. The Manhattan Project became the model for military-scientific work in the U.S. and abroad. The research-extensive universities have benefited from military science funding in creating more opportunities for scientists and new Ph.Ds as well as more space and better equipment. Secrecy -- the inability to share new findings with the international science community-- accompanied some government funded research.

Politics and Priorities

Scientific research findings and conclusions do not always please politicians or those who vote for them. The conflict over whether or not human-induced global warming research is or is not "sound science" is a case in point. The "monkey trial" about evolution {not too far from the University of Tennessee} is a classic case and the emotions are still clearly visible in politics at all levels [evolution is just a theory] and in frequent letters to the editor of daily papers.

When interest groups, especially those who donate to politicians, do not favor action based upon scientific findings, they will often advocate a delay while waiting for "sound science." In turn, scientists working for public interest groups say that the corporate sponsored science is "junk" science or that the request for another study is "paralysis by analysis."

Politicians have a particular interest in funding for science and technology that benefits their state or their district. This has led to many "earmarks" where scientific projects not peer-reviewed are still funded because they benefit a local firm or university.

The House has a standing committee on Science and Technology that is responsible for all non-defense research funded by the federal government. This includes research by or for:

There are four subcommittees:

In contrast, the Senate has but one standing committee devoted to commerce, science, and transportation. Subcommittees deal with:

Since appropriation decisions begin in the House but must find agreement in the Senate, these committees play an important role in establishing national science policy.


In the executive branch, the Whitehouse Office of Science and Technology Policy advises the President on matters scientific. The Director of this Office is responsible for the National Scientific and Technology Council, a cabinet level organization in the Executive Office of the President [established in 1993].

Although private and non-profit, the National Academies were created to provide authoritative STM advice to the nation. There is a National Academy of Science, a National Academy of Engineering, an Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council which provides services to the government. The academies have members elected via peer review and membership varies from 1200 members [medicine] to 1800 members [science]. The Academies, upon request, provide the executive and legislative branches with scientific advice based upon thoughtful study.

The Bush Administration, in particular, has received considerable attention for political decisions that seem to have distorted and suppressed scientific findings contrary to administration views and interests. The Union of Concerned Scientists has issued a particularly strong report. However, antagonism between the science community and the executive branch is not new. Truman, Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton have all acted against what scientists argued was sound science. Politics and science do not always mix well, especially when scientific research results contradict the views of a politically strong group, the large business community, members of Congress, or leaders in the executive branch. Too, many scientists are Democrats and may be seen to favor liberal issues. Also, there is never enough money so that some scientists and some branches of science always seem to be disadvantaged.

When politicians and other critics of scientific findings disagree, they may call scientific findings "junk science" while science that agrees with their point of view is called "sound science." "Junk science" is science that ignores standard procedures and tests to produce a desired result. Some academic and advocacy group scientists find science done by corporations and promoted in mass media to be "junk science."Many scientists argue that waiting for "sound science" is simply a delaying tactic. It is notable that science itself is important enough for the argument to be based on which science is "sound" rather than denying the value of science.

How might scientists better create support for science results? Should they?


Last major revision: January 2007.

Return to 590s Page

train picture