ARTICLE IN PRESS

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technology in Society

Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248– 263

0160-79

doi:10.1

� Tel.

E-m

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc

US science and technology: An uncoordinated systemthat seems to work

Neal Lane �

Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:

Science and technology

Policy

Research

Funding

China

India

Innovation

1X/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd

016/j.techsoc.2008.04.025

: +1713 348 2925; fax: +1713 348 5993.

ail address: neal@rice.edu

a b s t r a c t

The US has emerged as the world leader in science and technology research and

development in the 60 years following World War II. This status is due, in part, to a

successful public–private partnership in research and higher education fostered after the

war, and to the fiercely competitive and innovative nature of US industry. This paper

provides some background to the complexities of US federal funding of research and

development, as well as a brief history of US science and technology policy following

World War II. The paper describes how research is managed and funded in the US;

outlines how the US federal government interacts with universities and private industry;

remarks on the nature of international cooperation; and comments on the future

direction of US science and technology policy, including growing challenges to its position

of leadership.

& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. A brief history of modern US science and technology policy

1.1. A new role for government following World War II

Prior to World War II (WWII), American scientists had already begun to form alliances with businesses and the federalgovernment in both the civilian and military sectors by persuasively advocating the value of science as a basis forinnovation [1]. But it was in WWII that the US and its allies saw in stark terms the power of science and engineeringresearch and development (R&D), given the strong impacts of radar, sonar, the proximity fuse, early computers, syntheticrubber, penicillin, sulfa drugs and other important innovations that contributed to the nation’s successful wartime effort[2–12]. However, the icon—and shadow of things to come—for science, physics in particular, was the Manhattan Projectand the atomic bomb [13,14].

As the war drew to a close, Vannevar Bush, director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) andwartime advisor to Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, wrote the legendary report Science: the Endless Frontier, in which heargued that science and engineering R&D, which proved essential to a successful wartime effort, would be vital to thenation’s future peace and prosperity [5,15,16]. With the encouragement of his academic colleagues, Bush argued forcefully

. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263 249

that most of the nation’s federally funded research should be carried out in universities, where many of the best scientists1

were located and where future generations of scientists and engineers would be educated.2 Bush’s report and subsequentgovernment actions established, at least in the minds of academic researchers, an unwritten compact between US scienceand the American public, whereby the federal government would use tax dollars to fund academic research. In turn,university researchers would carry out the research with their students, publish the results in the open literature, andproduce the next generation of scientists and engineers. This notion set the tone for the next half century of US federalsupport for research and higher education. Moreover, with passage of the GI Bill (Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944), alarge number of returning WWII veterans entered universities across the country, and many of them had received technicaltraining during the war [9]. The Bush report also underscored the value of integrating research and formal education andled to the flowering of the American research universities3 and to the establishment in 1950 of the National ScienceFoundation (NSF), a new agency focused on academic research and education [4,5,10,16–22].4

In the 5 years following WWII, Congress established, in addition to the NSF, the Office of Naval Research (ONR), and theAtomic Energy Commission (AEC), which evolved into the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) in1975 and the Department of Energy (DOE) in 1977. These agencies, along with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), partsof which date from the 19th century, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and several defenseagencies—including the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, the Army Research Office, and the Defense AdvancedResearch Projects Agency (DARPA or, in some years, ARPA)—are the main players in US federal science and engineering R&Dtoday [23].

Universities were not the only federally supported research institutions. Government-operated (intramural) laboratorieslike those of NIH and most NASA centers, as well as federally funded R&D centers (FFRDC), such as Fermi NationalLaboratory, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, the MIT Lincoln Laboratory, and a numberof DOE general-purpose and weapons laboratories, would also pursue a large portion of US R&D.5 These nationallaboratories were expected to provide a service that was complementary to that of the universities, for example, byconstructing and operating large research facilities.6 It was also anticipated that national laboratories would maintain acadre of excellent scientists and engineers who could focus their minds and energies on national needs in addition togenerating new fundamental knowledge and technologies through basic and applied research. Private industry also madesubstantial investments in R&D; early examples were the laboratories operated by Bell Telephone (Bell Labs) [24], Hewlett-Packard, General Electric, Westinghouse, IBM, Texas Instruments, and Xerox.

1.2. Science and the Cold War

The end of a horrible world war and the ensuing reconstruction under President Truman’s Marshall Plan soon gave wayto the Korean and Vietnam conflicts and a lengthy nuclear arms-race standoff with the Soviet Union. As the Cold Warcontinued for nearly a half century, the framework and goals of US foreign policy and science policy were affected. Federalfunding of R&D, which grew steadily after WWII, jumped abruptly during the Eisenhower administration as the directresult of the Soviets’ surprise launch of Sputnik I in 1957 (see Fig. 1). Concerned that the US would not have the scientistsand engineers needed to win the space race with the Soviet Union, Congress passed the 1958 National Defense andEducation Act (NDEA), which provided fellowships and low-interest loans to college and university students [4].

On September 12, 1962, President Kennedy gave his famous ‘‘Americans go to the moon’’ speech in the Rice Universityfootball stadium, saying ‘‘We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do other things, not because they are easy butbecause they are hard!’’[26]. The year before, Kennedy had decided that the US would leapfrog the Soviets’ space efforts by

1 In this paper, depending on the context, the term ‘‘scientists’’ will include researchers and technical experts not only in the physical, biological,

computer, mathematical and social sciences, but also in engineering and medicine.2 Bush also maintained, with great zeal, that research in all fields (including biomedical research) should be supported by a new non-defense federal

agency, which he called The National Research Foundation. He believed that even military research should be in civilian hands. One of Vannevar Bush’s

original objectives—to consolidate research funding under one federal roof—was not realized, and that topic has been revisited, off and on, for decades

[5,15–16].3 US universities spend about $40 billion per year on R&D ($25 billion from federal agencies and $15 billion from non-federal sources) and carry out

14% of all US R&D activity; 33% of the nation’s research (basic and applied); and 54% of the nation’s basic research [50].4 The NSF is a unique federal agency in many ways. It is the only agency with the broad mission to ‘‘promote the progress of science; to advance the

national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense.’’ Over the years, its mission was expanded to include engineering; science,

mathematics, and engineering education; and the social sciences. It was never focused on ‘‘national defense’’ per se, unless one includes its contribution to

America’s scientific and technical capability. The NSF is also unusual in having a National Science Board, made up of 24 members, appointed by the

president and confirmed by the Senate, which shares policymaking authority with the director, who also serves ex officio on the Board.5 The FFRDC’s are R&D laboratories that receive most of their funding from the federal government but are operated by a non-government entity;

collectively, the FFRDCs perform about 8% of all US federal R&D. For example, the US high-energy physics laboratory, Fermi National Accelerator

Laboratory (FNAL), or FermiLab, is operated by Universities Research Association, Inc. (URA), a non-profit corporation, which was created to compete for a

Department of Energy contract to operate FermiLab. URA also won the contract to manage and operate the cosmic ray facility, Pierre Auger Observatory. At

the present time, FermiLab is managed and operated by a partnership (the Fermi Research Alliance LLC) between URA and the University of Chicago.6 In FY2006, federal funding (obligations) for the federal intramural R&D laboratories amounted to about 25% of total federal R&D spending, thus

exceeding federal funding to universities and colleges, which is about 21% of the total. Industry receives the bulk of federal R&D dollars, about 40% in

2006, most of which comes from defense contracts [54].

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. US federal government spending on defense and non-defense R&D, FYs 1955–2007 (in billions of constant FY2007 dollars) Source: [25].

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263250

sending men to the moon and returning them to Earth within the decade, which led to the US Apollo Program, the Moonlandings, and the resources to excite and train a whole generation of America’s best and brightest to become scientists,mathematicians and engineers. It was a civilian ‘‘Manhattan Project’’ of a different kind—out in the open, indeed,intentionally pitched to a public that became steadily more excited about space travel.

In addition to space-related R&D, well-publicized by NASA’s effective public relations apparatus, the nation also sawsubstantial growth in defense R&D funding, immediately following Sputnik and, again, during the Reagan administration.Defense R&D also changed in character, shifting emphasis away from research in favor of the development and testing oflarge weapons and defense systems, leaving basic research well behind [27].

