Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, September 22, 1994 TAG: 9409240001
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By RICHARD CELESTE and ROLAND SCHMITT
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Science produces discoveries and knowledge that power our economy and transform our society. The well-being of Americans in the 21st century will depend on the scientific advances being set in motion today.
Much of America's fundamental research is conducted at U.S. universities under the terms of a compact developed during the Truman administration. That compact promised federal support for basic research in return for discoveries of importance to the nation and for the training of world-class scientists, engineers and other professionals.
This historic partnership uniting the government and universities has been one of America's most successful public policies. University research has launched new industries and has turned out generation after generation of highly trained graduates. Foreign students flock to our universities to benefit from what is regarded worldwide as one of America's unmatched competitive advantages.
Today, however, this remarkable partnership is in peril.
Over the last several decades, research-intensive universities have proliferated, so that more researchers are seeking limited public funds. Expectations of science have risen, too. Congress seeks economic and social returns from research. And an increasingly diverse student population expects it to enrich an education relevant to future employment.
As this system has grown and diversified, competing demands have placed pressure on research funds. Sponsors ask for matching dollars from academic institutions and they demand measures of accountability, increasing the administrative burden. Individual research faculty find themselves pressed for time and are torn between teaching and research.
As a result of these tensions, the trust that had marked the government-university partnership has eroded badly. Some observers think a unique U.S. advantage may soon be lost.
During the past year, the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable and the National Science Board sponsored discussions on a number of university campuses and a conference in Washington to illuminate these worrisome trends and to identify remedies. We found that while universities can improve their own situation, federal - and sometimes state - cooperation is essential. Money helps, but money is scarce. Our inquiry pointed in four other constructive directions. In this context, the Clinton science policy holds special significance.
First, a fresh discussion is needed between federal agencies and the leadership of the academic community about research strategies and priorities. For many years academicians have interacted with federal agencies on program advisory committees and in peer review of individual programs. But today, as the federal government moves to coordinate the priorities and strategies of federal agencies, those on the front lines of basic research need a voice in these activities, too.
Second, the nation should encourage and reward a healthy balance between research and teaching. As campus-based research has grown and new commercial expectations have evolved, many research faculty have been diverted from graduate and especially from undergraduate education. When federal agencies divorce the procurement of academic research from education, they compound the problem universities face in restoring balance.
Third, universities and government need to strengthen their investment in cross-disciplinary research, where the answers to many of the most compelling scientific problems reside, including global climate change, genetic engineering, telecommunications and AIDS. Traditionally, the rewards of academe revolve around single disciplines. Federal agencies need to follow effective intra- and interagency policies that encourage interdisciplinary research.
Finally, the nation should help clarify the range of interests and expectations for partnerships between university researchers and industrial firms. As the number and variety of these partnerships have increased, a tough new set of issues for the academic community has emerged. Who benefits from the knowledge developed through the research, and how should these benefits be distributed? How can the integrity of the research results be ensured? How should conflicts of interest be resolved? Federal policies must go beyond simplistic rules to a more sophisticated appreciation of the complexities of combining government- and industry-sponsored research, providing a clear path to its beneficial use.
Leaders in the scientific research enterprise across the country are looking to the Clinton administration to address these central issues. Its new policies provide a basis for doing so. If it pursues these policies clearly and constructively, a reinvigorated compact between the federal government and research universities can continue to ensure this nation's leadership in both higher education and in science.
Richard Celeste, former governor of Ohio, chairs the Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering and the Institute of Medicine. Roland Schmitt, president emeritus of Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute, is a past member and chair of the National Science Board.
by CNB