Big Vs. Small Science
The National Science Foundation is a principal source of federal support for science. It will spend $1.6 billion of the taxpayers’ money this year on research, and is asking Congress for $1.9 billion next year. The foundation has generally been an enlightened beacon in a not-always-enlightened government.
But the foundation has apparently now decided to emphasize “big science”--large institutional projects--over “little science”--individual researchers pursuing ideas--and this shift has some people worried. With good reason. The foundation is planning to expand its program of creating campus-based research centers, and many scientists fear that this will reduce funding for investigators working alone or in small groups.
A recent report for the foundation prepared by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences warned: “The major issue in inaugurating a new program of Science and Technology Centers is one of balance among modes of research support. The single investigator with a small research team remains the appropriate mode for many fields of scientific inquiry. This mode has the advantages of pluralism, decentralization and flexibility to move in new directions as opportunities unfold. Individual investigator support has been enormously successful for the National Science Foundation. Its preeminence must not be diminished.”
To be sure, the panel--which was chaired by Richard N. Zare, a chemist at Stanford University--endorsed the creation of more Science and Technology Centers, but it cautioned: “There is a risk that a significant portion of federal funds and university resources will be diverted from the support of individual investigators, especially if the foundation budget remains static or declines.”
The argument is hardly open-and-shut. The foundation denies that it is tilting away from “little science,” and argues that only about one-third of its proposed budget increase would go for the centers. What’s more, it says, so-called “disciplinary research,” most of which goes to support individual investigators, is getting the largest dollar increase in the 1988 budget and will receive a total of more than $1 billion. It fails to note, however, that the percentage of the budget going to “little science” will drop from 65% in 1985 to 60% next year.
As a political matter, the centers are very attractive to members of Congress, especially those whose districts get them, but it is not clear that this is the best way to do science. Researchers know that too much structure inhibits new ideas. Thinking sometimes needs to be untidy. The Science and Technology Centers may be worth doing on a limited scale, but the National Science Foundation’s support of individual researchers should not be allowed to erode.