As the Cold War dragged on, notably without a single nuclear weapon being used in conflict, the US began to shift itsfocus toward a range of non-defense objectives, such as health, energy, and environment. In 1971, President Nixonannounced the ‘‘war on cancer,’’ which spawned multiple decades of growth in the NIH budget, not all of it free of criticism[28,29]. In the late 1970s, responding to the OPEC oil scare, President Carter stated that energy was ‘‘the greatest challengeour country will face in our lifetimes’’ [30]. In 1977, he launched an ambitious energy policy with significant investments inenergy R&D, which were substantially cut back once oil prices returned to politically tolerable levels.

In 1973, the defense agencies’ support of academic basic research, particularly in mathematics, was dealt a heavypolitical blow by the Mansfield Amendment, which stipulated that all defense research had to have a clear connection witha military application [28,31,32]. During the Reagan administration, when defense R&D grew along with the overall defensebudget, universities once again played a major role, particularly in computer science and engineering, through substantialfunding provided by DARPA. However, the Mansfield Amendment was something of a turning point in what had been anenormously successful basic research partnership between the defense agencies and universities.

In the almost two decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union, ending the Cold War, many areas of federally supportedresearch, specifically in the physical sciences and engineering, have fallen further down the list of national priorities7

[33,34]. No longer threatened by nuclear annihilation, the American people demanded that attention be given to domesticsocial issues: health care, K-12 education, jobs, crime, poverty, and retirement benefits. In the 1970s and 1980s,competition from Japan’s electronics industry led to new federal government programs and political debates over theproper role of government in assuring that the fruits of US R&D find their way to market [4,35]. NIH funding for biomedicalresearch grew steadily for several decades (until the last few years) because of its obvious importance to health andmedicine, while research funding at other agencies, e.g., NSF, DOE, and NASA received lower priority (see Fig. 2).8 The R&Dprograms of these agencies changed considerably, reflecting the public’s desire for practical outcomes. Analysis showingthe large return on investment from new technologies, arising out of R&D, became increasingly important [36]. Agenciesdetermined their priorities and allocated their budgets (usually prompted by Congress or the president) to reflect nationalpriorities in such areas as computing and the internet; modern materials; biotechnology; environmental challenges,including global warming and climate change; and, more recently, nanotechnology [37]. While the rationales for some of

7 One warning that change was in the air, was the decision by Congress, in 1993, to shut down the DOE-funded $8+ billion proton accelerator, the

‘‘Superconducting Super Collider’’ (SSC), being built near Dallas, Texas, which was the highest priority project for experimental high-energy particle

physics at that time. An advocate for the SSC was the late Congressman George Brown (D-Ca), who said, ‘‘the House vote to kill the SSC turned on one

issue: moneyy A majority of the House decided that we can no longer afford this project and can no longer afford US leadership in high-energy physics.’’

The Senate went on to deliver the final vote to kill the SSC. It is not clear if, indeed, the Congress has decided that the US will no longer lead in high-energy

physics. No comparable machine has been proposed for the US, although there is considerable interest in the US high-energy physics community in

building a future accelerator, the International Linear Collider in the US sometime after 2010.8 The NIH R&D budget (President’s request) is approximately $29 billion for FY 2008, compared with $5 billion for NSF, $12.6 billion for NASA and $4.1

billion for DOE’s Office of Science and Energy R&D. Biomedical research (NIH) funding is now about half of total federal funding for research in all fields

[54].

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. Trends in research spending by US Federal Agencies, FYs 1976–2008 (in billions of constant FY2007 dollars). Source: [25].

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263 251

these changes are often compelling, the focus on targeted interdisciplinary areas and the corresponding increasedemphasis on center funding has had the result that funding for the core disciplines of chemistry, physics, mathematics,geosciences, and non-biomedical biology has been eroding for decades. Increased pressure from Congress for measured‘‘outcomes’’ from federal research has had a negative effect on the disciplines.9 Ironically, while the most vexing high-priority national issues have large social components, funding for research in the social sciences has not reflected thesepriorities [38]. After the terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001,homeland security became a high priority, and several federal agencies initiated new R&D programs aimed at newtechnologies to defend against possible future terrorist attacks [39].

The historical trends in federal R&D funding provide one perspective on how the US has set its priorities in recentdecades. The best source of up-to-date information on current and past federal R&D spending and related matters is theAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Policy Program10 and the AAAS 2008 ReportXXXII, in particular.11 (It should be noted that much of the historical data used by AAAS is collected and archived by the NSFDivision of Science Resources Statistics.) While total federal R&D spending in the US has experienced periods of growth (inconstant dollars), most of the growth has been in defense development programs. Research, for the most part, has not beena particularly high priority and has not had ‘‘privileged’’ status with regard to funding. An exception is the NIH budget,which enjoyed a doubling in the early years of this decade, but in recent years has been roughly flat-funded. On the whole,spending on R&D has tracked overall spending—with its ups and downs—for several decades.12 When US politicians decideto spend more non-defense money they spend it on R&D as well as other domestic programs. When non-defense spendingis a priority, non-defense R&D (which is mostly research) gets its proportionate share. Defense R&D funding (which ismainly large weapons development) has been more closely tied to overall defense spending; and the ratio of defense tonon-defense funding has increased sharply since the fiscal year (FY) 2002, reflecting the events of September 11, 2001, andthe priorities of the G.W. Bush administration. Also, in recent decades, development, which is primarily contracted out toindustry, has been a much higher priority for the Department of Defense (DOD) than research. Moreover, the researchcommunity has perceived a shift in definitions over time, with work that was formerly labeled as applied (‘‘6.2’’ in DOD’sbudget language), now being included in the category of basic (‘‘6.1’’), i.e., there seems to have been a steady shift towardshort-term objectives with more predictable outcomes [27].

9 Along with the pressure to produce practical outcomes of research supported by the federal government came requirements to measure those

outcomes. In 1993, the Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) stipulating that all activities of the federal government

should be measured against meeting performance objectives [81]. However, in comparison with US industry, where R&D investment is focused on well-

defined goals, the federal government finds it more difficult to measure the impacts of its investments in R&D—especially basic research—on the

economy or other areas of national need. Federal agencies are learning how to do this; but progress in some areas of activity is slow. Meanwhile, while

Congress is pushing for additional accountability, surveys show that the American public, by a large majority, is pleased with the results of the federal

investment in research and perceives direct benefits from those investments, even if it is not possible to predict what those benefits may be [79].10 /http://www.aaas.org/port_policy.shtmlS.11 /http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rd08main.htmS.12 On the whole, total (defense and non-defense) R&D spending has varied from 4% to 6% of overall spending over the past three decades. Similarly,

non-defense R&D spending (which is approximately 85% research and 15% development) has been around 2% of the total federal budget over the same

period. In terms of discretionary spending, total R&D has been about 11–13% of total discretionary spending. Non-defense R&D spending has been about

10–11% of non-defense discretionary spending [25,82].

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263252

1.3. Science advice to the President and Congress

The issue of how to get the best science advice to government has been around as long as the federal government hasbeen involved in science. The role of the president’s (confidential) science advisor13 has varied considerably over sixdecades, as the priorities for R&D and other policy matters connected with science and technology (S&T) have changed.Vannevar Bush, as head of OSRD, was much more than a wartime science advisor. During the latter stages of WWII, sciencewas central to the war effort and Bush controlled a substantial amount of money. During the Cold War, science advice wasfocused on nuclear issues, and after Sputnik, on space as well. Presidents chose their advisors accordingly and most werephysicists. In some administrations, the president had both a confidential science advisor and a committee of outsideexperts, originally called the President’s Science Advisory Committee. President Ford, by action of Congress, in 1976established the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to staff the science advisor and carry out other tasks. Sincethat time, the president’s science advisor also has served as director of OSTP [40].

Since the US has no Minister of Science and Technology, the science advisor is often called upon to representthe president at ministerial-level events, e.g., bilateral or multilateral meetings related to science and technology (S&T).The science advisor also serves as an important White House contact for heads of departments (secretaries) and agenciesthat have substantial S&T involvement. Cabinet-level secretaries, of course, have direct access to the president, butthey have many issues to talk to the president about. They know that the science advisor will give special attention toanything related to S&T. Prior to the G.W. Bush administration, civilian space issues, NASA in particular, were also aresponsibility of the science advisor and OSTP. Since most matters requiring the president’s immediate attention—or thosethat are high on the agendas of the president’s political advisors—are not directly connected with S&T, one challenge forthe science advisor is to make sure relevant S&T issues get appropriate attention in the cacophony of White House business[9,40–42].

In addition to the White House advisory structure, the departments and agencies have scientists and engineers on theirprofessional staffs and the advisory committees that provide external advice on S&T matters. The National ScienceFoundation is unique in having a National Science Board, which shares policymaking authority with the director. Because ofthe disestablishment of the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), an action of the Republican Congress in 1995, theCongress has no mechanism that parallels the White House for obtaining sound advice on S&T matters [43].

The National Academies, which includes the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering(NAE) and the Institute of Medicine (IOM), provide excellent advice on matters related to S&T, but their roles are quitedifferent from the former OTA, and while Congress is an important client, the National Academies provide advice to all ofgovernment [44]. It is also hard for the National Academies to respond quickly to requests, given their rigorous process ofselecting members for study panels and reviewing reports prior to publication.

1.4. Industry investments in science and engineering

Over the past few decades, while overall federal funding waxed and waned and the gap between federal biomedicalresearch funding and all other federal research continued to widen, private funding of R&D, largely from majorcorporations, grew steadily, overtaking the total federal investment in 1979 (see Fig. 3). The federal share of R&D droppedto a low of 25% in 2000 [46]. Industry currently spends (from non-federal funds) approximately $220 billion per year onR&D (2006), about 70% of the total national US investment in S&T, which was approximately $312 billion in 2004.

In part, this increased industrial focus on R&D may have been stimulated by the R&D tax credit (now called theresearch and experimentation (R&E) tax credit); however, that specific federal contribution has been relativelysmall [46,47]. In 2001, the R&E tax credit was approximately $6 billion [48]. More likely, these R&E funds have en-couraged industry to perform more long-term, high-risk research than it would otherwise do. The driving forcefor the growth in industry-funded R&D has been the recognition that innovation is the key to competition in futuremarkets [49].

At the same time, increasing industrial support of university research, while still small (around 5% of total academicresearch expenditures in 2003), has raised a host of new issues, including intellectual property and faculty conflict ofinterest—even the faculty reward system—which have had a significant impact on the academic culture and the businessof the university [50–52]. This private investment was stimulated, in part, by the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, which alloweduniversities and their faculty researchers to patent inventions to help move the technologies to market while collectinglicensing fees. In some cases, faculty form their own companies, while continuing their university appointments [53].

Because companies must demonstrate to stockholders the value of substantial R&D investments, they focus on short-term applied R&D, where the problems are well defined and useful results are probable. The smaller investments bycompanies in basic academic research is justified as a way of maintaining a connection with some of the best scientists and

13 The title Science Advisor has often been informal. Under some presidents, the official title was Special Assistant to the President. Under President

George H.W. Bush, it was elevated to Assistant to the President, which means a direct report to the president. President Clinton continued that tradition.

And the External Advisory Committee became the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), which is its current name in the

George W. Bush administration.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 3. US R&D funding by source: federal government and private industry (non-federal funds) FYs 1953–2006 (in $ billions of constant FY2006 dollars).

Source: [45].

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263 253

engineering researchers in the country, as well as gaining early access to their best students, who are potential companyemployees.14

2. US science and technology today

2.1. An ‘‘uncoordinated’’ system

The US federal S&T system, today, is a superposition of hundreds of diverse programs operated by dozens of federalagencies, each largely independent of the others, although six agencies account for over 90% of federal R&D expenditures:DOD, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (primarily NIH), NASA, DOE, NSF, and the Department ofAgriculture (USDA). In principle, at least, the President is the CEO of the Executive Branch of the government, and all of thedepartment, independent agency, and commission heads report to him or her. In reality, it is impossible for anyone to ‘‘run’’the US government. Moreover, Congress—in particular the House and Senate Appropriations Committees andSubcommittees—wield enormous power, even over the detailed workings of all these organizations and programs. Onecan get some sense of the system and priorities by examining some of the characteristics of overall federal R&D funding.

Currently, the federal government provides $137.1 billion (FY2007) funding for the conduct of R&D, of which $81.7billion (roughly 60% of the total) is for defense-related work and $55.5 billion is for non-defense R&D (see Table 1). Inaddition, approximately $4 billion is provided for facilities and capital equipment. Thus, DOD dominates R&D funding.However, if one looks at research funding (approximately $56.7 billion in FY2007), the picture is quite different (see Fig. 4).The largest share of federal research funding (53%) goes to HHS, primarily the NIH. The other major federal research fundingagencies are DOD (11%), DOE (11%), NSF (7%) and NASA (6%) [55].15

2.2. Roles of federal agencies in funding and managing R&D

In the US system, all federal R&D funding flows through the federal agencies that support R&D activities in universities,national laboratories and, through contracts and special programs, industry as well. In the case of agencies like the DOE,EPA, USDA, DOD and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), an agency of HHS, support is provided for R&D that isrelevant to their missions. The heads and top-level officials of these departments and agencies are presidential politicalappointees who must be confirmed by the US Senate.16

14 Federal agencies, through their research funding programs, have encouraged university–industry collaborations, in part responding to

Congressional pressure. The NSF, which focuses its support on basic academic research, has paid increasing attention to encouraging applications of

research results. It has attempted to do this through its early Research Applied to National Needs (RANN) program, which operated from 1971 to 1977, its

support of engineering and other interdisciplinary research centers, and other mechanisms to stimulate cooperative arrangements with industry [10].

Even the NSF review criteria used to evaluate proposals were changed in 1997 to include not only ‘‘intellectual merit,’’ but also ‘‘broader impact’’ of the

proposed work on society. Research agencies continue to grapple with balancing a strong focus on excellent academic research—the universities’

forte—with the desire to encourage applications.15 Several years ago the National Academies recommended that the federal government also keep track of ‘‘Federal Science and Technology’’ (FS&T),

which includes not only research (basic and applied) but also the DOD category ‘‘technology development’’ (coded as 6.3a). The rationale is that these 6.3a

projects, which are a small portion (approximately 9%) of DOD’s development funding, also can lead to innovation and can be contrasted with large

weapons development testing, which makes up most of the DOD development budget.16 While the president is their boss, it is also fair to say that they ‘‘work for’’ Congress, being particularly attentive to the chairs of their appropriations

committees and subcommittees. By contrast, the majority of agency employees are experienced non-political civil servants, i.e., permanent federal

employees, many with long tenures in the agencies. The tensions between the political top levels of departments, agencies, and commissions and the non-

political civil servants who have to implement policy, is apparent in all administrations and, in the worst cases, can be destructive.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1US federal R&D funding (as appropriated) for FYs 2006 and 2007 (Budget authority in billions of current dollars)a

FY 2006 FY 2007

Research and development

Total research

Basic 27.4 28.4

Applied 28.3 28.3

Total research 55.7 56.7

Total development 76.0 80.5

Total R&D conduct 131.7 137.1

Facilities and capital equipment 4.4 4.0

Total R&D 136.1 141.1

Defense R&D conduct

Defense research conduct

Basic 1.5 1.6

Applied 7.8 7.9

Total research 9.3 9.5

Defense development 68.8 72.2

Total defense R&D conduct 78.0 81.7

Non-Defense R&D conduct

Non-defense research

Basic 25.9 26.8

Applied 20.5 20.4

Total research 46.4 47.2

Non-defense development 7.2 8.3

Total non-defense R&D conduct 53.7 55.5

Source: [54].a The term ‘‘budget authority’’ (defined by the Congressional appropriations) is what the federal government is allowed to spend. Some of these funds

might actually be expended over several years. It also should be noted that the numbers for a particular fiscal year tend to change from time to time, as

errors are caught or funding definitions are changed—even years into the future. These figures are from the ‘‘AAAS Report XXXII R&D FY2008’’ Table I-5.

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263254

A few words about the budget process might shed some light on how the various agencies interact with the WhiteHouse and Congress on a particularly important budget matter. In the US system, the final budget (once agreed upon by thepresident and Congress, and hence becomes a public law) authorizes17 the spending of funds by federal agencies. A budgetmust be approved for each fiscal year, say FY 2008, which runs from October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2008.18

Starting in the fall of 2007, each agency prepares a budget proposal to the president, in this case for FY2009. After back-and-forth negotiations with the president’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the final agency proposal is sent tothe president, usually in early December. The president consults with advisors, the Cabinet and other agency heads anddecides on his or her main budget priorities, which will be included in the State of the Union Address in late January. Thepresident sends his or her budget request to Congress in early February. The House and Senate Appropriations Committeestake apart (literally) the president’s request, sending various pieces (the budget requests for various agencies) to differentappropriations subcommittees,19 which analyze the details, hold hearings, hear various members’ particular interests(including funding for projects in their states and Congressional districts) and ‘‘mark up’’ (give it a final reading) anappropriations bill and send it on to the full Appropriations Committee to consider, eventually leading to passage by boththe House and Senate before being sent to the President for signature [56]. It is a cumbersome process, done under pressurefrom many interested parties. The role of the President’s science advisor and OSTP in the budget process is threefold:(1) work closely with the OMB to understand, in detail, the agencies’ S&T budget needs, priorities and rationales; (2) advisethe president, vice president and White House staff on particular agency proposals and interagency budget initiatives,

17 The word ‘‘authorize’’ means different things in Congress. There are ‘‘Authorizing Committees’’ (e.g., the House Science Committee) that propose

legislation (e.g., ‘‘to authorize funding for the NSF for the next five years’’). If passed by both houses and signed by the president, these bills become law.

However, on funding matters, while they provide guidance to appropriations committees and subcommittees, they are not binding on the latter. The

appropriations process also uses the language to ‘‘authorize’’ spending, but their actions (if signed into law) are binding on the agencies. For example, the

House Science Committee tends to be a ‘‘friend’’ of science and often ‘‘authorizes’’ generous spending. The appropriations committees and subcommittees,

on the other hand, have to deal with a bottom line. They may be ‘‘friendly,’’ but they are constrained in what they can do.18 The language in the budget uses three different terms that mean different things: (1) ‘‘budget authority’’ is the legal basis for the government

‘‘obligating’’ and ‘‘outlaying’’ (spending) funds in the future; (2) ‘‘obligations’’ are amounts for contracts made, orders placed, etc., which imply a payment

or ‘‘outlay’’ in the future; (3) ‘‘outlays’’ are amounts actually paid by cash or check in a particular fiscal year.19 For example, the NSF budget request is sent by the House Appropriations Committee to the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and

Related Agencies, which has jurisdiction over the Departments of Commerce (including NOAA and NIST) and Justice, NSF and NASA. Since each

subcommittee is given a budget target by the full Appropriations Committee, the tradeoffs must be made at this level. Hence, NSF competes with the

NASA science and human space program, and the FBI (in Justice), among others, for its funding. The process is similar in the Senate.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 4. Distribution of total annual research funding—percentage for selected federal agencies for FY2007. (The figure is based on the President’s budget

request, not the final appropriated amounts, however, the differences are small.)

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263 255

e.g., climate change or nanotechnology; and (3) testify before Congress on behalf of those aspects of the President’s budgetrequest that have to do with S&T.20

A couple of points are worth emphasizing about the federal budget process. In the US system, there is no ‘‘R&D budget’’or ‘‘research budget’’ or ‘‘science and technology budget.’’ The budgets are for specific departments and agencies, whichhave R&D lines embedded in them. Nowhere in the Congressional appropriations process, either in the House or the Senate,is there a discussion in which someone asks the question ‘‘How much will the federal government spend on research, intotal, for the coming fiscal year?’’ To be fair, the House Science Committee does focus on that, but its actions are not bindingon the appropriations process. Probably the only place in the US federal government, where such a question is asked isOSTP, when the science advisor is advising the President on his or her budget proposal.

As mentioned earlier, the four agencies that are the largest supporters of non-defense R&D are NSF, NIH, NASA and DOE(refer back to Fig. 4), which together fund most research in the physical and life sciences (including biomedical) andengineering. While each agency has a specific mission, some of their R&D programs overlap.21 When several agenciesparticipate in large multidisciplinary research initiatives (e.g., the Global Change Research Program, Human GenomeProject, or National Nanotechnology Initiative), these efforts must be coordinated, with each agency responsible for aparticular set of activities. That coordination takes place through the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) andits committees. NSTC is a Cabinet-level committee chaired by the President and operating out of the White House OSTP[28,41,42].

Within each federal agency, tensions abound that have policy implications. One such tension has most often beendescribed as ‘‘big science’’ (usually meaning large facilities and, in recent years, large research groups) versus ‘‘smallscience’’ (usually meaning individual investigators or small groups).22 In many ways this is a false separation, as waspointed out over 40 years ago by de Solla Price [57]. Other recurring research policy issues include interdisciplinaryresearch, transformative (paradigm changing) research, and directed (strategic or focused) versus ‘curiosity-driven’research.23 The observation that research in areas of potential benefit to society are not necessarily in conflict with the

20 In recent administrations, the science advisor and director of OMB write a joint memo to the department and agency heads each year before the

budget process begins, laying out in general terms the President’s S&T priorities (e.g., President Clinton’s National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) and

large increases for research in the physical sciences and engineering were priorities in his FY2001 budget). The departments and agencies are expected to

reflect these priorities in their budget proposals to the President.21 For example, both NSF and DOE support similar research areas in physics. NSF and NASA both support astronomy and astrophysics. NSF, DOE and

NIH support research in chemistry. In order to avoid undue duplication, program officers of the various agencies must be aware of what other agencies are

doing. Also, there are high-level agreements (e.g., NSF supports ground-based astronomy while NASA supports space-based astronomy; NIH supports

clinical research and NSF does not; DOE supports research in its national laboratories as well as universities, while NSF focuses its support primarily on

universities).22 For example, the NSF traditionally focuses on individual investigators and small groups. However, it also supports centers and institutes, and it

funds the construction and operation of experimental facilities in many fields. For large facilities, projects must be carefully planned and managed,

construction and operating costs must be accurately determined in advance, and schedules must be rigorously adhered to. For a relatively small agency

like NSF, the unpredictability of budgets presents a considerable challenge. The requirements of a large facility can squeeze out a large number of new

individual investigator grants. There is no easy solution. The agency simply has to plan for such contingencies and soften the impact of a bad budget year.

DOE has a longer tradition of funding the construction and operation of large experimental facilities and larger facilities budgets. Even so, DOE can find

itself with insufficient funds to move a construction project forward on schedule or operate an existing facility at the optimal level. Other agencies have

similar challenges.23 A debate over strategic research surfaced in the early 1990s, when Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) was Chair of the VA-HUD Appropriations

Subcommittee, which had jurisdiction over NSF’s budget. Mikulski wanted to see a more direct connection between the research NSF was supporting and

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263256

notion of basic research was underscored by a number of policy scholars, including the late Donald Stokes [31,58]. Ofcourse, overhead rates and institutional matching requirements continue to draw complaints about agency policies.Specifically for biomedical research supported by NIH, there is considerable unhappiness with President G.W. Bush’s ban(via executive order) on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, except for research using cell lines that werealready in existence on August 9, 2001, when he signed the order [59].

There are also issues of how ‘‘peer review’’ is used to make grant funding decisions. It is widely accepted by the USresearch community and policy makers that the success of the nation’s federal research enterprise, especially in researchuniversities, has been largely due to the use of ‘‘peer review’’—a competitive system for allocating research funding. In thisprocess, unsolicited proposals, submitted by university faculty, are received by the agencies, peer-reviewed by expert‘‘peers’’ in the field, and grants are awarded to support the best research [60]. It is a highly selective process that funds asmall percentage (in some cases, as low as 10%) of the proposals. But peer review is not without its critics. Most complaintsassert that peer review is too conservative, that it is impossible to get a really bold proposal funded. There is some validityto that assertion; review panels are notorious for downgrading truly risk-taking proposals, and the agencies have nomechanism to reward program officers who might choose to discount advice from the reviewers. But, while peer review isnot perfect, no better system has been devised to assure the highest standards of excellence are maintained and to avoid‘‘pork barrel’’ spending.24

2.3. International comparisons of R&D spending

International comparisons are difficult for many reasons, including budget definitions and ambiguities in currencyconversions, but they give some sense of relative levels of activity and national priorities. In dollars, the US leads the worldin R&D expenditures ($312 billion in 2005, or 34% of the world’s total R&D), followed by the European Union (26%), Japan(13%), and China (13%) (see Fig. 5).25

A traditional metric for comparison is the ratio of total national R&D funding to GDP. In 2004, the US spent 2.7% of itsGDP on R&D (including public and private funding sources) [61]. This is below Israel (4.9%), Sweden (4.3%), Finland (3.5%),and Japan (3.1%), according to data from the OECD (see Fig. 6). In 2004, it was estimated that China and India spent 1.44%and 0.85%, respectively, of their GDP on R&D [62]. China plans to grow its R&D to 2% of GDP by 2010 and 2.5% by 2020 [63].In the case of the US, a larger percentage of its national R&D funding is provided by private industry than is the case formost other major countries, with the exception of Japan. Also, the US spends a larger percentage of its federal R&D dollarson defense (large systems development and testing) than do most other nations [46].

Several Asian nations, particularly China, Singapore, and Korea, have rapidly increased their R&D spending, eachrecognizing that the next wave of their development will depend on innovation and their ability to compete in that domainwith the US and Europe. The impacts of this growth are already reflected, at least in part, by increases in the numbers ofscientists and engineers, advanced degrees, patents, and other metrics [64].

Total 2004 R&D investments for China and India are estimated to be $27.8 billion and $5.9 billion, respectively [62]. Twoyears later (2006), the Chinese government reported R&D spending of $ 38.5 billion (1.4% of GDP)—a stunning 22% increaseover 2005 [65]. OECD estimated a much larger figure ($130 billion for 2006) based on an extrapolation of earlier trends andassumptions about real buying power in China [66]. OECD’s reasoning received considerable criticism. It is true that buyingpower is greater than the exchange rate might indicate, but China does not yet have the infrastructure in place to fully takeadvantage of this increased spending [67]. That said, the upward trend in China’s R&D is clear. The European Union projectsthat China will exceed the EU in R&D investment by 2009 [63]. A number of policy watchers (e.g., Tom Friedman, in his bestseller The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century) have commented on the implications for the US, with opinionsranging from a ‘‘serious threat’’ to a ‘‘great opportunity’’ [68–71].

The increased R&D investment by many nations has led to a kind of ‘‘globalization of science,’’ which is reflected inpublications by non-US authors and co-authors. During a period of worldwide growth in research publication, the totalnumber of papers with US authors reached a plateau; and the US share of publications has decreased from 38% to 28%(1973–2003); meanwhile the EU-1526 and East Asia (China, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore) shares have increased,particularly in the physical sciences and engineering. International co-authorship has also increased markedly, with the US

(footnote continued)

potential applications to strategic areas like information technology, materials, biotechnology, nanotechnology, etc. The research community interpreted

that to mean applied research. But Mikulski clarified her position as advocating ‘‘basic research in strategic areas.’’ Indeed, in recent years, NSF has done

more to stress the potential benefits of basic research to the nation’s needs.24 In the US system, research grant awards are made to the faculty member’s institution, which is responsible for ensuring that the money is spent as

intended. So-called ‘‘pork barrel’’ funding occurs when a member of Congress places language in an appropriations bill that earmarks funding for a

particular project or institution in the member’s state or Congressional district without any reviews of the scientific merit of the project. If the bill

becomes law, the agency is forced to fund the project. Proponents of the practice of earmarking appropriations argue that the money often supports

excellent science. That is undoubtedly true, but that would also be the result if the money were simply distributed at random across the country. The

purpose of peer review is to set priorities at the grant level and ensure that the best research is funded. As the practice of pork barrel funding grows, the

integrity of federal agencies’ grant-making (peer review) is threatened. Thus far, the NSF has avoided such earmarks.25 Dollar equivalent expenditures for other countries are calculated using Purchasing Power Parity rather than Mercantile Exchange Rates.26 See /http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_UnionS.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 5. Shares of total world R&D for selected countries and regions, 2005. Source: [61].

Fig. 6. Total national R&D funding as a percentage of GDP, 1991–2005.

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263 257

still in the lead. International cooperation has been a hallmark of US science, and the US has formal, high-level agreementsin place to encourage cooperation between US researchers and their counterparts in other parts of the world. Because Chinaand India have emerged as global science leaders, S&T cooperation between the US and these countries is especiallyimportant. The next sections describe the state of scientific cooperation between the US and these two nations.

2.4. US– China cooperation in science and technology

Scientific cooperation between the US and China occurs on many levels, from collaborations involving individualinvestigators and small groups to centers and larger organizations.27 Given the rapid growth of China’s investment in S&T

27 Relations between the US and the People’s Republic of China began to warm with the visit of President Nixon to China in 1972. Prior to that visit,

the American Meteorological Society (AMS), with the encouragement of the US State Department, approached its counterparts in China about opening up

a dialogue, resulting in an invitation to visit China. Several members of the AMS leadership spent two weeks in China in the spring of 1974, thus opening a

window for further interaction [83]. Much of current S&T cooperation takes place under the aegis of the ‘‘US–China Agreement on Cooperation in Science

and Technology,’’ signed by President Jimmy Carter and Premier Deng Xiaoping in 1979. Under this agreement, the two countries engage in cooperative

research in a wide range of areas, including agriculture, fisheries, energy, earth and atmospheric sciences, chemistry, physics, geology, health, natural

disasters, and civil industrial technology. Most US federal agencies are engaged in some level of US–China cooperation. However, the degree of

involvement varies considerably from agency to agency; and, overall, funding provided for these activities is small.

The NSF has a close working relationship with the Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), operating under an agreement that covers a range of

cooperative activities. A number of NSF programs provide funding to US researchers (and students) interested in China. Funding is available for travel,

workshops, short visits, and summer institutes for graduate students. NSF research grants are not made to Chinese institutions; however, US institutions

receiving NSF grants may provide support for Chinese research collaborators as well as US researchers. The NSF has established an office in Beijing with

the objective of promoting collaboration between scientists and engineers; acts as liaison between NSF and agencies, institutions and researchers in

China; and monitors and reports on science and engineering developments and policies in China.

DOE is another important example of US–China cooperation. DOE supports R&D collaborations in high-energy physics, nuclear fusion, energy efficiency

and renewables (including technology development and utilization), climate science, peaceful uses of nuclear technology, and environmental science and

technology. In the area of high-energy physics, cooperation is focused on upgrading the Beijing Electron–Positron Collider and its detector. These

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263258

and its rich and growing talent pool in science and engineering, the opportunity exists for much stronger cooperation withthe US. Indeed, expanded cooperation seems to be in the interests of both countries. Of course, members of the US scienceand engineering research community have maintained a long and productive cooperative relationship with theircounterparts in Taiwan; over the decades, many young people have come from Taiwan to the US to study and establishtheir careers.

The rise of Chinese investment in R&D is widely viewed as a positive development. At the same time, the US is sensitiveto threats, real or imagined, when considering its future competitive position in trade and commerce. The NationalAcademies’ report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm—Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future [72],does a good job of articulating those threats that are real. China faces enormous challenges in the coming decades, some ofwhich seem almost insurmountable. But, in contrast to the US, which makes policy decisions 1 year (or at most 5 years) at atime, China has a plan for its future development, including S&T. It may well be that the historical US approach to suchmatters will not work in the future. Perhaps it is time for the US to engage in serious long-range planning—and in theauthor’s opinion, a US S&T plan with international cooperation with other parts of the world, especially Asia, should figureprominently.

2.5. US– India cooperation in science and technology

When US Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) gave a talk at the Confederation of Indian Industry annual conference inCalcutta, on January 13, 2005, he observed that Indo-US cooperation in S&T was strong and growing. But he pointed to anumber of challenges the two countries face that will require much stronger S&T cooperation in the future, includingenergy, disaster mitigation, and nanotechnology [73,74].

India and the US have engaged in S&T cooperation since the 1960s, initially in agriculture, then expanding into otherareas. The $110 million Rupee Fund was established in 1987 and continued until 1998, with the goal of promoting andfunding S&T collaborations and educational as well as cultural exchanges. After several decades of cool relations betweenthe US and India, the Clinton administration made cooperation with India an important priority. President Clinton visitedIndia in March 2000, the first visit to India by a serving US president since President Carter’s visit in 1978 [75].28 ThePresident’s senior advisors, including his Science Advisor, and many members of his Cabinet, accompanied him on thishistoric visit.

Clearly, India will be a major force in S&T in the coming decades. Unlike China, India is not likely to adhere to a long-range plan. But that affords it flexibility to innovate, as the world has already seen in the success of Indian technicalexpertise and entrepreneurship. India has a long and strong tradition of emphasis on science, engineering, and highereducation. In the future, India will focus on raising the quality of its colleges and universities and building a large number ofnew ones to service the rapid growth of a young population with high expectations. As the US plans for its futuredevelopment of S&T, it needs to recognize the importance of expanding its international cooperation with India,particularly in information technology and other areas of S&T that India has chosen to emphasize. In the US federal system,international S&T cooperation is not centralized; rather, it must take place between individual federal agencies, whichexercise a considerable amount of autonomy, and individual research groups and institutions.

2.6. The US government’s role in competitiveness and innovation

The appropriate role of the federal government in anything having to do with private industry is a politically contentiousmatter in our free market system. There are people who believe that the most important thing government can do to assurethat US companies are competitive in the global marketplace is to get out of the way, cut taxes, and reduce regulations. Thatis the view of the G.W. Bush administration, and one can understand many of the administration’s policies that are basedon that simple objective. The opposition notes, however, that the health and well-being of people living and working inthe US, including having access to clean air and water and safe working conditions, argues for some constraints oncompany actions.

(footnote continued)

collaborations involve researchers in DOE-funded national laboratories as well as universities.

NIH has a long history of scientific collaboration with China. Currently, NIH supports cooperation in health and medicine through several agreements

including: an NIH–Chinese Academy of Sciences Agreement, US–China Public Health Agreement, and US–China S&T Agreement. Cooperative R&D

activities cover a broad spectrum of health and medical areas, including HIV-AIDS and other infectious diseases, cancer, heart disease, and others.28 The Indo-US Science and Technology Forum, an autonomous, bilateral, non-government, not-for-profit organization, was established under an

agreement between India and the US in March 2000, and signed by the Minister of Human Resource Development, Science and Technology and Ocean

Development, Murli Manohar Joshi, and US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, for the purpose of promoting and catalyzing Indo-US bilateral

collaborations in science, technology, engineering, and biomedical research [75]. The forum funds workshops, conferences, exchange visits, and other

activities to promote cooperation in science and technology. A portion of the remaining Rupee Fund was used to endow the forum.

The most recent bilateral US–India Agreement on Science and Technology, signed in 2005, for the first time includes intellectual property protocols and

other provisions for collaborative research, especially in such areas as energy, health, information technology, nanotechnology, and basic sciences in many

fields [74]. On July 18, 2005, President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Singh signed an agreement that lifts the US moratorium on nuclear trade with

India, provides for US assistance to India’s civilian nuclear energy program, and expands US–India cooperation in energy and satellite technology.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263 259

There is general agreement among Republicans and Democrats that the federal government has an importantresponsibility to fund basic research in universities, where discoveries are made and future scientists and engineers aretrained; to require that research results be published in the open literature; and, through laws and regulations, to ensure alevel-playing field for US companies at home and abroad. That said, whenever this nation does become concerned aboutthe competitiveness of its industry (e.g., in the 1980s and early 1990s), the federal government tends to respond withvarious kinds of protections and stimulus programs.29 There is general agreement that without a well-educated workforce,the nation cannot expect a bright future. It is also generally agreed that both the federal and state governments have a rolein education.

2.7. A science and engineering workforce and education

The size and makeup of the science and engineering workforce have been a growing concern for several decades. Duringthe 1960s, science was elevated to a prestigious position in American society. As a response to Sputnik, the space race, andthe Apollo moon program, there was an influx of new scientists and engineers into the workforce. Much of the success of USindustry can be attributed to this workforce and to the enlightened policy that created it. But those talented men andwomen are beginning to retire; and since most boys and girls born in the US do not aspire to be scientists or engineers, it isnot clear who will replace them.

In recent decades the US has been fortunate to attract talented women and men from other parts of the world who cameto this country to pursue their advanced degrees and launch their careers in science, engineering, education, and business.In 2002–2003, more than 50% of US doctorates in engineering (and 30% in the natural sciences) were earned by foreign-born individuals (see Fig. 7). But because of immigration barriers—real and perceived—fewer international young peopleare likely to come to the US in the future.30 Recently, there has been great concern about a possible shortfall in the USscience and engineering workforce at a time when other nations, particularly in Asia, are making great strides forward.

The influential report of the US National Academies, Rising Above the Gathering Storm, sounded an alarm

29

losing

Techno

and De

govern

industr

R&D ag

establi

1990s,

Standa30

and com

has bee

The committee is deeply concerned that the scientific and technical building blocks of our economic leadership areeroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strengthy. We fear the abruptness with which a lead inscience and technology can be lost—and the difficulty of recovering a lead once lost, if indeed it can be regained atall. [72]

The report includes bold recommendations for federal funding and other policy actions in the areas of K-12 education,higher education, research, and economic policy (to stimulate innovation). The report was well received by both politicalparties in Congress and, to some extent, by the G.W. Bush White House. The President’s budget requests for FY2007 andFY2008, in particular his ‘‘American Competitiveness Initiative,’’ reflect several of the report’s recommendations [76].

2.8. The future of US science and technology

US S&T owes its success, principally, to two factors. First, the robust public–private partnership, established at the closeof WWII between the federal government and universities and national laboratories, led to decades of scientific discoveryand invention as well as generations of excellent scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. Second, the intensely competitiveAmerican private companies take innovation seriously, and they have swiftly translated new ideas and inventions intoproducts and services for world markets.

But the world has changed in 60 years. In part due to advances in technology—computing and the Internet—it hasbecome smaller and, in the words of Tom Friedman, ‘‘flatter’’ [68]. In a world where large multinational companies can taketheir manufacturing, service divisions, even R&D facilities to whichever parts of the world can offer skilled workers at agood price, traditional arguments about the value of having the best universities and research facilities on US soil—andproviding the necessary federal funding for them—become more complex. Universities have become business operations,forming partnerships with companies, collecting license fees for patents on faculty research products, and providing asignificant fraction of the funding received by their faculty and students. The Vannevar Bush government-university

In the 1980s, at a time when US industry was facing severe competition from foreign companies, and there was political concern about the US

its competitive edge, a number of laws were passed to address the situation. The Stevenson–Wydler Innovation Act (1980) and the Federal

logy Transfer Act (1986) encouraged federal laboratories to facilitate transfer of technology to the private sector, e.g., through Cooperative Research

velopment Agreements (CRADAs), which number about 3000 today. The Bayh-Dole University and Small Business Patent Act (1980) permitted

ment grantees and contractors to retain title to intellectual property, and encouraged universities to take out patents and license inventions to

y. The Small Business Innovation Development Act (1982) established the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program within major federal

encies to fund promising research in small businesses. SBIR funding was about $1.6 billion in 2003. The Economic Recovery Tax Act (1981)

shed the R&D tax credit (now called Research and Experimentation (R&E) tax credit) to encourage Industry to invest more on long-term R&D. In the

programs like Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and Manufacturing Extension Partnerships (MEP), both operated by the National Institute for

rds and Technology (of the Department of Commerce), were established to address similar concerns.

From 2001 to 2003, the foreign student share of US first-time entering full-time graduate S&E enrollment fell for most fields [84]. In mathematics

puter science, the decrease was approximately 28%; in engineering the decrease was 17%. The decreases in other fields were somewhat less. There

n some recovery in the past few years, but the future is uncertain. Meanwhile other nations have increased their enrollments of foreign students.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 7. Foreign share of US science and engineering degrees. Source: [49].

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263260

partnership has become a three-way government–university–industry partnership [51,52]. Today’s world is not the worldof Vannevar Bush, at least not his notion of ‘‘Science, the Endless Frontier’’ [5,15].

The policymaking arms of the federal government also have changed, becoming much more deeply partisan andideological. Indeed the long-held tenets about the separation of powers and checks and balances are being challengedtoday in ways the nation has not experienced before. Fortunately, the political pendulum has begun to swing back. And,while the American public and most policymakers express strong support for science, some kinds of research conflict withcertain vocal special interests, e.g., research on embryonic stem cells, which is opposed by conservative religious groups; orany policy actions (opposed by some industrial sectors) to address global warming and climate change. The G.W. Bushadministration has been accused of misusing science and scientists for political purposes [77]. In both cases—stem cellsand climate change—the majority of Americans want action, and several state and city governments have moved forwardwith programs and policies of their own, which some see as indicators as the direction in which the federal governmentwill go in the future.

On these complex and controversial science topics, it is the author’s opinion that the research community (includingsocial scientists as well as natural scientists and engineers) needs to be much more engaged in dialogue with the public andthe people they elect to represent them, a concept sometimes referred to as the ‘‘civic scientist’’[78]. Indeed, broad researchcollaborations between scientists who understand biology, chemistry, and physics and scientists who understand peopleand organizations, could significantly raise the level of public discussion and understanding of scientific matters that are soimportant to people’s lives.

With regard to US federal research funding, the current situation is mixed. President G.W. Bush has requested majorincreases in the research budgets for NSF, DOE, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).Congressional committees have gone along with him, in some cases adding more money. However, for FY2008, unable topass the appropriations bills, Congress and the President settled on a catch-all Omnibus Appropriations bill that left outmost of the increases for research. So much for all the rhetoric about innovation and competitiveness! Federal funding forresearch, on the whole, is down compared with earlier years. And with increasing pressure on federal discretionaryfunding, it is unlikely that total research funding will receive special treatment in the long term. As noted above, totalfederal funding of non-defense R&D (most of which is research) has, for several decades, tracked overall non-defensediscretionary spending [25]. Since the latter is likely to remain flat or even decrease in the coming years (regardless ofwhich political party controls the Congress and the White House), research funding is likely to follow the same path.Individual agencies might do better; but they will have to have very compelling arguments to win out over a large numberof other government agencies and programs, including some very popular ones.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263 261

The US will hold a presidential election in 2008, and the spending priorities of the new President, especially if Congressis controlled by the new President’s party, will strongly influence spending for a decade or more. Regardless of whooccupies the White House, downward pressure on total federal spending will be a major policy issue. This will negativelyimpact US S&T unless new arguments can be made for favored treatment of R&D funds and new ways are found to deploythose funds more efficiently. Also, existing barriers to significantly increasing international research collaboration will needto come down—again, a politically unpopular strategy—so that US S&T can be a beneficiary of the rapid R&D expansion inother parts of the world, particularly Asia. In future years, the US is likely to be increasingly dependent for its technicalworkforce not only on women and men born abroad but on foreign laboratories and research facilities as well.

In the areas of education and the workforce, the US will continue its efforts to improve K-12 education, especially inscience and math, and will continue to address the under-representation of minorities and women in most fields of scienceand engineering. Sadly, however, progress will continue to be slow. The American public is supportive of science, and mostparents would be happy for their children to become scientists or engineers. However, most young people have no rolemodels in science and find careers in business, law, medicine, entertainment, and sports more attractive [79]. It will requireleadership at the top of government and ambitious federal programs, not unlike the NDEA of the Cold War era, to turn thisaround. The unfortunate, indeed embarrassing, controversy over teaching the topic of evolution will continue at the locallevel and will be addressed through local elections and court decisions [80]. US business interests will increase pressure onthe federal government to lower entry barriers to foreign-born men and women who wish to come to the US to studyscience and engineering and launch their careers in the US. Barring future terrorist attacks or other incidents that cause atightening of the borders, the US will again open its doors, especially to the most talented individuals, in spite of the anti-immigration fervor of vocal communities and politicians. Indeed, US S&T cannot prosper unless this happens.

Whether the US will continue to be a leader in S&T is a question that is seriously being asked by many knowledgeableindividuals as well as prominent members on both sides of the aisles of Congress [72]. It is significant that Republicans andDemocrats increasingly view the matter with alarm and, indeed, even agree on solutions. Unfortunately, the inertia of theUS political process and a US political tradition of wasting valuable time by fighting one another over the wrong things,slows important policy action. The recommendations of the Gathering Storm report go a long way toward offering solutions;they should have been put into law immediately. Beyond that, Congress should have directed the National Academies toassemble a second, diverse, blue-ribbon panel to deal with the matters that the first panel did not have time to take up.

With the dramatic increases in investments in R&D being made by governments and multinational private companiesall across the globe, particularly in Asia, US S&T in the future will be unlike that of the past. US leadership will be definedincreasingly in terms of the nation’s participation as a partner in cooperative international research activities. USresearchers will need to be engaged in international collaborations at a level that is unprecedented in the nation’s history;and US federal agencies and universities will need to make the necessary changes. Increasingly, Asian investments andregions will be important strategic partners with the US in S&T. If Asia continues to make the large investments required toimprove its universities, research laboratories, and multi-user experimental facilities (open to international researchers),many more US researchers will seek research collaborations in Asia and send their research students there for a portion oftheir studies. The 21st century promises to be a very exciting time for East–West cooperation in science.

It is an undisputed fact that S&T are vitally important to the health and general well-being of people everywhere. Itfollows that governments should understand that funding science and engineering research should be viewed as aninvestment that pays high returns for society, not a cost that taxpayers must bear. If US policymakers and candidates forpolitical office begin to understand this notion, many of the challenges outlined above will be less difficult to meet.

References

[1] McGrath PJ. Scientists, business and the state 1890–1960. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; 2002.[2] Greenberg DS. The politics of pure science: an inquiry into the relationship between science and government in the US Reprinted. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press; 1999.[3] Hart DM. Forged consensus: science, technology, and economic policy in the US, 1921–1953. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1998.[4] Smith BLR. American science policy since World War II. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution; 1990.[5] Zachary GP. Endless frontier: Vannevar Bush, engineer of the American century. New York: Free Press; 1997.[6] Kelves D. The physicists: a history of a professional community. New York: A.A. Knopf; 1971.[7] Killian Jr JR. Sputnik, scientists, and Eisenhower: a memoir of the first special assistant to the President for science and technology. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press; 1982.[8] Kistiakowsky G. A scientist at the White House. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1976.[9] Stever G. In war and peace: my life in science and technology. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press; 2002.

[10] Belanger DO. Enabling American innovation: engineering and the National Science Foundation. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press; 1998.[11] Conant JB. Tuxedo Park: a Wall Street tycoon and the secret palace of science that changed the course of World War II. New York: Simon and Schuster;

2002.[12] Wikipedia. Technology during World War II. Website: /http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_during_World_War_II#MedicineS.[13] Hershberg J, Conant JB. Harvard to Hiroshima and the making of the nuclear age. New York: A.A. Knopf; 1993.[14] Rhodes R. The making of the atomic bomb. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1986.[15] Bush V. Science—the endless frontier, reprinted. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 1960.[16] Kleinman DL. Politics on the endless frontier. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 1995.[17] Sigma Xi Forum. Vannevar Bush II: science for the 21st century. Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; 1995.[18] England JM. A patron for pure science. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 1982.[19] Lomask M. A minor miracle: an informal history of the National Science Foundation. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 1975.[20] Mazuzan GT. NSF—a brief history. Website /http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/stis1994/nsf8816/nsf8816.txtS.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263262

[21] Morin A. Science policy and politics. Englewood Park, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1993.[22] Appel TA. Shaping biology: the National Science Foundation and American biological research, 1945–1975. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University

Press; 2000.[23] Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Government S&T. Websites /http://www.ostp.gov/html/_federaldepartments.htmlS and /http://

www.ostp.gov/html/_federalagencies.htmlS.[24] Millman S. A history of engineering and science in the bell system: physical sciences 1925–1980. AT&T Bell Laboratories; 1983.[25] Koizumi K. Guide to R&D funding data—historical data. /http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htmS.[26] Kennedy Presidential Library. Address at Rice University on the Nation’s Space Effort. Website /http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/

Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03SpaceEffort09121962.htmS.[27] Koizumi K. R&D in the FY 2008 Department of Defense Budget. AAAS report XXXII research and development FY2008. Website /http://

www.aaas.org/spp/rd/08pch5.htmS.[28] Greenberg DS. Science, money, and politics: political triumph and ethical erosion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2001.[29] Institute of Medicine. The national cancer program, enduring issues. Website /http://www.iom.edu/?id=13984S.[30] Carter J. The President’s proposed energy policy, Speech delivered on 18 April 1977, XXXXIII, 14, Vital speeches of the day 1977 (May 1), p. 418–20.[31] Branscomb LM. The false dichotomy: scientific creativity and utility. Issues Sci Technol 1999.[32] David Jr EE. The federal support of mathematics. Scientific American; 1985.[33] Koizumi K. Historical trends in federal R&D. AAAS Report XXXII Research and Development FY2008. Website /http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/

08pch2.htmS.[34] Bromley DA, Lubell MS. Science’s growing political strength. Issues Sci Technol 2003;19 Website /http://www.issues.org/19.4/bromley.htmlS.[35] Jackson AJ. Federal R&D—shaping the national investment portfolio. In: Guston DH, Sarewitz D, editors. The next generation of research. Madison:

University of Wisconsin Press; 2006. p. 33–54.[36] Mansfield E. Contributions of new technology to the economy: technology, R&D, and the economy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution; 1996.[37] Lane N, Kalil T. In the beginning: The US national nanotechnology initiative. Issues Sci Technol 2005;21:49–54 Website /http://www.issues.org/21.4/

lane.htmlS.[38] Silver HJ, Sharpe AL, Kelly H, Kobor P, Sroufe G. Behavioral and social science research in the administration’s FY2008 budget. AAAS Report XXXII

Research and Development FY2008. Website /http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/08pch19.htmS.[39] Lilley S. Challenges facing science and technology after September 11. Website /http://www.aaas.org/spp/yearbook/2003/ch2.pdfS.[40] Bromley DA. The President’s scientists: reminiscences of a White House science advisor. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1994.[41] Gibbons JH. This gifted age: science and technology at the millennium. New York: AIP Press; 1997.[42] Lane N. Politics and science: a series of lessons. Social Res Int Q Social Sci 2006;73:861–74.[43] Morgan MG, Peha JM. Science and technology advice for Congress. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 2003.[44] Cochrane RC. The National Academy of Sciences—the first hundred years 1863–1963. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 1978.[45] Koizumi K. Guide to R&D funding data—total US R&D. Website /http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guitotal.htmS.[46] Research and development: funds and technology linkages. In: Science and engineering indicators 2006. Washington, DC: National Science

Foundation; 2006 /http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/S.[47] Wallsten SJ. Investing in innovation: creating a research and innovation policy that works. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998.[48] Moris F. The US research and experimentation tax credit in the 1990s. NSF InfoBrief, July 2005. Website /http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/

nsf05316/S.[49] Industry, technology, and the global marketplace. In: Science and engineering indicators 2006. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; 2006.

Website /http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c6/c6h.htmS.[50] Academic research and development. In: Science and engineering indicators 2006. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation; Science Resources

Statistics Bulletin NSF 07-336:September 2007. Website /http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf07336/S.[51] Bok D. Universities in the marketplace: the commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2003.[52] Duderstadt JJ. A university for the 21st century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 2000.[53] Branscomb LM, Florida R. Investing in innovation: creating a research and innovation policy that works. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998.[54] Koizumi K. Federal R&D in FY2008 budget: an introduction. AAAS Report XXXII Research and Development FY2008. Website /http://www.aaas.org/

spp/rd/rd08main.htmS.[55] Koizumi K. Total research by agency: FY 2008 proposed. Website /http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/resp08.pdfS.[56] Duvall J. Congressional committees. New York: Grolier; 1997 Also;

Dodd LC, Oppenheimer BI. Congress reconsidered. 7th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press; 2001.[57] de Solla Price DJ. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press; 1963.[58] Stokes D. Pasteur’s quadrant. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution; 1997;

Holton G. Science and anti-science. Cambridge MA, London: Harvard University Press; 1993;Sonnert G. Ivory bridges: connecting science and society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2002.

[59] Fox C. Cell of cells: the global race to capture and control the stem cell. New York: W.W. Norton; 2007.[60] Shatz D. Peer review: a critical inquiry. New York: Rowan and Littlefield; 2004.[61] OECD, Main science and technology indicators; 2006.[62] Dahlman CJ. China and India: emerging technological powers. Issues Sci Technol 2007;23.[63] Wilson J, Keeley J. China: the next science superpower? In: The Atlas of ideas: mapping the new geography of science. DEMOS. Website /http://

www.demos.co.uk/files/China_Final.pdfS.[64] Hicks D. Asian countries strengthen their research. Issues Sci Technol 2004;20 Website /http://www.issues.org/20.4/realnumbers.htmlS.[65] Jia H. China’s R&D budget overrated, warns official. Website /http://www.scidev.net/content/news/eng/chinas-rd-budget-overrated-warns-

official.cfmS.[66] OECD. China will become world’s second highest investor in R&D by end of 2006, finds OECD. 12 April 2006. Website /http://www.oecd.org/

document/26/0,3343,en_2649_37417_37770522_1_1_1_37417,00.htmlS.[67] Einhorn B. The OECD takes a second look at Chinese R&D. Business Week, 3 August 2007. Website /http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/blog/

asiatech/archives/2007/08/the_oecd_takes.htmlS.[68] Friedman T. The world is flat: a brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux; 2005.[69] Hutton W. The writing on the wall: why we must embrace China as a partner or face it as an enemy. New York: Free Press; 2006.[70] Meredith R. The elephant and the dragon: the rise of India and China and what it means for all of us. In: A catalyst for competitiveness. New York:

W.W. Norton; 2007. p. 188–213.[71] Kynge J. China shakes the world: a titan’s rise and troubled future—and the challenge for America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2006.[72] Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century. Rising above the gathering storm: energizing and employing America for a

brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2005 See also;Augustine NR. Is America falling off the flat earth? Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2007.

[73] US Department of State. US and India sign technology cooperation agreement. Available from /http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2005/55198.htmS.[74] US Embassy to India. Speeches and remarks. Available at /http://newdelhi.usembassy.gov/irp011405.htmlS.[75] Indian Embassy. US President Clinton’s visit to India. Available from /http://www.indianembassy.org/indusrel/clinton_india/home.htmlS.[76] The White House. American competitiveness initiative. Website /http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/aci/S.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

N. Lane / Technology in Society 30 (2008) 248–263 263

[77] Mooney C. The Republican war on science. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books; 2005.[78] Lane N. Benjamin Franklin, civic scientist. Phys Today 2006;10:41–6 Website /http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-10/p41.htmlS.[79] Science technology: public attitudes, understanding. In: Science and engineering indicators 2006. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation;

2006. 2.24. Website /http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7h.htmS.[80] Federal court decisions involving evolution and the First Amendment. Website /http://www.tungate.com/evolution_court_cases.htmS.[81] The White House. Government performance results act of 1993. Website /http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/mgmt-gpra/gplaw2m.htmlS.[82] Mervis J. US science adviser tells researchers to look elsewhere. Science 2007;316:817.[83] Kellogg WM, Atlas D, Johnson DS, Reed RJ, Spengler KC. Visit to the People’s Republic of China: a report from the A.M.S. delegation. Bull Am Meteorol

Soc 1974;55(11):1291–330.[84] Overview, in Science and Engineering Indicators 2006. Washington, DC; 2006. Website: /www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/S.

Neal Lane received his PhD, MS and BS degrees in physics from the University of Oklahoma. He is currently the Malcolm Gillis University Professor at RiceUniversity. He holds appointments as Senior Fellow of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy, where he is engaged in matters of science andtechnology policy, and in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. Prior to returning to Rice University, Dr. Lane served as Assistant to the President forScience and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, from August 1998 to January 2001, and as Director of theNational Science Foundation, from October 1993 to August 1998. He served as Chancellor of the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs from mid-1984to 1986. Before becoming the NSF Director, Dr. Lane was Provost and Professor of Physics at Rice University in Houston, Texas.